Datasets:

Eugleo

/

echr-outcomes

like 0

5. The applicants are German nationals born in 1979 and 1978 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Germany, following their conviction by the Romanian authorities for drug trafficking, as described below. 6. At the time of the impugned events, S.R.B., one of the applicants’ acquaintances, was in police custody accused of drug-related offences. In the context of a covert operation, S.R.B. agreed to contact the applicants by phone in order to arrange a drug transaction. It appears that following several phone conversations between S.R.B. and the first applicant, the latter agreed to deliver 5,000 Ecstasy pills to Romania. 7. On 9 November 2007 the prosecutor in charge of investigating S.R.B.’s case issued an order (ordonanta) in which he authorised the intervention of three undercover agents, namely D.D., N.A. and L.C., who were mandated to purchase 6,000 Ecstasy pills with the assistance of S.R.B. The justification given for such an intervention was that, based on S.R.B.’s statements, there existed a strong indication that individuals as yet unknown to the police intended to commit the offence of drug trafficking. The undercover agents were necessary in the operation because the individuals in question “belonged to a drug-dealing network which acted very cautiously, taking a lot of precautions in their activities and relying exclusively on highly trustworthy persons”. On the same date, the prosecutor authorised the undercover agents N.A. and L.C. to be provided with 35,000 euros (EUR), to be taken from the special funds of the police, with the purpose of using it to purchase the drugs. 8. On the night of 9 to 10 November 2007 the applicants entered Romania and met S.R.B. in a petrol station in Timişoara. Subsequently, they requested to be directed to a mechanical workshop, where they asked to be left alone. S.R.B. was asked to wait for their phone call before returning to the garage with the money for the drugs. 9. The applicants’ activity of removing the drugs from hidden compartments under the front passenger seat of the vehicle was video recorded by the investigators, based on an authorisation issued by the court on 25 October 2007. After more than an hour, the applicants called S.R.B. to return to the garage together with the buyers, who were the undercover agents. One of them, N.A., handed over EUR 35,000, and the second applicant verified the authenticity of some of the bank notes with a special pencil. At the same time, the applicants presented the drugs, packed in zip-locked plastic bags, to the undercover agents. The investigators then intervened in order to ensure that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto. 10. On the same day the applicants were placed in custody in the detention facility of the Timiş police station, in connection with drug-trafficking charges. 11. In his statement given before the prosecutor on 10 November 2007, the first applicant declared that he and the second applicant had come to Romania for personal reasons, namely to visit relatives. He claimed that they had intended to spend the night at the home of S.R.B., a friend of theirs, and that they had no knowledge of the content of the plastic bags found in the garage. The second applicant refused to give any statements, claiming that he was overwhelmed by the situation. On 5 December 2007 the first applicant specified before the prosecutor that when they had been in the garage, the two individuals who had entered with S.R.B. had taken some plastic bags out of another car that was parked in the garage, and had placed them on a table. A third person who had come in later had taken out some money and asked him and the second applicant to count it, without indicating why. 12. In his statement given before the prosecutor on 10 November 2007 in the presence of his lawyer, S.R.B. admitted that he had agreed to cooperate with the police in order to benefit from the provisions of Law no. 143/2000 granting certain benefits to those who contributed to or facilitated the identification of perpetrators of crime; he had therefore told the police that he had knowledge of a group of people who was involved in the international trafficking of Ecstasy pills. With the permission of the prosecutor, he then contacted the first applicant on the phone; the latter agreed to bring to Romania 5,000 Ecstasy pills for the price of 40,000 EUR. Several other phone calls were made in order to arrange the details of the transaction, which took place on the night of 9 to 10 November. S.R.B. confirmed that the phone calls and his being taken out of custody for the operation had been approved by the prosecutor. 13. On 6 March 2008 the applicants and S.R.B., were charged with drug-related offences. 14. During the proceedings before the first-instance court, namely until the hearing of 4 February 2009 (see paragraph 16 below), the applicants pleaded not guilty, claiming that they had had no knowledge of the plastic bags, which they believed had been placed in the garage by the three persons who had accompanied S.R.B., in order to set them up. Up until the same hearing, S.R.B., legally assisted by Mr Fanu Moca Adrian and his substitute lawyer, Mr S.D., maintained the statements he had given before the investigating authorities. 15. At the hearing of 16 October 2008 the court watched the video recordings made on the night of 9 to 10 November 2007, in the presence of the applicants, S.R.B. and their respective lawyers. The recordings were not contested and their authenticity was not questioned. 16. At the hearing of 4 February 2009, the applicants, then represented by lawyer S.D., changed their plea and claimed that they had been pushed to commit the offence by the investigators, who had acted as agents provocateurs. They invoked in their defence the Court’s case-law in relation to police entrapment, namely Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008). The applicants contended that they had first declined S.R.B.’s proposal, but had finally agreed to deliver the drugs to Romania in order to help S.R.B., who had claimed that he had been facing financial difficulties. The first applicant stated that he had been called by S.R.B. on a daily basis for one month. Each time he had refused S.R.B.’s proposal, and each time the latter had increased his offer, namely from 3 euros per pill initially to the final price of 8 euros per pill. At the same hearing, S.R.B. also changed his statement and alleged that he had been coerced by the police to act as he had. He stated that during the telephone negotiations, the investigating authorities had asked him to increase both the quantity of pills requested and their price so that the first applicant would accept the transaction. He claimed that he had known the applicants as drug consumers, but not as drug dealers. He mentioned that some of the conversations he had had with the first applicant on a mobile phone had been recorded. 17. On 19 March 2009 the Timiş District Court sentenced the applicants to fifteen years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. In its ruling, the court relied on the video recordings made on the day on which the applicants had been caught red-handed by Timiş police officers, as well as on the statements given by witnesses, including S.R.B. and the undercover agents. The court ruled that the procedure used by the applicants to conceal the drugs showed that they were experienced in international trafficking of narcotic drugs and had sought to make a significant profit, while the operation to catch them red-handed could not be considered as entrapment. The court found that the method used by the applicants to hide the drugs in the cavities of the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the large quantity of drugs that they managed to transport across several borders showed that they were not unfamiliar with drug trafficking. The court held that S.R.B.’s change of testimony could not be taken into account, as there was no other evidence to corroborate it and it contradicted his previous testimonies. 18. The applicants appealed against that judgment. 19. On 18 June 2009 the Timişoara Court of Appeal heard the applicants and S.R.B. They all maintained their previous statements according to which S.R.B., coerced by the police, had incited the applicants to commit the crime. 20. At the hearing, the applicants also submitted a request that the prosecution make available the recordings of the telephone conversations between S.R.B. and the first applicant, or at least a list of those conversations and of the telephones used. The applicants argued that the recordings proved on the one hand that S.R.B. had been coerced to cooperate with the police and on the other hand that there had been a high degree of incitement in the negotiations in order to persuade them to accept the deal. The court allowed the request. On 14 July 2009 the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice submitted that such recordings did not exist because the court had not been requested to authorise the recording of the phone conversations. Furthermore, according to the indictment, it was S.R.B. who had asked to be allowed to contact the applicants, under the supervision of the prosecutor, in order to take advantage of the lenient conditions prescribed in section 16 of Law no. 143/2000. 21. By its judgment of 21 October 2009, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The court stated that the authorities had been legally entitled to bring to the attention of S.R.B. the benefits of cooperating with the police by virtue of section 16 of Law 143/2000, a reduction of his sentence. The applicants’ allegation that they had been entrapped was refuted by the court, which noted that the international case-law they had invoked was not applicable. In the case of Teixeira, the undercover agent and the collaborator had dealt with the applicant in person, while in Ramanauskas the applicant had been contacted by the agent claiming to be an acquaintance of the collaborator, whereas in the present case the applicants had never been contacted by the undercover agents, since S.R.B. had taken the initiative to ask to be allowed to make contact with the applicants in order to benefit from section 16 of Law no. 143/2000. Furthermore, in the present case the applicants had freely chosen to travel to Romania with the drugs. Nothing had prevented them from refusing S.R.B.’s proposal. 22. The applicants further appealed against that judgment. They maintained before the High Court of Cassation and Justice that they had been entrapped, having been incited to sell drugs by S.R.B. He in turn had been forced to incite them to do so by the investigators, who had promised him a reduction in his sentence. The applicants also denounced the use of the undercover officer N.A., who had sought, through S.R.B., to purchase the drugs. 23. By a judgment of 28 January 2010, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, taking into account as a mitigating factor the applicants’ lack of a previous criminal record, partly allowed the appeal and reduced their sentences to seven years’ imprisonment. The High Court upheld the lower courts’ reasoning in dismissing the entrapment pleas. It held that S.R.B., interested in the reduction of his sentence, had collaborated with the police and contacted the applicants in order to buy drugs; however, the applicants had had the opportunity to refuse the transaction proposed by him. Therefore, the court considered that the applicants’ pleas of entrapment were unfounded. 24. As from 10 November 2007, the applicants were remanded in custody in the Timiş police station detention facility. According to the Government, the applicants were placed in separate cells measuring 12 square metres, which they shared with five other inmates. On 11 March 2008 the applicants were transferred to Timişoara Prison. The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicants had been placed measured 21 square metres, and were shared by a total of nine inmates. On 7 December 2009 the applicants were transferred to Rahova Prison, where they were placed in cells measuring 19.58 square metres with ten beds. On 29 July 2010 the applicants were transferred to Giurgiu Prison, where they remained until 28 July 2011 (the first applicant) and 17 August 2011 (the second applicant), when they were transferred to the Giurgiu Police Inspectorate in order to be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in Germany. The Government pointed out that the applicants had had access to clean sanitary facilities as well as to hot and cold water, in accordance with a specific schedule.

4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Voronezh. 5. In 2000 she brought a court action against the social security service of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District of Voronezh and the Financial Division of the Voronezh Regional administration for delays in payment of child support benefits. 6. On 3 February 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,919.53 Russian roubles. The judgment entered into force on 14 February 2000. 7. Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Voronezh Regional administration lacked necessary funds. 8. On 13 February 2006 the judgment of 3 February 2000 was enforced in full.

4. The applicants were born in 1966, 1947, 1947, 1972 and 1968 respectively and live in the village of Stryama near Plovdiv. 5. On 24 August 1993 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and the son of the second and third applicants, Mr R.R., were caught by the police when attempting to transport stolen fruit. The police officers ordered the second applicant who was driving the cart with the stolen goods to bring the goods to the police station. He did not comply and drove the cart away. The remaining applicants and Mr R.R. went home. 6. On 27 August 1993 the third and fourth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned in connection to the theft, admitted to it and stated that the fifth applicant had also participated in the theft. The second applicant was questioned and confessed to the offence on 2 September 1993. 7. Apparently these questionings were carried within the framework of police investigation (дознание) no. 582/93. 8. On 20 September 1993 a police officer from the Rakovski district police department proposed to the prosecution authorities to initiate preliminary investigation (предварително производство) for theft against the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. He stated in his report that the fifth applicant had not been questioned as he was hiding. 9. Thereafter the case remained dormant until January 2002. 10. On 3 January 2002 a witness was questioned and on 27 January an expert opinion was commissioned. 11. On 29 January 2002 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned as suspects (уличени) under police investigation no. 582/93 and were charged with theft on the basis of the materials from that police investigation. 12. In February 2003 the case was brought to the Plovdiv District Court, which on 20 February remitted it back to the prosecution authorities because of procedural breaches. 13. On an unspecified date thereafter the charges against Mr R.R. were dropped. 14. On an unspecified date in the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004 the case was again brought to the District Court. 15. On 24 November 2004 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants concluded a plea bargain agreement and were sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended for a period of three years. On the same day the agreement was approved by the Plovdiv District Court. 16. The first applicant did not take part in the above events and was never a party to the criminal proceedings.

4. The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Prievidza. 5. On 10 February 1992 the applicant submitted an inheritance-related claim to the State Notary in Bratislava. On 21 December 1992 the applicant was informed that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction to deal with her claim. 6. On 11 June 1993 the applicant filed an inheritance-related claim with the Bratislava-vidiek District Court (whose case load was later transferred to the Bratislava III District Court). 7. On 4 October 1993 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of related inheritance proceedings. The related proceedings were concluded on 20 November 1996. 8. On 19 June 2006 the Bratislava III District Court delivered a judgment. On 22 August 2006 the applicant appealed. 9. On 20 September 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 31 October 2007 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court. 10. On 20 November 2008 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 December 2008. 11. On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,794 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 12. The Constitutional Court observed that the factual complexity of the case did not justify the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court further noted that during the period under consideration, which exceeded 12 years, the District Court had not proceeded with the case in an effective manner, had held no more than two hearings and delays imputable to the latter totalled more than 5 years.

5. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Orhei. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. The applicant was a victim of deportation by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. In 1941 his family’s house was confiscated by the State. In 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII which allowed the victims of Soviet repression to claim back their confiscated property. 8. In 1998 the applicant brought an action against the local council, claiming the return of his family’s house. On 27 November 1998 the Orhei District Court found for the applicant. It confirmed his property right over the house and ordered the local council to evict the current tenants and provide them with alternative accommodation. The judgment became final. One of the two families concerned by the eviction included a person with a first-degree disability. 9. The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On 14 March 2002, the applicant wrote a letter to the bailiff of the Orhei District Court asking him to enforce the decision of 27 November 1998. The bailiff replied by a letter dated 3 April 2002, stating that the local council did not have the means to execute the judgment. 10. In view of the long period during which the judgment had not been enforced, the applicant on 10 January 2003 proposed to the council that it pay him the monetary value of the house, which he estimated at 80,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 5,465 euros (EUR)) at the relevant time. By a letter of 28 January 2003 the council rejected his offer on the ground that the house was worth MDL 15,514 according to the real estate register. 11. On 20 February 2004 the local council informed the applicant that it had modified its budget for 2004 and had provided for MDL 80,000 to be paid to him in lieu of the house. No offer of compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage was made. The applicant rejected the offer. Subsequently the Republican Institute for Judiciary and Criminal Expertise (“the RIJCE”) determined the market value of the house at MDL 81,570 (EUR 5,400). The applicant again rejected the offer. 12. At the Government’s request, a second valuation of the applicant’s house was carried out by experts from the National Centre for Expert Analysis (“the NCEA”, attached to the Ministry of Justice) on 16 July 2007. The experts concluded that the market value of the house was MDL 162,000 (EUR 9,674). 13. According to the applicant, an expert hired by him did not have access to the house or the documents relating to it. He could not, accordingly, determine its market value. At the applicant’s request, an estate agency certified on 16 January 2008 that houses in the centre of Orhei were worth between EUR 25,000 and EUR 150,000, while apartments cost EUR 450-500 per square metre. The cost of renting a house varied between EUR 50 and EUR 100 a month. 14. The judgment of 27 November 1998 has not been enforced to date.

4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kysucké Nové Mesto. He is a self-employed food products wholesaler. 5. In May 1993 an article was published in several papers about a salmonella epidemic suggesting that it had had its origin in dried milk which had been produced by the applicant. 6. On 4 August 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Čadca District Court (Okresný súd) for protection of personal integrity against four publishers, the Slovakian Press Agency, two of his business partners and a research institute. He claimed that the published information was untrue in so far as it concerned him and that it caused damage to his business interests. He sought compensation in the amount of 180,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK). 7. On 9 August 1993 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it decided to transfer the case to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) for reasons of jurisdiction. 8. On 20 October 1993 the applicant submitted correct addresses for two of the defendants. The decision to transfer the case was then served on these defendants and became final on 24 February 1994. 9. On 9 March 1994 the Regional Court requested that the applicant pay court fees which he did on 5 April 1994. 10. The Regional Court subsequently sought the defendants’ observations in reply and, on 9 May 1994, the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of one of them. 11. On 27 June 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing which was adjourned with a view to obtaining further information including a case file with the Považská Bystrica District Court in a criminal case. 12. On 21 September 1994 the applicant extended the action in that he requested that an apology be published and that he be paid SKK 1 million in damages. 13. On 29 September 1994 the Regional Court requested the applicant to pay court fees for his extended claim, which he did on 4 October 1994. 14. On 6 October 1994 the Považská Bystrica District Court requested that the above-mentioned criminal file be returned to it because it was needed in connection with a different criminal case. The Regional Court returned the case file on 10 November 1994 but requested that it be given back as soon as possible since it was still needed in connection with the applicant’s case. The Regional Court reiterated the request on 8 February 1995 and, in response, it was informed that the case file in question was in fact with the criminal division of the Regional Court on appeal in the second of the criminal cases mentioned above. 15. Between 2 June 1995 and 5 June 1996 the Regional Court held 4 hearings 3 of which were adjourned in order to obtain further evidence. On each occasion 3 or more of the defendants had been absent. 16. In the meantime, on 14 December 1995 the Regional Court decided to return a part of the court fees to the applicant on the ground that he had reduced the scope of his claim for damages to SKK 500,000. 17. On 7 June 1996 the Regional Court delivered a judgment ordering one of the defendants to pay the applicant SKK 90,000, dismissing the action in respect of four defendants and discontinuing the proceedings in respect of the remaining two defendants. 18. Both the applicant and the defendant who had been ordered to pay damages appealed on the ground that the operative part of the written judgment did not correspond to the judgment which the court had given orally. 19. On 14 November 1996 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay the court fees for his appeal and, on 10 February 1998, it delivered two separate decisions by which it corrected errors in the costs order and in the judgment of 7 June 1996. 20. On 23 December 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 7 June 1996 as being incomprehensible and lacking adequate reasons, which made it impossible to review it. The Supreme Court observed that the rectification decision of 10 February 1998 had changed the substance of the contested judgment, which was procedurally impermissible. The case was remitted to the Regional Court for re-examination. 21. The applicant then withdrew the action in so far as it concerned 5 of the defendants and maintained it in respect of 2 defendants. 22. On 20 September 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it ordered each of the remaining defendants to pay the applicant SKK 50,000 in damages and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The applicant and one of the defendants appealed. 23. On 3 May 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees for his appeal. 24. On 19 December 2000 the Supreme Court quashed both the judgment of 20 September 1999 and the decision of 3 May 2000 on court fees. It held that the Regional Court had failed to give comprehensible reasons for the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant and that it had failed to establish adequately the facts relevant for the decision on court fees. 25. On 28 September 2001 and 14 January 2002 the Regional Court held hearings. Following the latter hearing, on the same day it exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees, ordered one of the defendants to pay the applicant SKK 10,000 in damages and dismissed the remainder of the claim. The parties waived their right of appeal and the judgment became final and binding on 6 February 2002. 26. On 12 February 2003 the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution. 27. On 26 February 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as having been lodged after the expiry of the two‑month time-limit laid down in the Constitutional Court Act.

9. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kyiv. He is a former employee of the Institute of Semiconductor Physics of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (the “ASU”). 10. Between 1991 and 1995 the applicant, who was already a tenant of studio No. 35/5 in a communal apartment, petitioned various Ukrainian authorities seeking the right to reside in studio No. 35/6, which had become vacant in January 1995. By a decree of 10 July 1995, the Leningradsky District Council of Kyiv (the “LDC”) granted Mrs V.M.K. (a private person) the right to use that studio. 11. On 30 August 1995 the applicant lodged complaints with the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Leningradsky Court”), seeking Mrs V.M.K.’s eviction from the studio. He also requested the court to issue him with a certificate granting him the right to occupy it. 12. On 22 November 1996 the Leningradsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated. On 5 February 1997 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 13. In December 1997 the applicant lodged his complaints with the Leningradsky Court against the ASU and the LDC, seeking to quash the decree of 10 July 1995 and to be allocated studio No. 35/6. By a judgment of 4 December 1997, the court quashed the decree of 10 July 1995 and recognized the applicant’s right to use the studio. The court ordered the respondents to take all necessary measures for the applicant’s enjoyment of his residential premises and the enforcement of the judgment of 4 December 1997. The judgment became final on 14 December 1997. 14. In January 1998 the applicant lodged the writ of execution with the Leningradsky District Execution Service of Kyiv. As a result, the certificate of Mrs V.M.K. granting her the use of studio No. 35/6 was annulled. 15. On 6 February 1998 the applicant lodged the writ of execution with the Starokyivsky District Execution Service of Kyiv (the “Starokyivsky Execution Service”) to oblige the ASU, one of the owners of the apartment, to certify that he could use studio No. 35/6. The execution proceedings were instituted on 23 February 1998. 16. Between April 1998 and February 1999, the applicant lodged several complaints with the Leningradsky Court, the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Starokyivsky Court”), the Kyiv City Court, the General Prosecution Service and the Kyiv Department of the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the failure of the Execution Service to enforce the judgment of 4 December 1997. 17. On 1 September 1998 the Starokyivsky Execution Service initiated administrative proceedings against the Logistics Director of the ASU who had failed to execute the judgment given in the applicant’s favour. 18. On 10 September 1998 the Logistics Department of the ASU informed the applicant and the Starokyivsky Court that the applicant had received the keys and free access to studio No. 35/6 in May 1998. 19. On 23 September 1998 the Starokyivsky Court fined the Logistics Director of the ASU for failure to comply with the judgment of 4 December 1997. 20. The Director appealed against this decision as he did not have the power to issue a certificate for the use of the apartment, which power lay with the LDC. The Kyiv City Court allowed the Director’s appeal on 4 November 1998. On 29 December 1998 the Starokyivsky Court dismissed the petition of the Starokyivsky Execution Service of 1 September 1998 by which it had initiated administrative proceedings against the Logistics Director of the ASU. 21. On 5 August 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his position at the ASU for alleged failure to appear at work for a lengthy period of time. 22. On 6 August 1999 the ASU issued resolution No. 1041 granting the applicant the use of studios Nos. 35/5 and 35/6. They also petitioned the LDC to issue a certificate (ордер) for the applicant’s use of those studios. 23. On 28 September 1999 the LDC issued decree No. 1329 authorising the applicant to use apartments Nos. 5 and 6 situated at 14, Dobrokhotov Street in Kyiv. 24. On 12 October 1999 the Kyiv Department of Justice informed the applicant about the execution of the judgment of 4 December 1997. 25. On 20 October 1999 the LDC issued a certificate (ордер на квартиру) to the applicant recognising his right to use the aforementioned apartments. 26. On 29 October 1999 the applicant informed the Court that the certificate for the use of the appartment was invalid as it concerned apartments No. 5 and 6, but not studios Nos. 35/5 and 35/6, specified in the judgment of the Leningradsky Court. 27. In January 2001 the ownership title of appartment No. 35 belonging to the ASU was transferred to the LDC. 28. In July 2003 the applicant was informed by the Communal Residence Department of the LDC that he would be provided with a certificate for his residential premises. 29. On 7 August 2003 the LDC issued decree No. 1411 acknowledging the applicant’s right to use studio No. 35/6 and issued him with a certificate of use on 2 September 2003.

5. The applicant was born in 1965. He lives in Sagopshi, in the Malgobek district of Ingushetia. 6. The applicant is the brother of Suleyman Tsechoyev, born in 1956. 7. At the material time the applicant studied law in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The applicant was not an eyewitness to his brother's arrest and the following account is based on the witness statements collected by him later. 8. On the night of 23 October 1998 the applicant's brother Suleyman Tsechoyev was arrested in the family house situated at 40, Shosseynaya Street, in the settlement of Sagopshi in the Malgobek district of Ingushetia. The arrest was apparently carried out by the officers of the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (Северокавказское Региональное Управление по Борьбе с Организованной Преступностью – “the RUBOP”). The applicant submitted that at the time of the arrest the officers did not introduce themselves and did not present any documents or justification for their action. Nor did they inform the family where they were taking Mr Tsechoyev. 9. On 28 October 1998 the applicant, alerted by his mother, arrived at Sagopshi. His relatives told him that there had been no news of Suleyman Tsechoyev's whereabouts. 10. According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 3 November 1998 Suleyman Tsechoyev had been charged with aiding and abetting the kidnapping of Magomed K. on 5 September 1998, together with two other men and unidentified persons from Chechnya. The kidnapped man had been taken to Chechnya in two VAZ cars. 11. On 6 November 1998 the applicant, together with his sister, met with Mr Magomed Ye., the deputy prosecutor of Malgobek. The latter informed them that their brother had been arrested on his orders by officers of the RUBOP and was being detained in the town of Nazran, Ingushetia. Mr Magomed Ye. refused to tell the applicant and his sister where exactly their brother was detained and what charges had been brought against him. 12. On 20 November 1998 the applicant found out that his brother had been detained at the temporary detention centre (“the IVS”) of the Malgobek district police department (ROVD). 13. The applicant hired a lawyer, who unsuccessfully tried to reach Suleyman Tsechoyev at the detention centre. 14. In the beginning of December 1998 the applicant had a meeting with Mr Magomed Ye. The latter allegedly told him that he would release his brother in exchange for 6,000 US dollars (USD) and threatened to have Suleyman Tsechoyev transferred to the headquarters of the RUBOP in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, where he would be subjected to severe ill‑treatment, if the applicant refused to pay the money. The applicant refused to pay. 15. On 24 February 1999 the applicant saw his brother at the IVS. Suleyman Tsechoyev told the applicant that he had been pressured to confess to the crime and that he had been threatened with transfer to the RUBOP headquarters in Nalchik. 16. On 25 February 1999 the applicant returned to the detention centre to see his brother. He was told by the employees that the night before, at around 10 p.m., Suleyman Tsechoyev had been taken to the prosecutor's office and that after that, at about midnight, he had been taken away in a vehicle in the direction of Nalchik. 17. The Government confirmed that on 23 October 1998 Suleyman Tsechoyev had been detained by the law-enforcement bodies in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation in force at the material time. He had been detained in connection with the investigation into Mr Magomed K.'s abduction that had been opened on 15 September 1998 and registered under file number 98540062. The decision to place Suleyman Tsechoyev under arrest had been unsuccessfully appealed against to a court. The Government submitted that the term of detention for Mr Tsechoyev had been extended on several occasions, the last of which had been on 25 May 1999; his detention had been authorised until 24 October 1999. 18. The applicant and his relatives had no news of Suleyman Tsechoyev after 25 February 1999. On 16 March 1999 a man who introduced himself as “Aslan” contacted one of the applicant's relatives. According to “Aslan”, he had been detained with Suleyman Tsechoyev in cell no. 8 in pre-trial detention centre no. 1 (SIZO-1) in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria. The applicant's brother had been detained there under a false identity and had been in poor health. 19. On 17 March 1999 the applicant, together with his lawyer Mr Magomed Ga., went to Nalchik to visit his brother. The applicant's lawyer was granted permission to see Suleyman Tsechoyev. According to the lawyer, Suleyman Tsechoyev was in poor health and had no access to medical treatment. 20. On 22 March 1999 the head of the SIZO-1 medical unit provided the applicant with a handwritten statement. According to it, Suleyman Tsechoyev had been brought to SIZO-1 on 26 February 1999 with numerous bruises, abrasions, scratches on his limbs and injuries to the chest. 21. On 30 July 1999 the applicant and his sister obtained the Malgobek district prosecutor's permission to visit their brother. Suleyman Tsechoyev told them that he had been pressured to confess to the involvement in the abduction of Mr Magomed K. and that he had been ordered to convince his relatives to pay USD 6, 000 for his release. Suleyman Tsechoyev told his relatives that he had been subjected to severe beatings in the building of the RUBOP situated at 49 Naumova Street in Nalchik. Finally, he insisted that the applicant and his other relatives should not pay money for his release. It does not appear that any complaints have been lodged in this respect. 22. On 23 August 1999, at about 9 a.m., a group of four men wearing police uniforms arrived at SIZO-1 in a VAZ-2106 car. The men identified themselves as officers of the Malgobek ROVD in Ingushetia. Two of them entered the premises of the centre and produced the following documents authorising the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev from SIZO-1 to the Malgobek IVS: a) a letter from the acting prosecutor of Malgobek Mr U. B., dated 21 August 1999, requesting that Suleyman Tsechoyev be handed over to four officers of the Malgobek ROVD: Anzor K., Islam O., Kambulat K. and Ruslan B; b) a procedural decision in criminal case no. 98540062, dated 21 August 1999, concerning the transfer of the accused Suleyman Tsechoyev for investigative measures from SIZO-1 to the Malgobek IVS; c) an authority form, dated 23 August 1999, issued by the head of the Malgobek ROVD to officers of the Malgobek ROVD, Anzor K., Islam O., Kambulat K. and Ruslan B., concerning the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev to the Malgobek IVS. 23. The documents were produced to the employees of SIZO-1, officers Sh. and U., who handed Suleyman Tsechoyev over to the two men. The latter took the applicant's brother away in an unknown direction. 24. On 24 August 1999 Suleyman Tsechoyev's body was found in the Mayskiy district of Kabardino-Balkaria with gunshot wounds to the head. 25. On 7 September 1999 two RUBOP officers arrived at the applicant's house. They told him that a body whose fingerprints were consistent with those of Suleyman Tsechoyev had been found in Kabardino-Balkaria and asked him to identify it. 26. On 8 September 1999 the applicant and his sister identified the body as that of Suleyman Tsechoyev. 27. On 8 September 1999 the Kabardino-Balkaria forensic assessments office issued a report (no. 79). According to this, Suleyman Tsechoyev had died on an unspecified date from an open gunshot wound to the head. 28. It can be seen from the documents submitted by the Government that on 23 October 1999 the criminal proceedings in respect of Suleyman Tsechoyev were terminated in view of his death. 29. On 2 December 1999 the Malgobek town civil registration office issued a death certificate for Suleyman Tsechoyev. It stated that death had occurred on 23 August 1999. 30. The description of the events of the night of 23 October 1998 and the subsequent developments is based on the following documents: the applicant's accounts given on 10 and 16 February, 28 July and 29 August 2005; an account by the applicant's sister Ms L.B., given on 4 August 2005; an account by the applicant's neighbour R.G., given on 15 August 2005; a hand-drawn map of the premises of the applicant's house in Sagopshi and copies of the documents submitted with the application. 31. The Russian press widely reported the kidnapping for ransom of Magomed K., whose younger brother Musa K. had occupied a top executive position in Lukoil, one of Russia's largest oil companies, at the relevant time. It appears from the reports that Magomed K. had been freed from Urus‑Martan, Chechnya, some time in 1999 as a result of a raid carried out by his relatives, including Musa K., and that several well-known Chechen “field commanders” involved in the kidnapping were killed. Numerous publications also reported Suleyman Tsechoyev's murder and linked it to the kidnapping of Magomed K. Mr Magomed Ye., former deputy prosecutor of the Malgobek district, was quoted in many of these publications and wrote several articles himself. 32. It can be seen from the information submitted by the Government that the official investigation into the kidnapping of Magomed K. was closed in November 2001. 33. The Government, in response to the Court's request, submitted 380 pages from the investigation file, as well as additional information about its progress. They stated that disclosure of the remaining documents from the file could be harmful to the continuing investigation and sought application of Rule 33 § 3 of the Rules of Court to the submitted documents. 34. The applicant, in turn, submitted some additional information about his contacts with the investigation. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 35. On 24 August 1999 the prosecutor's office of the Mayskiy district of Kabardino-Balkaria instituted an investigation under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder) into the death of an unknown man whose body had been found in the vicinity of Aleksandrovskaya with gunshot wounds to the head. The case file was given number 16/24-99 (in the submitted materials the number is also referred to as 16/24). 36. On 9 September 1999 the investigation into the murder of Suleyman Tsechoyev was transferred to the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor's office. The applicant's family was informed of this by a letter from the Prosecutor General's Office. 37. On 9 December 1999 the Ingushetia prosecutor's office opened a criminal investigation in respect of Mr Magomed Ye. under Article 285 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power entailing serious consequences), no. 99540071. On 15 March 2000 the Ingushetia prosecutor's office opened an additional investigation into abuse of power by Magomed Ye. under file number 2054007. 38. On 23 May 2000 the three cases were joined under file number 16/24-99 at the Northern Caucasus department of the General Prosecutor's Office. 39. On 9 July 2001 (in accordance with the decision of 4 September 2002 suspending the investigation, see paragraph 46 below) the investigation in respect of Mr Magomed Ye., his relatives and members of the K. family (twelve persons altogether) for abuse of power was closed. 40. On 12 July 2001 criminal charges against Magomed Ye. for murder and kidnapping were dropped for want of evidence. 41. On 15 July 2001 the investigation into the murder was suspended in view of the failure to identify the suspects. 42. On 23 July 2001 the department of the Northern Caucasus department of the General Prosecutor's Office concluded that the investigation had been incomplete. The decisions of 12 and 15 July 2001 were quashed and the investigation was remitted to an investigator of that department with a number of specific directions. 43. In December 2001 the Northern Caucasus department of the General Prosecutor's Office created a special investigative group charged with solving the crime. 44. On 15 May 2002 charges of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Mr Magomed Ye. were dropped for want of evidence. On the same day proceedings were suspended for lack of suspects. 45. On 4 June 2002 the Russian Deputy General Prosecutor quashed the decisions of 9 July 2001 and 15 May 2002 and appointed a new investigative group, headed by the deputy head of the Northern Caucasus department of the General Prosecutor's Office. 46. On 4 September 2002 the investigation in criminal case no. 16/24‑99 was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. On the same date the North Caucasus department of the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant of the decision. 47. On 24 August 1999 the investigators carried out an examination of the site, compiled a description of the body and collected three cartridges. Two days later an additional examination of the site resulted in the finding of another cartridge and four bullets. 48. On 25 August 1999 a forensic expert from the Mayskoye police department carried out an examination of the body and an autopsy. The expert found, inter alia, that the body bore six gunshot wounds to the left side of the head, each of which could have been lethal. The shots had been fired from a close range within a short period of time. The expert noted several bruises and abrasions on the face and hands, especially around the wrists, which had been caused within a period of twenty-four hours before death; he also noted traces indicating that the body had been dragged along immediately after the death had occurred. The expert concluded that death had occurred two or three days before the examination of the body. 49. On 23 September 1999 the ballistic expert reported that the four cartridges and bullets had been fired from one “Makarov” 9 mm calibre hand pistol. This conclusion was confirmed by a ballistic expert report of 14 November 1999, carried out by the expert department of the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria. 50. On 9 September 1999 the investigator of the Mayskoye district prosecutor's office questioned the applicant. He stated that his brother had been detained on 23 October 1998 on the orders of the deputy prosecutor of the Malgobek district, Mr Magomed Ye., on suspicion of involvement in kidnapping. The applicant stated that on several occasions his brother had been transferred from one detention place to another. He had last seen him in June 1999 and Suleyman had complained that for a long time no investigative action had taken place. He also stated that in the beginning of September 1999 the investigator working on the kidnapping case had told him that he had ordered his brother's transfer to Malgobek and that he would soon be taken there. The applicant named several persons who could have been responsible for his brother's death, including former police officer Musa Kh., a cousin of the former deputy Malgobek district prosecutor Ibragim Ye., and Musa K. 51. On 30 September 1999 the investigator of the Kabardino‑Balkaria prosecutor's office again questioned the applicant, who gave detailed submissions relating the account of his brother's arrest and detention as summarised above. The applicant told the investigator that his brother had close friends in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, where he regularly travelled. He also stated that he suspected Magomed Ye. of masterminding and carrying out the operation aimed at abducting Suleyman Tsechoyev from the pre‑trial detention centre. He stated that Magomed Ye. had possessed the knowledge required to produce the papers necessary to organise the prisoner's transfer, that he had the necessary computer and other technical skills and that he had been rewarded by the relatives of Magomed K. In particular, the applicant stated that he was aware that Magomed Ye. had obtained from those relatives a VAZ vehicle, a computer, a mobile phone and that he had bought a flat in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, with money received from them. Furthermore, the applicant accused Magomed Ye. of being present when his brother had been beaten by relatives of Magomed K. outside Malgobek in February 1999. He again accused the K. family of organising his brother's murder and said that the crime could have been carried out by Magomed Ye., Musa Kh, Zaurbek Kh. and Mukhszhir Ye. 52. On the same day the applicant's sister L.B. told the investigator that she had visited her brother in prison, that he had not complained of anything but had denied that he had been involved in the kidnapping. She also named Magomed Ye. and Musa K., brother of the kidnapped Magomed K., as the possible perpetrators of the killing. 53. On 30 September 1999 the applicant and his sister L. B. were granted the status of victims in the criminal proceedings relating to their brother's murder. On 17 April 2000 the applicant was granted the status of victim in the criminal investigation carried out “into the unlawful actions of the former deputy prosecutor of the Malgobek town, Mr M[agomed] Ye.” 54. On 11 November 1999 the applicant and L. B. wrote to the Malgobek district prosecutor. They accused Mr Magomed Ye. of allowing the beating of their brother on the night of 24 to 25 February 1999 by two relatives of Ye. and by the relatives of Magomed K. They again submitted that Ye. had obtained property from the family of Magomed K. in return for his “assistance” in the solving of his kidnapping. 55. On 28 November 1999 the applicant's sister told the investigators that on 3 April 1999 she had visited her brother in prison and that on that day she had noticed marks from handcuffs and traces of beatings on his face. She also submitted that Suleyman Tsechoyev had told her that during the night of 24 February 1999 Magomed Ye. and his relatives, together with relatives of Magomed K., had taken him outside of Malgobek and beaten him in an attempt to obtain a confession regarding the kidnapping. 56. On 15 December 1999 the applicant gave detailed submissions to an investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office relating the arrest and detention of his brother, as described above. In addition, he submitted that on 3 April 1999 his brother had told him in great detail what had happened on the night of 24 to 25 February 1999 and named other persons who had been detained with him and questioned by the relatives of Magomed K. He also allegedly told him that he had been taken to several detention centres in the Northern Caucasus prior to being admitted to the pre-trial detention centre no. 1 in Nalchik because he had suffered from the beatings and the officials had refused to accept him. The applicant named Mr Magomed Ye. as the individual responsible for the ill-treatment of his brother and, ultimately, for organising his transfer to the murderers. He stressed that the documents authorising his brother's removal from the prison in Nalchik had been produced by someone who had detailed knowledge of the requirements for such documents and that the forgery had necessitated considerable computer skills. The applicant also submitted that on 28 August 1999 he had gone to the SIZO no. 1 in Nalchik and left a food parcel for his brother, which had been accepted. At that time he had not been informed that his brother was no longer detained there. 57. On 17 December 1999 the applicant's sister repeated her previous statements. She stated, further, that in May and October 1999 Mr Ye. had threatened to kill her brother, the applicant. 58. On 17 December 1999 the applicant's mother gave statements similar to those of the applicant and her daughter. 59. On 21 April 2000 the applicant was questioned by an investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office again. He repeated his allegations against Magomed Ye. 60. On 16 October 2001 the investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office questioned the applicant again. He supplemented his previous statements and claimed that Mr Magomed Ye. had been acting in cooperation with the relatives of Magomed K. from the very early stages of the investigation. He stated that as early as September 1998 a number of men, whose names he had supplied to the investigation, had been arrested and then transferred to private residences where they had been beaten and tortured with the aim of extracting confessions. According to the applicant, Mr Magomed Ye. had participated in these actions and filmed them. The applicant also claimed that in February 1999 Mr Ye. had asked his mother and sister to pay USD 6,000 in return for his brother's release. He also submitted additional details about the circumstances of his brother's beatings on 24 February 1999. 61. The investigators questioned the staff at the pre-trial detention centre in Nalchik who had been on duty on 23 August 1999. On 10 September 1999 two officers stated that they had inspected the papers of the two men who had presented themselves as police officers from the Malgobek ROVD and had not found them suspicious. They had organised the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev to the two men in accordance with the usual procedure. One of the men bore the distinction of a Senior Lieutenant, the other of a non-commissioned officer of the Ministry of the Interior. The men had spoken Ingush between themselves; one of them had had a Motorolla radio receiver but had not used it during the encounter. One of the officers gave a detailed physical description of the two men and said that he would be prepared to identify them. The deputy head of the detention centre, Mr Zaurbi Sh., told the investigators that he had checked the names of the two men and the papers for the prisoner's transfer. He had not inspected their documents because, according to the relevant procedure, the identity documents should have been left at the entrance to the building. 62. Several of Suleyman Tsechoyev's co-detainees in the pre‑trial detention centre in Nalchik stated on 10 September 1999 that the deceased had not raised any complaints, that he had been visited by a lawyer and by his brother and that in August 1999 he had been taken away, apparently for transfer to Ingushetia. 63. On 12 October 1999 the acting prosecutor of the Malgobek district told the investigators that he had ordered Mr Tsechoyev's transfer to Malgobek on 5 August 1999, but for unknown reasons that order had not been complied with. The documents which had enabled Mr Tsechoyev to be kidnapped had been forged and their numbers corresponded to other documents. The persons indicated in the escort documents had not worked at the Malgbek ROVD. In June 2002 he gave a further statement, describing Mr Magomed Ye. as an honest and motivated officer who had been falsely accused by the applicant and his relatives. 64. On 15 November 1999 an officer from the Nalchik pre-trial detention centre identified a man from a photo as one of those who had collected Suleyman Tsechoyev on 23 August 1999. Later that man, a worker in a gas plant, submitted reliable evidence that he had not been in Kabardino-Balkaria at the time, as supported by documents and witness statements collected by the investigation. 65. On 22 December 1999 the head of the Malgobek ROVD stated that Suleyman Tsechoyev had been detained at the Malgobek IVS from September 1998 to February 1999. He was shown the registration log of the IVS, according to which on 24 February 1999 Mr Tsechoyev had been taken out of the IVS at 11.40 p.m. by the local police officer Musa Kh. The head of the ROVD explained that he had been informed late at night by the officer on duty that the deputy district prosecutor had ordered that Mr Tsechoyev be brought to his office for questioning. At first the head of the ROVD had refused, but Mr Ye. had called him and insisted, threatening to open a criminal investigation if he did not comply. Mr Ye. explained that he had senior officers of the Ministry of the Interior in his office and that it was possible that Mr Tsechoyev would be transferred to Kabardino-Balkaria for further investigation. The head of the ROVD then agreed, but instructed his staff to obtain Mr Ye.'s signature to the effect that he had accepted the detainee. He could not explain why a district police officer, Mr Musa Kh., had signed. When questioned about Suleyman Tsechoyev's abduction and murder, the head of the police confirmed that the men identified in the escort documents had never served at the ROVD and that he had not issued the documents in question. 66. In addition to the above investigative documents, copies of which the Government submitted to the Court, it can be seen from their memorandum of 2 October 2008 that the investigators also questioned five acting and former officers of the Malgobek prosecutor's office, all of whom denied that they had been aware of any connection between the K. family and Magomed Ye. One of these officers, quoted by the Government, stated that Suleyman Tsechoyev had been a member of the bandit group based in Urus‑Martan, along with three other men who had been charged with kidnappings. 67. The Government also submitted a copy of the record of interview of Zaurbek Kh., who stated that he had permanently lived in Moscow and had been there throughout the summer of 1999. Zaurbek Kh. denied having known Suleyman Tsechoyev; as to Magomed Ye., the witness stated that he had gone to the same school but had not kept in contact in recent years. 68. On 16 November 1999 the investigators in criminal case no. 16/24‑99 carried out an expert assessment of three documents concerning the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev from SIZO-1 on 23 August 1999. The criminology expert of Kabardino-Balkaria concluded that the imprint of the Malgobek district prosecutor's office's seal had been reproduced with the aid of a factory-made stamp, but not the one used by the district prosecutor's office. The imprint of the Malgobek ROVD seal had been reproduced with the aid of a colour printer. A graphology expert report reported difficulties in analysing short notes with dates and signatures on the documents, but concluded that some of the notes could have been made by Mr Magomed Ye., his brother and by the acting Malgobek prosecutor. 69. On 14 December 1999 the Central North-Caucasus forensic laboratory issued an additional expert assessment. It concluded that the signatures on all the documents concerning the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev from SIZO-1 to the Malgobek IVS had been forged, and that the date and signature on one of the documents had been written by Mr Magomed Ye. 70. In October 2001 the investigators questioned a number of experts from the Central North-Caucasus forensic laboratory seeking an explanation for the differences in the reports. The experts referred to the incomplete conclusions of some of the studies. 71. On 12 November 2001 the Russian Federal Forensic Assessments Office of the Ministry of Justice concluded that it was impossible to establish with certainty whether the handwritten words on the document in question had been written by Mr Magomed Ye. or not. 72. According to the documents contained in the criminal investigation file, at some point in 2001 documents constituting the basis for examination and a part of the original expert report had been stolen or changed. A separate criminal investigation was carried out, during which several officers from the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of the Interior were questioned. The investigation collected the copies of the original documents from the Russian Federal Bureau of Forensic Studies. Magomed Ye. was questioned as a suspect. On 15 May 2002 the investigation against him was closed for want of incriminating evidence. 73. On 7 October 1999 the investigator from the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor's office questioned Magomed Ye. The latter confirmed that he had headed the group at the Malgobek prosecutor's office which had investigated the kidnapping of Magomed K. He had authorised Suleyman Tsechoyev's detention in relation to that crime. According to him, Mr Tsechoyev had been suspected of involvement in other crimes committed in the region, which was the reason for his transfer to Nalchik and Pyatigorsk. Mr Ye. denied that he had been involved in the kidnapping and murder of Suleyman Tsechoyev. He stated that he had never seen the documents authorising the latter's removal from the pre-trial detention centre in Nalchik in August 1999. Mr Ye. stated that he had quit his job at the prosecutor's office in March 1999 and now lived in Moscow. He had learnt of Suleyman Tsechoyev's death from his father in September 1999. He denied that he had previously allowed the relatives of Magomed K. access to Suleyman Tsechoyev. 74. In October 1999 the investigators carried out a series of identification parades, during which the officers of the Nalchik pre‑trial detention centre failed to identify Mr Magomed Ye., his brothers and cousins as the persons who had taken away Suleyman Tsechoyev. 75. On 11 January 2000 the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor's office brought charges against Mr Magomed Ye. He was charged in absentia with complicity in Suleyman Tsechoyev's kidnapping and murder and forgery of official documents. On the same day Mr Magomed Ye. was ordered to be arrested and declared a fugitive from justice, and his name was put on the wanted list. 76. On 26 February 2000 Mr Ye. was detained and questioned as a suspect. He again denied any connection with the murder and requested a number of additional investigative measures. 77. The investigators obtained the documents according to which in March 1999 Mr Magomed Ye. had complained to his superior about the false accusations brought against him by the relatives of Suleyman Tsechoyev and requested the district prosecutor of Malgobek to open a criminal investigation for libel. At the same time, pending completion of the investigation, he requested to be relieved from the duty of investigating the case. On 31 March 1999 Magomed Ye. resigned from the prosecutor's office. 78. On 10 March 2000 the Nalchik Town Court released Mr Magomed Ye. from detention, having found that there were no reasons to suspect him of absconding from justice. The court noted that Mr Ye. had always appeared at the prosecutor's office when summoned to do so, resided at his declared place of residence in Moscow and had other family reasons not to abscond. 79. In April 2000 a waitress in a roadside café in Kabardino‑Balkaria told the investigators that between 21 and 25 August 1999 she had seen Mr Magomed Ye. During a confrontation carried out on 24 January 2002 she retracted her statements and explained that she had last seen him in March 1999, and that in August 1999 she had seen another person whom she had confused with Mr Ye. She gave detailed submissions in this respect. Two other men and Magomed Ye. gave concordant statements. 80. In July 2001 the investigators questioned witnesses and obtained documents to the effect that in August 1999 Mr Ye. had been working daily for a private company in Moscow. 81. In April 2002 Magomed Ye. gave an additional statement as a suspect. He again denied any involvement in the imputed crime, denied having ever received or used a VAZ vehicle and denied receiving any money or property from the K. family. 82. In their memorandum of 2 October 2008 the Government stated, without providing copies of such documents or the dates when they were obtained, that the investigators also questioned four members of the K. family who denied having any relations with Magomed Ye. or giving him money or property. These and other witnesses suggested that the libel campaign against Magomed Ye. had been inspired by members of a fundamentalist bandit group based in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, who had committed numerous kidnappings for ransom. The Kabardino-Balkaria Land Registry reported that Magomed Ye. had owned no real estate in that region. 83. In their memorandum of 2 October 2008 the Government also stated, without providing copies of such documents or the dates when they were obtained, that the investigators had also questioned the brother and cousin of Magomed Ye.: police officers named by the applicant as possible perpetrators of the crime. They denied their involvement in the events. The police department of Malgobek confirmed that Magomed Ye.'s cousin had been working daily between July and September 1999. Police officers Musa Kh. and Zaurbek Kh. were also questioned at some point and denied having any connection with the murder. The Government also referred to records of interviews of four members of the K. family who stated that they had no relations with Magomed Ye. outside the official framework of the investigation and that they had not given him money or property. 84. As can be seen from the statements collected in January 2008 from the applicant and his father, some time in 2001 police officer Musa Kh. had been charged with false imprisonment and abuse of power in relation to the taking of Suleyman Tsechoyev from the Malgobek IVS in the late hours on 24 February 1999. He had been found guilty and given a suspended sentence; the applicant did not appeal against the sentence. It also appears from these statements that the applicant and Musa Kh. had reached an informal agreement prior to the trial and that the applicant had “accepted” Musa Kh.'s “apology” and declaration that he had not been involved in his brother's murder. No other documents or information relating to this process have been submitted by the parties. 85. It can be seen from the submitted documents that in 2001 Musa K., the brother of the kidnapped Magomed K., complained to the prosecutor's office that he had been libelled by the applicant. It appears that in June 2001 the indictment was sent to the court, which at some point acquitted the applicant. 86. The investigators into the kidnapping of Magomed K. suspected and arrested several other men in addition to Suleyman Tsechoyev. Later, three of them were charged with other kidnappings; one of them was found guilty and sentenced in 2001; and two others were charged in absentia and their names put on the wanted list. One of them told the investigators that the applicant had threatened to denounce him to the law-enforcement bodies in order to give incriminating evidence against Magomed Ye. and Musa K. 87. On 26 February 2002 the criminal investigation was closed regarding the part concerning the actions of the officers of the Nalchik pre‑trial detention centre, on grounds of absence of corpus delicti. 88. On the same day the investigator from the department of the General Prosecutor's Office in the North Caucasus closed the criminal proceedings against Magomed Ye. for want of evidence. He noted that it had turned out to be impossible to identify the persons who had abducted and killed Suleyman Tsechoyev; that the conclusions of the graphology expert reports were contradictory and could not be construed as a single body of incriminating evidence against Mr Magomed Ye.; that by the time of the abduction he had no longer been employed at the prosecutor's office for more than six months and there was no evidence that he had continued to be aware of or to influence the proceedings; that between March and September 1999 he had remained in Moscow, as confirmed by witness statements and documents; that the allegations that he had obtained money or property from the K. family had proved to be unfounded; and, finally, that there were reasons to suspect that the applicant had personal motives, since he was being prosecuted for libel against the K. family and had threatened a witness in order to obtain evidence incriminating Magomed Ye. 89. On 22 May 2001 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that on 11 April 2001 the investigation in criminal case no. 16/24‑99 had been transferred to the department of the Prosecutor General's office in the North Caucasus. According to the letter, Mr Ye. had absconded from the authorities and his name had been put on the wanted list. 90. On 7 January 2002 the applicant and his relatives complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation in criminal case no. 16/24-99 to the Prosecutor General. In his letter the applicant also alleged that some of the evidence in the criminal case-file materials had been forged by the investigators. 91. On 22 February 2002 the Prosecutor General's Office replied to the applicant. The letter stated that in connection with the forgery of the evidence in criminal case no. 16/24-99, they had opened criminal case no. 18/24411-01 on 14 September 2001. 92. On 15 or 24 May 2002 (the letter has two dates) the department of the Prosecutor General's Office in the North Caucasus informed the applicant that on 15 May 2002 the authorities had terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr Ye. owing to the failure to prove his involvement in the abduction of Suleyman Tsechoyev. On the same date the investigation had been suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 93. On 20 June 2002 the applicant and his relatives wrote to the Prosecutor General complaining of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the murder. 94. On 9 August 2002 the applicant's family received a letter from the Prosecutor General's Office. The letter stated that on an unspecified date the investigation of criminal case no. 16/24-99 had been resumed. 95. On 28 February 2003 the applicant complained about his brother's murder to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In his letter he complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the crime and the decisions suspending it. The applicant requested the authorities to resume the investigation and carry out an additional examination of the evidence in criminal case no. 16/24-99. In particular, he complained that the investigation had failed to compile a composite sketch of the two men who had collected his brother from the pre-trial detention centre and to compare the handwriting of the kidnappers with those of all the officers of the Ministry of the Interior in Ingushetia and Kabardino‑Balkaria, as well as of the regional department of the RUBOP in the Northern Caucasus. 96. On 5 March 2003 the Prosecutor General's Office, upon the applicant's request, forwarded him a copy of the decision of 4 September 2002 suspending the investigation in criminal case no. 16/24-99. 97. It does not appear that the applicant or the investigators took any steps between 5 March 2003 and 20 May 2005. 98. On 20 May 2005 the applicant's representatives wrote to the Prosecutor General. They requested information concerning the progress reached in the investigation in criminal case no. 16/24-99 and enquired whether the investigators had carried out any expert or forensic examinations in the case. It does not appear that the applicant's representatives received any response to this request. 99. On 21 August 2007 the Deputy Prosecutor General quashed the decision suspending the proceedings. On 25 December 2007 Mr Magomed Ye. was placed under an obligation not to leave his place of residence in Moscow. 100. In January 2008 the investigator questioned the applicant, his sister and his mother in Malgobek. They denied that Suleyman Tsechoyev had any connections to illegal armed groups in Chechnya or in Ingushetia, pointed out that he had never been charged with any such crime before and affirmed that there was no evidence to support that allegation. They again insisted that Magomed Ye. had been connected with the abduction and murder of their brother, in view of his involvement in the arrest and beatings. 101. On 21 May 2008 the father of Musa and Magomed K. gave a statement in which he denied that his family had ever given any money or valuables to Magomed Ye. or his family. 102. In his submissions the applicant also described attacks by unspecified persons on himself, his relative and his house. 103. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that on 13 July 2001 he and Mrs U. had been wounded during an attempt to arrest them by officers from the RUBOP of Kabardino-Balkaria. On the same day the Ingushetia prosecutor's office opened a criminal investigation into violent acts against public officers. 104. However, in January 2002 the investigation was adjourned in view of the failure to identify the suspect. In March 2004 criminal charges against the applicant were dropped; Mrs U. was granted victim status. 105. The applicant and Mrs U. sought damages for the injuries and moral suffering inflicted by the RUBOP and the Federal Treasury. They also contested the lawfulness of the order to deliver the applicant to an investigator which had served as the basis for the attempt to arrest him. 106. In October 2004 the Malgobek Town Court refused to grant their claim, referring to the absence of any definitive outcome of the criminal investigation and the applicant's failure to appeal against the decision to adjourn the proceedings. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed without consideration for failure to observe the requisite time-limits; he tried to have the time-limits restored but it appears that his complaint to the Supreme Court of Ingushetia remained unexamined. 107. No complaints were brought following those developments, but the applicant relied on the above proceedings to explain his inaction between 2003 and 2005 vis-à-vis the domestic criminal investigation into his brother's murder. 108. The applicant submitted, referring to numerous publications concerning the subject, that following the events described above Mr Magomed Ye. had become a well-known political figure in Ingushetia. As a successful businessman and journalist, he had founded an Internet site (www.Ingushetiya.ru) in 2001 which had quickly become an important media forum for the opposition forces. In 2008 Mr Magomed Ye. had become one of the organisers of the “I did not vote” campaign aimed at denouncing electoral fraud in Ingushetia during the Russian presidential elections. In June 2008 a district court in Moscow classified the site as “extremist” and demanded its closure. The order could not be implemented because the site was hosted in the United States. 109. On 31 August 2008 Mr Magomed Ye. was detained on arrival at the airport in Nazran, Ingushetia, and shot dead in the police car. In December 2009 a court in Ingushetia found one officer of the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia guilty of causing death by negligence and gave him a suspended sentence. In August 2010 this officer was killed by unknown gunmen in Ingushetia. On 25 October 2009 another former co‑owner of the Ingushetia.ru site, Mr Maksharip A., was killed by unknown gunmen in Kabardino-Balkaria.

5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kyiv. 6. The applicant was an editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Polityka. The periodical has ceased publication. 7. On 2 July 1997 the applicant published an article about Mr V. Durdynets, who at that time was the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine. The article was entitled “Durdintsovshchina” (the first article) and described the dismissal of Mr A. Stoginenko, the President of the Black Sea Shipping Company (Чорноморське морське пароплавство, hereinafter the “BSSC”), a State-owned enterprise. The applicant alleged that Mr Durdynets dismissed Mr Stoginenko because of his involvement in financing the Polityka. The relevant extracts from the article were as follows: “Who could imagine that a former Komsomol bureaucrat, police pen-pusher and near-political schemer would occupy today one of the highest posts in the Government? The press is what the sinister Premier hates the most, as he fears public opinion. He did not forget that in March this year our newspaper accused him of plotting against Prime Minister Lazarenko. And as soon as he got the chance, he triggered the punitive mechanisms to suppress the independent media. For instance, he accused Alekzandr Stroginenko, the President of the Black Sea Shipping Company, of financing Polityka. Stroginenko’s “error” was that he had concluded a contract with us to issue promotional materials for the BSSC. The newspaper spent tens of thousand dollars from its own pocket, but has not yet received full payment for the published materials. Without waiting for the results of a ministerial inquiry, on Monday before last, the acting Prime Minister, in the absence of both the President, who was in New York, and the Prime Minister, who was hospitalised, summoned the Cabinet of Ministers and forced a decision to dismiss the president of the BSSC.” 8. On 16 July 1997 the applicant published an article entitled “Save the barbed wire, citizen Durdinets” (Экономьте колючую проволку, гражданин Дурдинец – the second article), where he stated that Mr Durdinets had personally instructed the General Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against him. The relevant extracts from the article read as follows: “...As we have learned, immediately after the release of the article [Durdintsovshchina], Durdinets summoned the General Prosecutor, Grigory Vorsinov, to his office and, showing him the newspaper, demanded that criminal proceedings for defamation be instituted against the author... Any other person, who considers himself to be defamed or insulted, would go to a court of law to make his case publicly. But Durdinets has no regard for civil rights as he attempts to use his powers as a high ranking governmental official. So it is worth mentioning here the abuse of power, as neither I nor any of our readers can summon Vorsinov to his office, the less so to demand the institution of criminal proceedings against one’s opponent. The acting Prime Minister considers that he can give orders to the General Prosecutor (although the law provides for the independence of the latter), and he does so.” 9. On 5 November 1997 the applicant wrote an article under the headline “The Rogue and the General” (“Аферист и генерал” – the third article), which concerned the alleged relationship between General G., at that time the Chief of the Odessa Regional Police Department, and a certain Mr S., who was reported to have been involved in criminal activity. The applicant’s newspaper also published several photographs in which the police chief and Mr S. were pictured together. It appears that these pictures were made during a private occasion and were subsequently published by the paper and TV media (see paragraph 15 below). The article stated, inter alia, that: “An ... inquiry revealed that ... S. was never employed by the Tax Police. The person who had blackmailed [local businessmen] was a former police officer, S., and the photographs [which he had showed to prove his authority] contained images of high officials of the Odessa Regional Police Department. But where did the ex-policeman ... get the photographs of G. and his deputies drinking with him and hugging him? Now he is showing these photographs to [businessmen] and thereby collects money for ... life. The examination of this relationship clarifies the statements of S. ... that ‘they will stand for me ...’. This story seems to prove the corruption in the Odessa Regional Police Department we were writing about.” 10. On 19 November 1997 the applicant published an article entitled “The Rogue and the General turn out to be relatives” (“Аферист и генерал оказались родственниками” – the fourth article), in which he recited the interview of certain Ms K. to a local TV station to the effect that the Chief of Police and Mr S. were distant relatives: “The scandal surrounding the head of the Odessa Regional Police Department, General G., continues. Condemned by the press for having patronised criminals, the General stands on firm ground so far. When we published ‘The Rogue and the General’, we did not know that S. and Grigorenko were brothers-in-law. ... The unlawful activity of S. is blessed by the figure of General G....” 11. On 7 July 1997 the Head of the Parliamentary Committee for Law and Order tabled a written question to the General Prosecutor raising concern as to the publications defaming the acting Prime Minister Durdynets. In July 1997 the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”), referring to the extracts from his articles quoted above, charged the applicant with intentional defamation in print (Article 125 § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1961), an unfounded accusation of committing a serious crime (Article 125 § 3) and abuse of power (Article 165). 12. On 9 December 1999 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv acquitted the applicant for lack of corpus delicti. However, in November 2000 the Kyiv City Court, on the prosecutor’s appeal, quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 13. On 7 June 2001 the Minsky District Court of Kyiv (hereinafter “the Minsky Court”) found the applicant guilty as charged. In the introductory part of the judgment the court noted the personal data of the applicant and, inter alia, stated that he was “previously unconvicted” (раніше не судимий). 14. With respect to the first and second articles, the court indicated that the applicant, having abused his office, published intentionally false and malicious statements to the effect that Mr Durdynets had persecuted the Polityka, had unlawfully dismissed Mr Stoginenko for his financing the newspaper and had summoned the General Prosecutor to his office with a view of giving him an order to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant. 15. As regards the third and fourth articles, the Minsky Court stated that the applicant, again abusing his office, had intentionally defamed the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine by publishing libellous and false information regarding General G., namely that Mr S. was involved in criminal activity and that Mr G. had had illegal links with this person. The court found that the statements that Mr S., aided and abetted by General G., had extorted money from local businessmen and that they were family related were false and offensive. This conclusion was made on the basis of, inter alia, testimonies of S. and a witness Z. who stated that the photographs, published by the Polityka, were taken at a private party, but somehow made their way to the paper and TV media. The police officers, who had investigated the complaints of the businessmen about the alleged extortions, also gave oral evidence, stating that the proceedings in the case were terminated on the early stage of the pre-trial investigation due to the lack of any corpus delicti. 16. The Minsky Court concluded that the applicant, as an editor-in-chief, was directly liable for any abusive material published in the newspaper. Using his office, the applicant had intentionally published false statements aimed at defaming the police in revenge for a certain unspecified previous conviction. 17. The applicant was convicted of abuse of power, intentional defamation in print and an unfounded accusation of committing a grave offence and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on probation and a two years prohibition on occupying posts involving media management. 18. On 18 October 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance, indicating that the fact that the imputed offences had been committed was proved by a wide range of evidence, collected by the prosecution. In particular, the court came to the conclusion that the applicant had made intentionally false and offensive statements concerning the unlawful dismissal of Mr Stoginenko and Mr Durdynets’ summons of the General Prosecutor to his office, the criminal activity of S. and his liaisons with General G., thus committing offences under Articles 125 and 165 of the Criminal Code, 1961. However, the appellate instance quashed the applicant’s sentence for intentional defamation in print and an unfounded accusation of committing a grave offence as these offences had been decriminalised by the new Criminal Code adopted in 2001. As regards the third offence imputed to the applicant – abuse of office – the applicant was exempted from punishment on account of expiry of the statutory limitation period. 19. On 23 July 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kežmarok. 6. The applicant and her husband held a joint tenancy of a three-room flat owned by a cooperative in Poprad. 7. Owing to differences with her husband, the applicant left the flat together with her two children in 1992. They started living in a two-room flat owned by the Poprad Municipality. It was leased by the applicant's father, who suffered from a long-term illness and died on 21 January 1994. The applicant and her two children, born in 1979 and 1982 respectively, continued to live in the flat. The applicant paid the rent. 8. In a decision which became final on 7 November 1994 a court granted a divorce order in respect of the applicant and her husband. Their children were placed in the applicant's custody. 9. On 6 February 1995 the applicant and her former husband reached an agreement whereby the latter would continue using the flat in which they had formerly lived together. On 6 March 1995 the cooperative which owned the flat and of which the applicant was a member approved a request for the flat to be exchanged for a one-room flat in Kežmarok. The applicant's former husband lived in the flat in Kežmarok until his death on 1 August 1995. His and the applicant's son inherited membership rights in respect of the cooperative which owned the flat in Kežmarok, including the right to use it. The applicant later started leasing the flat with a view to improving her financial situation. 10. After her father's death the applicant requested to be registered as permanently residing in the flat where she had lived since 1992. In a letter of 19 July 1995 the mayor of Poprad replied that the position was unclear. It had to be determined, in particular, whether the tenancy had passed to the applicant pursuant to Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code after her father's death. 11. On 4 August 1995 the Poprad Municipal Office informed the applicant that she had formally ceased to be a tenant of the flat which she had used with her former husband on 6 February 1995 – that is, after the death of her father. The right to use her father's flat had not passed to the applicant after the former's death as the requirements of Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code had not been met. 12. On 3 September 1996 the Poprad Municipal Office included the applicant on a list of persons seeking the tenancy of a flat. No municipal flat could be put at the applicant's disposal at that time as other persons were above her on the list. 13. As the applicant had refused to move out, on 30 August 1996 the Poprad Municipal Housing Company sought a judicial order for her eviction. 14. On 31 October 1996 the Poprad District Court ordered the applicant to move out of the flat within 30 days after its judgment had become final. On 29 October 1997 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The courts established that the applicant had not become a tenant of the flat originally used by her father since, at the time of the latter's death, she had been registered as a user of a different flat, in which she had lived with her former husband. The requirements of Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code had not been met. After her father's death the applicant had lived in the flat in issue without any justification. In addition, the District Court held that the applicant could live in the flat in Kežmarok which her son had inherited from her former husband. The plaintiff had rightly sought the protection of its ownership rights in respect of the flat. 15. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the plaintiff company lacked the capacity to take part in the proceedings. On 28 July 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law, holding that the plaintiff was a legal entity established by the Poprad Municipality. As such it had standing to sue the applicant. 16. The Poprad Municipality requested that the order be enforced. The applicant objected that her son had reached the age of majority and that she could not live in his flat in Kežmarok. The Poprad District Court dismissed the objection on 10 May 1999, holding that the issue could not be examined in the context of the enforcement proceedings. On 18 June 1999 an enforcement officer enforced the judgment, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Executions Order 1995, with the result that the applicant was obliged to move out of the flat in which she had lived since 1992. 17. On 8 July 1999 that flat was allocated to a municipal employee who lived in a one-room flat and who had applied, on 24 June 1999, for a bigger one as she had to take care of an elderly and ill relative. Later the new tenant acquired ownership of the flat for a relatively small sum in accordance with the relevant law. 18. The applicant, with her under-age daughter, started living in the one-room flat in Kežmarok inherited by the applicant's son. The flat has a surface area of 33 square metres. The applicant has continued to work in Poprad. The distance between the two towns is approximately 15 kilometres. 19. The applicant filed a petition under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, alleging, inter alia, a violation of her constitutional right to protection of her private and family life as well as a violation of her ownership rights in the proceedings referred to above. She argued that the municipality had been informed that she had moved to her father's flat in 1992 with the intention of living there permanently. She had requested to be allocated municipal housing and had therefore believed that her interests would be protected. The municipality's argument that she could live in her son's one-room flat in Kežmarok was unreasonable. In addition, her daughter, who was under age, was disturbed by having to live in that flat as the girl's father had committed suicide there. 20. On 12 April 2000 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint alleging a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her private and family life. 21. On 10 July 2001 the Constitutional Court found that by its judgment of 29 October 1997 the Prešov Regional Court had violated the applicant's rights under Article 19 § 2 and Article 21 § 3 of the Constitution. 22. The decision stated that the ordinary courts' conclusion that the requirements of Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code had not been met in the applicant's case was correct as such. It also had to be considered, however, whether there had been a pressing social need for the interference and whether it had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. 23. The applicant had not acted contrary to the law when she had moved to her father's flat in 1992. She had lived in that flat continuously, together with her children, even after her father's death. At the time of the examination of the request for her eviction the applicant had had no other place to live. The flat was to be regarded, therefore, as the applicant's home. 24. The Constitutional Court noted that Article 3 of the Civil Code permitted the granting of relief from hardship in justified cases by ensuring that alternative accommodation should be provided to persons who had been ordered to move out of a flat. As to the Supreme Court's practice and, in particular, judgment no. 1 Cdo 48/97 (see paragraph 40 below), the circumstances of the applicant's case were different in that the applicant had legally moved into the flat in 1992 and the flat was owned by the municipality and not by individuals. In any event, neither Article 3 § 1 of the Civil Code nor any other legal provision could be interpreted and applied in a manner producing effects incompatible with Slovakia's obligations under international treaties. 25. In view of Article 20 § 3 of the Constitution, the municipality's ownership rights in respect of the flat could not be dissociated from its obligation to assist citizens of Poprad in having their basic needs satisfied. In the circumstances of the case, it should have been examined whether ordering the applicant to leave the flat, together with her under-age daughter and without providing them with alternative accommodation, was contra bonos mores within the meaning of Article 3 § 1 of the Civil Code. The protection of family, minors and juveniles under Article 41 of the Constitution should also have been taken into account. 26. Furthermore, the Poprad Municipality had registered the applicant as a person seeking a flat, after having verified whether her request had been justified, at approximately the same time as it had initiated judicial proceedings for her eviction. It should have been verified whether the municipality, as the owner and manager of municipal flats, had a compelling reason for ordering the applicant to move out of the flat immediately without being obliged to provide her with alternative accommodation. 27. The Constitutional Court did not consider the applicant's behaviour improper. In 1992 she had left the cooperative flat where she had lived with a view to avoiding the negative impact of her husband's inappropriate behaviour on her and her children. The applicant had petitioned for divorce and her return to that flat would not have resolved her personal situation as her husband also had the right to use it. 28. Finally, the applicant had used the flat for a long time and the representatives of the municipality had initially not taken a firm standpoint as regards her title to use the flat. Reference was made, in particular, to the mayor's letter of 19 July 1995. The owner of the flat had therefore contributed to the applicant's belief that she would not be obliged to leave the flat without alternative accommodation being provided to her. In 1996, when the judicial proceedings had started, the applicant had been in a difficult situation as the mother of two under-age children who had lost their father. 29. When deciding the case, the Prešov Regional Court had not duly considered the above relevant facts. Its decision to uphold the first-instance judgment ordering the applicant to leave the flat without being provided with any other accommodation therefore amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her private and family life and for her home which was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. As a result, and also having regard to the particular protection which Article 41 § 1 of the Constitution afforded to children and juveniles, that interference could not be regarded as being necessary in a democratic society.

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Smederevo. 6. In 1998 the applicant married P.V. and later that year their daughter A.V. was born. 7. Initially, the applicant lived with P.V.'s parents in Krupanj while P.V. remained in Belgrade in order to finish his studies. 8. In 2001 the applicant and P.V. started having marital problems, apparently as a result of this separation. 9. On 24 February 2001 the applicant and A.V. moved to her parents' house in Smederevo, where they stayed for a period of four months and wherefrom the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Krupanj (Opštinski sud u Krupnju), seeking the dissolution of her marriage, custody of A.V. and child maintenance. 10. On 19 July 2001 the Municipal Court in Krupanj (“the Municipal Court”) issued a partial judgment, dissolving the marriage. The proceedings, thereafter, continued in respect of the child custody/maintenance sought by the applicant. 11. On 10 April 2002 the Mental Health Institute (Institut za mentalno zdravlje) recommended that custody be granted to the applicant and held that P.V. was “incapable of adequately taking into account” the needs of A.V., including and especially her need for communication with the applicant. 12. On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. In so doing, inter alia, it granted her custody of A.V. and ordered P.V. to pay 10% of his monthly salary as child maintenance. 13. On 17 December 2004 the District Court in Šabac (Okružni sud u Šapcu) upheld the ruling of the Municipal Court. P.V. was apparently served with this judgment some two months later, which is when the Municipal Court's judgment became enforceable. 14. On 9 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia (Vrhovni sud Srbije) confirmed the decision of the District Court in Šabac (“the District Court”), at third instance. 15. Given that, as of 29 June 2001, A.V. was staying with P.V. and his parents in Krupanj (see paragraph 39 below), on 11 March 2005 the applicant requested enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour. 16. On 18 March 2005 the Municipal Court accepted this request. It ordered P.V. to surrender A.V. to the applicant within three days, warned him that he would otherwise be fined, and stated that, should the fine fail to bring about compliance, A.V. would be taken forcibly, in co-operation with the local Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalni rad). 17. On 11 April 2005 the District Court upheld this decision. 18. On 28 April 2005 the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 25 May 2005, on which occasion P.V. was supposed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. This hearing, however, was never held because P.V. informed the Municipal Court that he was unable to attend and the applicant thereafter apparently decided not to appear. 19. The next hearing was held on 8 June 2005. Both the applicant and P.V. attended, as did a psychologist from the Social Care Centre. P.V. again failed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. The psychologist stated that A.V. should not be removed forcibly but should instead be gradually prepared for the custody transfer. On the same occasion, P.V. apparently agreed to facilitate the applicant's contact with A.V. immediately following the hearing. This meeting between the applicant and A.V., however, never materialised, which is why the Municipal Court fined P.V. in the amount of 20,000 Dinars (“RSD”), at the time equivalent to approximately 242 euros (“EUR”). On 20 June 2005 this fine was upheld by the District Court on appeal. 20. On 12 August 2005 the Municipal Court adjourned the hearing in view of the fact that P.V. had failed to appear in person. The applicant, however, had sent a written explanation in advance, stating that she had informally learned that both P.V. and A.V. were out of town and would not attend the hearing. The applicant stated that she could not afford to travel from Smederevo merely in order to be present at a hearing which was bound to be adjourned. On the same date the Municipal Court fined P.V. in the amount of RSD 50,000, at the time equivalent to approximately EUR 594. On 19 September 2005 this fine was upheld by the District Court on appeal. 21. On 7 December 2005 the Municipal Court ordered P.V.'s employer, a local primary school, to deduct the said RSD 50,000 from his salary and have it transferred to the Municipal Court's account. 22. Both the applicant and P.V. attended the next hearing before the Municipal Court held on 11 January 2006. P.V. stated, however, that he did not bring A.V. because she had refused to come of her own free will and he did not want to force her. The enforcement judge thereafter, accompanied by the parties and several police officers, went to P.V.'s home but found the house vacant. On the same date the Municipal Court therefore again fined P.V. in the amount of RSD 60,000, at the time equivalent to approximately EUR 689. 23. The next hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 2 February 2006 was adjourned. P.V. attended but did not bring A.V. and the Director of the Social Care Centre informed the court that no psychologist was available. 24. On 9 March 2006 the Municipal Court held another hearing. It was attended by both the applicant and P.V., as well as by two psychologists, but A.V. was again not present. The psychologists agreed that A.V. should, if at all possible, be gradually prepared for the custody transfer, but had also stated that continued uncertainty was not in her best interests and that a forcible transfer of custody could thus ultimately be unavoidable. Finally, the Municipal Court decided that P.V. should facilitate the applicant's access to A.V. and that, should he fail to do so, on 17 March 2006 A.V. would be taken forcibly. 25. On 17 March 2006 P.V. did not appear at the hearing scheduled before the Municipal Court, but the applicant, the police and a child psychologist were present. On the same date a forcible transfer of custody was attempted but, again, P.V.'s house was found to be vacant. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 April 2006. 26. On 12 April 2006, however, P.V. filed a submission with the Municipal Court, seeking the postponement of the scheduled enforcement. He pointed out that A.V. was a first grade student and that it would therefore be better to wait until the academic year was over. 27. On 13 April 2006 the applicant filed a submission with the Municipal Court, stating that she was informed by the judge that the enforcement scheduled for 14 April 2006 could not take place in view of the fact that the presence of a psychologist could not be secured. The hearing scheduled for 14 April 2006 was thus adjourned. 28. On 26 May 2006 the Municipal Court attempted to carry out the transfer of custody, in the presence of the applicant, the police, as well as a child psychologist, but was unable to do so given that A.V. could not be located at her primary school and was later found to be “at the doctor's”. 29. On 14 June 2006 the Municipal Court again attempted to carry out the forcible transfer of custody. The applicant, several police officers and a child psychologist were present. Ultimately, the enforcement judge ordered that P.V.'s house be broken into. Once this was done, P.V. was found to be inside the house but A.V. was not there. On the same occasion P.V. stated that he did not want to cooperate with the Municipal Court or, indeed, give any information as to A.V.'s whereabouts. 30. On 20 June 2006 P.V. requested that the enforcement proceedings be postponed in view of an interim measure issued in his favour within a separate set of proceedings (see paragraph 44 below). 31. On 1 September 2006 the Municipal Court's enforcement judge in charge of the applicant's case withdrew from the proceedings, stating that he did not meet the recently introduced legal requirements in respect of judges dealing with family matters (see paragraph 61 below). Since the Municipal Court in Krupanj had no other suitable judge, on 13 October 2006 the applicant's case was forwarded to the Municipal Court in Loznica (Opštinski sud u Loznici). 32. On 31 October 2006 the said court rejected P.V.'s request of 20 June 2006. 33. The next hearing was scheduled for 24 January 2007. 34. On 18 January 2007 the applicant apparently suggested that this hearing be held in her absence given that she was six months pregnant and specifically advised not to travel. She urged the Municipal Court, however, to arrange that A.V. be transferred to her custody at the premises of the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, her hometown. At the same time, P.V. apparently pleaded that the enforcement be postponed in view of the fact that the Municipal Court in Loznica had, within a separate set of civil proceedings, reversed the custody judgment rendered in the applicant's favour (see paragraph 48 below). 35. It would appear that the hearing scheduled for 24 January 2007 was thus adjourned. 36. On 2 February 2007 the Municipal Court in Loznica accepted P.V.'s request and formally postponed the enforcement proceedings until there was a final decision in the separate civil suit concerning A.V.'s custody. The court relied on Article 64 § 1 of the Enforcement Procedure Act (see paragraph 56 below). 37. The applicant complained about the delay in the enforcement proceedings to: i) the President of the Municipal Court on 29 November 2005, 20 February 2006 and 3 May 2006; ii) the President of the District Court on 10 June 2005, 20 February 2006 and 3 May 2006; and iii) the Ministry of Justice on 20 February 2006. 38. On 8 December 2005 the President of the Municipal Court informed the applicant that she was fully aware of the urgency of the matter in question, but explained that the court only had three active judges which is why the delay was objectively justified. 39. On 29 June 2001, following a meeting at the Social Care Centre in Smederevo, P.V. took A.V. to his parents' house in Krupanj, which is where she has been living ever since. 40. On 25 October 2001 the same Social Care Centre stated that P.V. had done so forcibly, disregarding the best interests of A.V. 41. As of 29 June 2001, the applicant was only able to see A.V. at the premises of the Social Care Centre in Krupanj, and even there for very short periods of time. 42. Since March 2005, however, following the institution of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant has been deprived of all access to A.V. 43. On 12 April 2006 P.V. filed a separate civil suit, seeking the reversal of the final judgment of 25 February 2004 (see paragraphs 12-13 above). 44. On 14 June 2006 the Municipal Court in Loznica issued an interim measure, ruling that A.V. could stay with P.V. until the end of the academic year. 45. On 4 July 2006 this decision was quashed by the District Court on appeal. 46. On 14 June 2006 the Social Care Centre in Krupanj, P.V.'s hometown, proposed that custody of A.V. be given to P.V. 47. On 18 October 2006 the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, the applicant's hometown, proposed that the applicant retain her custody of A.V. 48. On 13 December 2006 the Municipal Court in Loznica ruled in favour of P.V. It granted him full custody of A.V. and ordered the applicant to pay 25 % of her monthly salary as child maintenance, pro futuro, plus the accrued maintenance from 12 April 2006 to 12 December 2006. Finally, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs and granted limited access rights: i) from 13 December 2006 to 13 March 2007, two hours every Friday, at the premises of the Social Care Centre based in Krupanj; ii) from 14 March 2007 onwards, one weekend monthly as well as every other birthday plus fifteen days of summer and seven days of winter vacation annually. 49. In its reasoning the Municipal Court explained that it accepted the recommendation of the Social Care Centre based in Krupanj which had stated, inter alia, that A.V. was properly cared for by P.V., that she was fully adapted to her current family situation and that any transfer of custody to the applicant would thus be traumatic. The recommendation of the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, however, was dismissed, inter alia, because it was found to be contradictory and the centre had failed to establish direct contact with A.V. The court further noted that A.V., when heard in person, had stated that she wanted to stay with P.V. to whom she was deeply attached and, also, that the applicant had, with the passage of time, become estranged from her. Finally, the Municipal Court noted that the applicant had remarried and lost interest in A.V. and that she had failed effectively to take part in the proceedings. 50. On 14 March 2007 the District Court upheld the judgment of the Municipal Court in Loznica concerning the custody of A.V. In that respect, it thereby became final. At the same time, however, the District Court quashed the impugned judgment as regards the monthly child maintenance, the applicant's access rights, as well as the costs awarded, and ordered that those issues be re-examined at first instance. 51. In 2001 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against P.V., alleging that he had illegally taken exclusive custody of A.V. This complaint, however, appears to have been rejected by the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Opštinsko javno tužilastvo) in Krupanj at some point thereafter, since no final custody judgment was rendered by the courts. 52. On 24 February 2005 the applicant filed another criminal complaint, this time with the police department in Smederevo, stating that she had been threatened by P.V. in connection with her attempts to have her lawful custody rights enforced. 53. Finally, following the adoption of the custody judgment in her favour, in 2006 the applicant filed yet another criminal complaint against P.V., this time under Article 191 § 1 of the Criminal Code 2005 (see paragraph 69 below). It would appear, however, that this complaint was also subsequently rejected by the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office in Krupanj. 54. On 17 March 2006 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the chief accountant of the primary school in which P.V. was employed, alleging that he had refused to implement the Municipal Court's order of 7 December 2005 (see paragraph 21 above).

5. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah. 6. On 13 June 1995 the Žiri Municipality instituted enforcement proceedings against the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. before the Kranj Basic Court. 7. On 28 June 1995 the writ of execution was issued. The company lodged an objection. 8. On 5 September 1995 the first-instance court issued a decision annulling the writ of execution. 9. On 6 November 1995 the case was referred to the Kranj District Court and was to be decided in the framework of contentious proceedings. 10. On 21 November 1999 the court issued a decision that it had no jurisdiction and the case was referred to Škofja Loka Local Court. 11. On 25 November 1999 the Škofja Loka Local Court initiated a jurisdictional dispute. 12. On 30 August 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court assigned the case to the Kranj District Court. 13. On 17 October 2000 the first-instance court received an extract from the Register of Companies stating that the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. had been struck out from the Register pursuant to Article 580 § 5 and 6 of the Companies Act. 14. On 8 January 2001 the creditor requested the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant, since he had been the founder and owner of the company. 15. On 27 August 2001 the first-instance court issued a decision on continuation of proceedings against the applicant. 16. On 10 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal and a request for an exemption from court fees. 17. On 24 October 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal. 18. On 20 December 2001 the applicant lodged a request for protection of legality, which was rejected. 19. On 27 August 2002 the Kranj District Court issued a decision staying the proceeding pending the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the suspension of implementation of a chapter of the Financial Operations of Companies Act. 20. On 17 January 2003 the proceedings resumed. 21. On 17 December 2003 a hearing concerning the possibility of a settlement was held. The applicant lodged a request for legal aid, an exemption from court fees and a counterclaim seeking compensation for damages. 22. On 11 February 2004 a hearing was held and the first-instance court rendered a judgment annulling the writ of execution of 28 June 1995. An appeal was lodged. 23. On 16 February 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination. 24. On 31 August 2005 a hearing was held and the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the writ of execution. The applicant appealed. 25. On 21 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and annulled the writ of execution. 26. On 4 September 2006 the applicant lodged a request claiming reimbursement of legal costs. His request was rejected on 10 October 2006.

5. The applicants were born in 1979, 1976, 1979, 1979 and 1979 respectively and live in Chişinău. Three of the applicants are journalists, one is a teacher of French and another is a librarian. They are friends. 6. At the time of the events the first two applicants were employed by a newspaper specialising in investigative journalism. The newspaper was involved in numerous scandals and lawsuits. In October 2002 its editor in chief was arrested on charges of corruption. According to the applicants, after that event two of them developed close relationships with the four police officers involved in the arrest of the editor in chief and one of them was even involved in a romantic relationship with one of the four police officers. According to the applicants, the police officers in question provided them with material for their work at the newspaper. The Government disputed the factual circumstances concerning the close relationship between the applicants and the four police officers. 7. In January 2003 a person calling himself Petrus came to the headquarters of the newspaper employing the first two applicants and offered to sell a video containing explicit images of a priest engaged in promiscuous behaviour. It appeared later that Petrus was member of a criminal gang and that the video in question had been used to blackmail the priest. The information was passed on to the four police officers and on 25 January 2003 three of the applicants helped the police officers to apprehend Petrus. One applicant was remunerated for her assistance and, on 27 January 2003, wrote a receipt to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Government disputed the applicants’ submissions concerning the arrest of Petrus and the applicants’ involvement therein. They confirmed the fact that one of the applicants had received money from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, however, without specifying the consideration for the payment. 8. Also in January 2003 one of the first two applicants became acquainted with a person named S.D., who was involved in a dispute with the Municipal Council about which the applicant wrote an article. On 31 January 2003 all the applicants, the four police officers and S.D. spent the evening in a sauna near Chişinău. The Government disputed the allegation that the four police officers had spent time in a sauna with the applicants and with S.D. 9. On 7 May 2003 the first applicant was allegedly contacted by one of the four police officers and was asked not to publish an article about illegalities at the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to appear the next day. The police officer took the applicant to a store, apparently specialising in electronics, where he showed her a video of her and the other applicants filmed on 31 January 2003 in the sauna and threatened to have it broadcast on national television if his conditions were not met and added that copies of the video would be sent to the applicants’ parents. He also allegedly threatened her with imprisonment and violence and warned her that her collaboration with the police would be made public. The first applicant informed the police officer in question that it was too late to stop the article’s publication since the material had already been sent to the printing house. On 8 May 2003 the article in question was published. 10. On 10 May 2003 at 7.30 p.m. the national television service broadcast a programme dedicated to the phenomenon of corruption and the moral character of journalists from the newspaper employing the applicants. The programme was presented by the president of the national television service and S.D. was a guest. The guest was presented as a businessman who alleged that he had bribed the second applicant to secure the publication of material. He also described his and the applicants’ evening in the sauna on 31 January 2003, and stated that one of the applicants had stolen money from the pocket of his trousers and that the applicants intended to kidnap his child for ransom. S.D. also alleged that the newspaper employing the applicants belonged to an opposition leader. The programme continued with footage from a black and white video filmed in the sauna. The applicants were seen in their underwear, apparently intoxicated, using obscene language. Two of the applicants were kissing and touching one of the men, and one of them was performing an erotic dance. The face of the male was covered in the video, whereas those of the applicants were not and the video was paused from time to time in order to allow them to be recognised more easily. The video appears to have been shot from a static camera and at least one of the male participants appears to have been aware of the filming, since he gave the “thumbs up” sign to the camera when none of the applicants was looking. A copy of the receipt issued to the Ministry of Internal Affairs was also shown in the programme and offensive terms with meanings such as “low class prostitutes” were employed when images of the applicants were shown. The programme continued with footage from a video of the arrest of the editor in chief of the newspaper employing the applicants. According to the applicants, that video had been part of a criminal case-file and not for public use. This information was not disputed by the Government. On 13 May 2003 the programme was broadcast again by the national television service. 11. On 17 and 20 May 2003 the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint about the blackmail which she and her colleagues had been subjected to and about the abuse of power committed by the four police officers. She submitted, in particular, that the police officers had invited her and her colleagues to a sauna and secretly filmed them, after which they had attempted to blackmail them with the video. 12. In examining the complaint the Prosecutor’s Office questioned four of the applicants, all of whom gave similar accounts of the facts of the case and accused the four police officers of the secret filming and blackmail. The police officers were questioned too, and all denied having had close relationships with the applicants and going with them to a sauna on 31 January 2003. They denied any implication in the secret filming, the allegations of blackmail and those concerning the transmitting of the video to the national television service. S.D. submitted that the video had been shot with his camera and that one of the applicants had accidentally switched the camera on and placed it on a shelf. He had discovered the video several months later and decided to take it to the national television service allegedly in order to prevent one of the applicants from kidnapping his child. He alleged not to have known the applicants’ male friends who had been with them in the sauna on 31 January 2003. The Prosecutor’s Office inquired with the Ministry of Internal Affairs whether the first applicant had ever received money in exchange for collaborating with the police and, in particular, whether she had helped bring about the arrest of a person called Petrus. In reply the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not answer the first question and stated that the Ministry had the right to have secret collaborators and remunerate them. The Ministry also informed the Prosecutor’s Office that there were no records on anyone named Petrus in its database. 13. On 20 June 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected the first applicants’ criminal complaint and refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the complaint was ill-founded. The first applicant appealed. 14. On 24 July 2003 the hierarchically superior Prosecutor’s Office quashed the above-mentioned decision on the ground that the investigation had not been thorough. In particular, it noted that the lower Prosecutor’s Office had failed to determine how the receipt issued by one of the applicants to the Ministry of Internal Affairs was transmitted to the national television service. It was also noted that the payment of money to that applicant was to be checked with the Ministry of Finance, the administrator of the public funds. 15. On 5 September 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the first applicant’s criminal complaint on the ground that the receipt of 27 January 2003 did not constitute a State secret and that its disclosure to the national television service was not an offence. As to the complaint concerning the alleged abuse of power by the four police officers, it was also found to be ill-founded because it had not been established that the applicants had ever assisted in bringing about the arrest of Petrus. The first applicant appealed against this decision and submitted, inter alia, that what she was remunerated for by the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not been established. She also submitted that the investigators had failed to examine the original video from the sauna and that they had failed to examine the complaint about blackmail. 16. On 19 February 2004 the Centru District Court quashed the Prosecutor’s decision of 5 September 2003 on the ground, inter alia, that the Prosecutor’s Office had failed to examine the first applicant’s complaint concerning blackmail. 17. On 2 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant on the ground that the dissemination of defamatory information was not an offence under Moldovan law. The first applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. However, the appeal was dismissed on 3 June 2005 and a subsequent appeal was finally dismissed by the Centru District Court on 28 July 2005. On 19 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an extraordinary appeal lodged by the first applicant. 18. In the meantime, all the applicants lodged an action with a civil court seeking compensation for the breach of Article 8 of the Convention by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the national television service. They complained about the unlawful secret filming by the police in the sauna, the disclosure of the applicants’ collaboration with the police and the broadcasting of the video from the sauna on national television. The applicants also complained about the defamatory nature of some of the statements made on the programme aired on national television on 10 May 2003. For the alleged breaches they sought compensation in amounts varying between 9,000 and 45,000 euros. 19. On 21 July 2006 the Centru District Court upheld the part of the applicants’ action against the national television service concerning the broadcasting of the video from the sauna and the defamatory statements made during the programme of 10 May 2003. The court considered that there was no public interest in broadcasting the video from the sauna. The rest of the applicants’ action was dismissed as ill-founded, the court finding that the applicants had failed to prove that the video had been shot by the four police officers. The applicants appealed. 20. On 18 December 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of the Centru District Court of 21 July 2006 and found the Ministry of Internal Affairs responsible for the filming in the sauna on 31 January 2003, for blackmailing the applicants and for handing to the national television of the video of the sauna scene and of a copy of the receipt issued to the Ministry of Internal Affairs to one of the applicants. The finding was based on the statements made by all the applicants during the criminal investigation, on the fact that the programme of 10 May 2003 contained images from the video of the arrest of the editor in chief of the newspaper employing two of the applicants, a video which was not publicly available (see paragraph 10 above) and on the presence in the programme of a copy of a receipt issued by one of the applicants. The judges of the Court of Appeal also recognised the man making a “thumbs up” sign in the video (see paragraph 10 above) as being one of the four police officers. The court also found the national television service responsible for broadcasting the video from the sauna. The court ordered the defendants to pay the applicants non-pecuniary damage varying between 8,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 480 euros (EUR)) and MDL 20,000 (the equivalent of EUR 1,200) and compensation for costs and expenses in the amount of MDL 42,697 (the equivalent of EUR 2,560). All the parties lodged appeals on points of law. 21. On 1 August 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice gave a final ruling in the case. It found the statements made during the programme of 10 May 2003 to the effect that the applicant journalists had been bribed to publish an article and that they intended to kidnap a child defamatory. The court also found that the disclosure by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of one of the applicants’ collaboration with the police by way of disclosing a receipt written by her had breached her right to respect for her private life. A similar breach with regard to all the applicants was found in respect of the broadcasting of the video of the sauna scene on national television without their consent and in the absence of a public interest justification. The court also found that the secret filming in the sauna constituted an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. However, relying on the outcome of the criminal investigation, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the secret filming of the sauna scene had been carried out by employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. At the same time the court concluded that the Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for unlawfully transmitting to the national television service secret video material from a criminal case file, namely, a video of the arrest of the editor in chief of the newspaper employing the first and second applicants. 22. The Supreme Court ordered the national television service to pay each applicant MDL 3,600 (the equivalent of EUR 214) for non-pecuniary damage caused by the broadcasting of the video of the sauna scene. It also ordered the guest on the programme of 10 May 2003, S.D., to pay the second applicant MDL 1,800 (the equivalent of EUR 107) for defamation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to pay MDL 3,600 (the equivalent of EUR 214) to the first applicant for disclosing her collaboration with the police. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the applicants MDL 42,697 (the equivalent of EUR 2,560) for costs and expenses. In reducing the amounts awarded by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice argued that the awards had to be in compliance with Article 7/1 of the old Civil Code, in force at the time of the events (see paragraph 23 below).

6. The applicants were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively and are currently being held in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırklareli. 7. The applicants joined the People’s Mojahedin Organisation in Iran (“the PMOI”, also known as the “Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization”) in 1992 and 2001 respectively. They arrived in Iraq on unspecified dates. They lived in Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated in Iraq, until they left the organisation in 2005 and 2006 respectively, because they disagreed with the PMOI’s goals and methods. After leaving the PMOI, they went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces in Iraq. This facility was subsequently named the Ashraf Refugee Camp (“ARC”). 8. On 5 May 2006 and 16 October 2007, after being interviewed, the applicants were recognised as refugees by the UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva during their stay in Iraq. As regards the first applicant, the UNHCR found that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran on grounds of his political opinion, his character and the firm conviction with which he held his political opinions. In particular, having regard to the applicant’s link to the PMOI for 10 years, to the treatment of members of the PMOI in Iran and to his explicit opinions on the need for a secular State in his country of origin, the UNHCR considered that the applicant had established to a reasonable degree that his situation would be followed up by the security agencies which would make his stay in Iran intolerable if he returned there. 9. As regards the second applicant, the UNHCR found that he had a well-founded fear of violations by Iranian authorities of, inter alia, his right to life through an arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, freedom from torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest or detention, as well as his right to a fair and public trial. In particular, having regard to the applicant’s membership of the PMOI and to his political opinions and the treatment of actual and suspected members of the PMOI and its sympathisers in Iran, the UNCHR considered that the evidentiary threshold of “reasonable likelihood” that the applicant would face treatment such as arbitrary detention and torture was satisfied. 10. In April 2008 the TIPF was closed down and the applicants, along with other former PMOI members, were transferred to northern Iraq. 11. On an unspecified date the applicants arrived in Turkey. They were arrested by security forces and, as they had entered Turkish territory illegally, were deported back to Iraq on 17 June 2008. 12. They immediately re-entered Turkey. 13. On 21 June 2008 they were arrested by road checkpoint gendarmerie officers from the Gökyazı gendarme station, in Muş, as their passports were found to be false. 14. On 21 June 2008 the applicants made statements to the gendarmerie officers. The applicants contended that they would be executed if returned to Iran, due to their opposition to the Iranian Government’s policies, and that their lives had also been at risk in Iraq. They stated that they wished to go to Istanbul in order to request asylum and leave for Canada. 15. The applicants were subsequently placed in the foreigners’ department at the police headquarters in the Hasköy district of Muş. 16. On 23 June 2008 the Muş public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Muş Magistrates’ Court, charging the applicants with illegal entry into Turkey. 17. On the same day the applicants were brought before the Muş Magistrates’ Court. Noting that the applicants would be deported, the judge communicated the bill of indictment to the applicants and took their statements regarding the charge against them. The applicants submitted that they had left Iran as they faced a risk of death in that country and that they had come to Turkey illegally, with the assistance of a smuggler, in order to go to Canada where they had family. The magistrates’ court convicted the applicants as charged but decided to defer the imposition of a sentence for a period of five years in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants were subsequently taken back to the Hasköy police headquarters. 18. According to the applicants’ submissions, on 28 June 2008 the national authorities once again attempted to deport them, this time to Iran. The applicants prevented their deportation by speaking Arabic and pretending not to understand Farsi. Consequently, the Iranian authorities refused to admit them to Iran. In their submissions to the Court, the Government made no mention of the purported deportation of the applicants to Iran. Instead, they noted that the applicants would be required to be deported to Northern Iraq, where they had come from. 19. On 30 June 2008 the director of the Muş branch of the Human Rights Association, Mr Vedat Şengül, went to the Hasköy police headquarters to visit the applicants at the request of the UNHCR Ankara office. According to Mr Şengül’s submissions, on the day of his visit the first applicant had attempted to commit suicide as he had been told by a police officer that he would be deported to Iran. The police had not allowed Mr Şengül to meet the applicants. 20. On 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2008 the applicants made further statements to the police and contended that they were former members of the PMOI. The first applicant noted that he had had English, Farsi and Arabic lessons as well as military training when he was in the organisation. He also stated that, while in the TIPF, he had been a photographer and taught Arabic. He said that he had not been involved in any armed activity. The second applicant stated that, apart from the aforementioned languages, he had also learned Turkish when he had been a member of the PMOI. He contended that he had lived in the TIPF for two years and had never been involved in any armed activity. Both applicants stated that they had come to Turkey in order to apply to the UNHCR, following advice by AmericanUSA officials to do so. 21. The applicants submitted identical petitions in Farsi to the police in Hasköy, which read as follows: “We entered Turkey with the assistance of a smuggler from the city of Diyana. We are refugees and used to reside in Erbil, Iraq. We came to Turkey in order to contact the UNHCR and ask it to process our [resettlement] cases. The UNHCR’s headquarters in Iraq was blown up by terrorists and it no longer has an office there. We request to stay in Turkey temporarily so that our cases can be processed. Our friends advised us that the only way to contact the UNHCR was to come to Turkey. We need a lawyer before we communicate [with you] further.” 22. The applicants signed these petitions. They also wrote down their UNHCR case numbers, the names of their parents and their dates of birth. 23. The applicants were held at the Hasköy police headquarters, in Muş until 26 September 2008, when they were transferred to the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. 24. On 18 October 2008 the applicants drafted petitions addressed to the Kırklareli governor’s office and sought temporary asylum in Turkey. According to the information in the case file, the applicants have not yet received any reply to their petitions. 25. On 15 December 2008 the second applicant married another Iranian asylum seeker held in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre. The director of the Centre assisted them in obtaining their marriage certificate. 26. On 16 January 2009 the second applicant had a power of attorney notarised for Mr A. Baba, and subsequently Ms S. Uludağ, lawyers practising in Istanbul, to represent him in Turkey. The notary agreed to notarise the power of attorney on the basis of the aforementioned marriage certificate. 27. On 16 March 2009 the second applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the Ministry of the Interior, challenging the second applicant’s detention. According to the information in the case file, the second applicant has not yet received any reply to his petition. 28. On 25 March 2009, upon a request from the UNHCR, the Government of Sweden agreed to examine the applicants’ cases for resettlement there. According to the information in the case file, that examination is still pending.

4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Tata. 5. At the request of his former employer, on 7 November 2002 the Tata District Court issued a payment order in the amount of approximately 42,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) against the applicant, a lawyer. Following his objection to the order, the case continued as civil litigation. 6. On 17 December 2002 it was transferred to the Komárom District Court, as the judges of the geographically competent Tata District Court felt biased on account of the applicant’s legal practice being attached to their court. 7. The Komárom District Court found for the plaintiff on 19 April 2005. The applicant appealed. 8. In the proceedings before the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court, a panel of three judges, including judges Dr D. and Dr K., withdrew themselves from the case on 4 July 2005. According to their reasoning: “In view of the fact that the respondent acts as a lawyer in the county, [and] we are in a work relationship, we find it justified for the sake of the impartial adjudication of the legal dispute that another county court proceeds in the case.” The case was transferred to another panel of the same court. 9. On 11 October 2005 the applicant challenged this second panel for bias, and subsequently extended his request to the whole court. He observed that the panel president, Dr V., had already declared himself biased in two other cases against him due to their daily work relationship. In one of these proceedings, Dr D. had declared herself biased as well. 10. On 26 January 2006 the Győr Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias. It pointed out that the judges of the panel had declared themselves impartial, along with two other judges of the court. Moreover, it argued that: “... Bias may, however, only be based on such facts [and] circumstances from which it follows objectively [and] logically that an impartial judgment is not ensured. The reason adduced by the respondent against the declarations of the five judges stating their impartiality is not suitable to establish bias.” 11. The applicant subsequently lodged another complaint for bias against the presiding judge, Dr V. Despite the antecedents, Dr V. again maintained that he was impartial. Therefore, the Regional Court found that there was no obstacle to deliver judgment, but nevertheless ordered the transfer of the complaint to the appeal court. However, it was ultimately dealt with by another panel of the Regional Court (see paragraph 13 below). 12. On 14 March 2006 a three-member panel of the Regional Court, with Dr V. acting as presiding judge, upheld the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 May 2006. 13. On 21 April 2006 another panel of the Regional Court, presided by Dr D. and including Dr K., dismissed the applicant’s second motion for bias filed against Dr V. It argued that “If the reason for disqualification according to section 13(1) e) of the Code of Civil Procedure is reported by a party and the judge does not consider himself partial in the case, then what needs to be ascertained is whether the actual existence of the reasons [and] facts reported to prove bias indeed justify the disqualification of the judge. ... [I]t is not of legal relevance that the judge previously, in a different type of case, agreed to his/her disqualification. As evidenced by the dispositions of the act, a judge is to be considered as biased if the objective adjudication of the given case may not be expected from him/her for some reason. The fact that the respondent already lodged motions of bias against the court or against certain judges of the court in several previous cases does not necessarily entail that the judges concerned become biased towards the party. In connection with the present case the respondent did not adduce any concrete ground or reason that the impartial adjudication of the present case could not be expected from the panel president. Considering moreover that the respondent did not lodge a motion for bias against the two [other] members of the panel, the Regional Court rejected the motion for disqualification (section 18 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure).”

5. The applicant, Mr Abbas Sertkaya, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Muş. He is represented before the Court by Mr Orhan Tural, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 6. On 12 July 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant and four other suspects under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, of being involved in seven different instances of setting forests on fire for terrorism purposes, in Bursa in 1994. 7. On 19 July 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first trial against the applicant and four other suspects. 8. On 6 February 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 9. On 4 May 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. 10. On 27 February 1997 and 1 July 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the Bursa and Varto Criminal Courts obtain the statements of witnesses. 11. On 22 September 1997 and 11 November 1997 these statements were obtained and sent to the Istanbul State Security Court. 12. On 16 November 1999 the Public Prosecutor before the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his observations on the merits of the case. On the same day the applicant was released pending trial. 13. On 13 February 2001 the applicant was acquitted of all charges on account of lack of evidence. 14. On 21 February 2001 the decision became final in respect of the applicant.

4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Listvennoye, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”). 5. On 16 August 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted in which the applicant was accused of having negligently caused a traffic accident resulting in a human death. 6. On 13 November 1995 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond. 7. On 22 November 1995 the applicant was committed for trial. 8. On 14 May 1996 the Sovetsky District Court of the ARC (Совєтський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим) found that during the pre-trial proceedings the rights of the defence had not been respected and ordered an additional investigation. 9. On 12 May 1997 the applicant was committed for trial. 10. On 22 August 1997 the judge remanded the applicant in custody. 11. On 2 October 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody. The applicant requested release, removal of the trial judge and the transfer of his case to another court. 12. On 25 November 1997, following the applicant’s request, the case was remitted to the Nyzhniegirsky District Court of the ARC (Нижнєгірський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим). 13. On 20 January 1998 the Nyzhniegirsky District Court remitted the case for an additional investigation and ordered the applicant’s release under an undertaking not to abscond. 14. On 11 February 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC (Верховний суд Автономної республіки Крим) allowed an appeal by the prosecution against the above decision and remitted the case to the Nyzhniegirsky District Court for a fresh consideration. 15. On 18 May 1999 the Nyzhnyegirsky District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges. The court found that the expert opinions produced by the prosecution were insufficient to prove the applicant’s guilt. On the same day the court issued a separate ruling to the effect that the police accident report of 13 August 1995 produced to the court had been forged. 16. On 22 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment and the separate ruling of 18 May 1999 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration. 17. In July 1999 the applicant requested suspension of the proceedings on the ground that he had lodged requests with the competent authorities to challenge the ruling of 22 June 1999 by way of a supervisory protest. The proceedings were suspended. By September 1999 the applicant’s requests for a supervisory protest were rejected. 18. In July 2000 the hearings resumed. 19. On 3 November 2000 the Nyzhniegirsky District Court remitted the case for an additional investigation. 20. On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Kirovsky District Court (Кіровський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим) for examination on the merits. 21. On 26 March 2001 the Kirovsky District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. However, in accordance with the Amnesty Act of 1998, he was released from punishment. The court also lifted the applicant’s undertaking not to abscond. 22. On 12 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC dismissed an appeal by the applicant. 23. On 21 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal in cassation.

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Łódź. 5. On 22 May 1991 the applicant filed a claim for payment against his former employer with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). On 2 December 1991 the court gave judgment. Upon the applicant's appeal the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacjny) remitted the case on 22 April 1992. 6. On 19 August 1993 the Regional Court held the first hearing in the case. Subsequently, hearings were held on 19 October 1993, 10 March and 26 April 1994. 7. In 1995 the court held two hearings, on 14 February and 13 June, and ordered the preparation of an expert opinion. 8. On 15 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment. 9. On 14 August 1996 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case. 10. On 16 June and 14 October 1997 the Regional Court held further hearings. On 28 October 1997 the Łódź Regional Court gave judgment. It was upheld by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 10 March 1998. 11. On 9 June 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 16 December 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held one hearing and gave judgment in which it dismissed the cassation appeal. 12. On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 10 May 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as it was inadmissible in law. 13. On 13 June 2005 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation for the alleged mistakes in the examination of his claims and for the protracted length of the proceedings. On 30 September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the claim. His appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 18 May 2006. The applicant submitted that he had not lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Government maintained that such an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. 14. In his letter of 30 March 2003 the applicant submitted additional complaints about another set of civil proceedings for reinstatement. 15. On 29 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Olsztyn District Court against a decision to dismiss him from work. 16. On 19 October 2000 the Olsztyn District Court gave judgment. On 15 January 2001 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

5. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Szczytno. 6. On 15 December 1946 the applicant’s parents’ house and farm were destroyed and burned down by the Security Office (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa) in the framework of a campaign against anti-communist resistance to which the applicant, his father and his brother belonged. Subsequently, his father and brother were convicted and prison sentences were imposed on them. 7. In 1993 the applicant’s brother requested that the decisions given in his criminal case be declared null and void on the strength of the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions of persons persecuted for activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego – “the 1991 Act”, see paragraphs 32 and 33 below). After six years of proceedings, a decision in the applicant’s brother’s favour was ultimately given in 1999. 8. On 31 January 2003 the applicant and his siblings filed a civil claim against the State Treasury with the Ostrołęka Regional Court. They claimed compensation for the destruction of their parents’ farm. 9. During the proceedings the State Treasury raised an objection of prescription against the compensation claim. 10. On 11 February 2004 the first-instance court held that the claim against the State Treasury was time-barred and dismissed the claim. The court observed that it was not in dispute that the farm had been burned to the ground by agents of the Security Office in the circumstances described by the plaintiffs. It further accepted that it had been a Stalinist crime. It was also an event which could give rise to the State’s liability in tort. The court confirmed that the applicant’s brother and father had subsequently been imprisoned. 11. The court went on to state that the State Liability Act (ustawa o odpowiedzialności Państwa za szkody wyrządzone przez funkcjonariuszów państwowych) adopted on 15 November 1956 (“the 1956 Act”) had had the specific purpose of creating a special legal framework making it possible for victims of Stalinist crimes to seek redress for damage they had suffered. It provided for a one-year time-limit for submitting relevant compensation claims (see paragraph 26 below). That time-limit had started to run on 28 November 1956, the date of publication of the 1956 Act. 12. The court further referred to a resolution given by the Supreme Court (III CZP 76/96, 11 October 1997; see paragraph 35 below). The Supreme Court had acknowledged that for general political reasons it might have been impossible for the victims to vindicate compensation claims in respect of Stalinist crimes having been committed before 4 June 1989, the date on which the first partially-free elections to parliament had been held and in respect of which it has been widely accepted that it had marked the collapse of the communist regime. Before that date victims of Stalinist persecution and also victims of later persecution against the State’s political opponents could legitimately fear that bringing such cases before the courts would provoke the State’s ire. Hence, it could be accepted that the one‑year time‑limit fixed by the provisions of the 1956 Act could be said to have started to run only on 4 June 1989. However, as the applicant had brought his case to the courts in 2003, his claim was time‑barred. 13. The court further held that the provisions of the Civil Code adopted in 1964 governing the State Treasury’s liability in tort provided for a three‑year time-limit. However, they were not applicable in the applicant’s case because compensation claims for Stalinist crimes were governed by the special liability regime created by the 1956 Act. 14. The court further observed that it was also possible to accept that the one-year time-limit, fixed by the provisions of the 1956 Act, should be understood as having started to run only from the date on which the plaintiffs had obtained the 1999 judicial decision confirming that the applicant’s family had been the victims of political repression. It could not be excluded that it had been only after that judgment that they had realised that their attempts to seek compensation for the damage suffered in 1946 and later years were not doomed to fail. However, their civil claim had been lodged with the court more than three years later. 15. The court further held that the State Treasury’s objection that the claim was time-barred did not amount to an abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 5 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 38 below). 16. The applicant, represented by a legal-aid lawyer, appealed. He submitted, inter alia, that given the particular factual and historical context of the case, the court had erred in holding that the State Treasury’s objection of prescription should not be seen as an abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 5 of the Civil Code. He stressed that it was not in dispute that the applicant and his family had been victims of political repression by the totalitarian regime. The destruction of the farm by the communist secret police had not been disputed. Hence, the objection made by the State, which had resulted in the applicant’s claim failing, had to be seen as an abuse of rights incompatible with the “principles of social co-existence”. It was precisely that objection, dictated by the fiscal interests of the State, which had made it possible for the State to leave people seriously wronged in the past by its own agents without any compensation for its use of violence and for manifest and undisputed damage wrought for political reasons. 17. The judgment was upheld on 25 November 2005 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. That court approved the findings of fact made by the lower court as to the destruction of the applicant’s parents’ farm and the imprisonment of the applicant’s family members. However, it also accepted the lower court’s conclusion that the compensation claim was time-barred. It concurred that the events giving rise to the damage, which were not in dispute, were governed as to the issue of liability by the special regime created in respect of Stalinist crimes by the 1956 Act. It further agreed that in the conditions of a non-democratic regime the running of the time-limit could be considered to have been stayed until the collapse of communism in 1989. The court further noted that the 1991 Act had not been applicable to the applicant’s civil case because it only concerned matters arising in connection with wrongful and politically-motivated criminal convictions handed down by the Stalinist authorities. It could only be resorted to in order to have criminal convictions declared null and void, but was not applicable in the context of civil cases and compensation claims. 18. The court endorsed the conclusions of the lower court, relying on the same resolution of the Supreme Court. It observed that even if the time‑limit was considered as having started to run in 1989, the claim also had to be declared time-barred. 19. The court further shared the conclusions of the lower court that the State Treasury had had the right to submit the objection of prescription and that such an objection in the applicant’s case had not amounted to a breach of Article 5 of the Civil Code, in so far as that provision prohibited abuse of one’s civil rights to the detriment of other persons. 20. On 26 November 2005 the applicant requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal to prepare written grounds for its judgment and announced his intention to lodge a cassation appeal against it. 21. On 29 December 2005 the applicant requested the Warsaw Court of Appeal to grant him legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 22. On 14 February 2006 the Court of Appeal served the judgment, with its written grounds on the applicant’s privately hired lawyer, who had apparently replaced the legal-aid lawyer representing the applicant earlier. On 16 February 2006 that lawyer informed the applicant that he had thirty days to lodge a cassation appeal. At that time, the relevant time‑limit was in fact sixty days (see paragraph 41 below). It was therefore due to expire on 14 April 2006. 23. On 27 February 2006 the court allowed the applicant’s request to be granted legal aid for the purposes of the proceedings before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 21 above). 24. On 3 March 2006 O.Z., the lawyer assigned to the applicant’s case under the legal-aid scheme, was informed that she had been assigned to the case. 25. In her written opinion of 7 April 2006 O.Z. explained to the applicant why she considered that there were no grounds on which a cassation appeal could be based and refused to prepare such an appeal on the applicant’s behalf.

5. In October 2004 Judge Z. instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court (Kirovograd) against the applicant company. He complained that his electricity had been cut off for unpaid bills, although he was entitled to a 50% reduction in electricity payments in accordance with section 44 of the Status of Judges Act and owed nothing. 6. On 26 October 2004 the court found that Judge Z. was entitled to the reduction in question, ordered the applicant company to reconnect his apartment to the electricity network, to cancel his debt (668.93 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the material time around 95.67 euros (EUR)) and to pay Judge Z. UAH 1,000 (at the material time around EUR 143) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It was not indicated what period the debt covered. 7. On 9 March 2005 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. It held, inter alia, that by cutting off the electricity in Judge Z.’s apartment the applicant company had breached “the judge’s immunity and inviolability of his residence” and that judges’ privileges should not depend on availability of “budget financing”. 8. On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant company’s appeal on points of law. This decision was taken in the applicant company’s representative’s absence and, according to the applicant company, was sent to it on 25 January 2007. On 8 February 2007 the applicant company appealed against the decision of 28 December 2006 under the extraordinary review procedure, but its appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 16 April 2007. 9. On 18 November 2005 the applicant company instituted proceedings in the Kyiv City Commercial Court against the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, claiming the amount allegedly unpaid by Judge Z. and reimbursement of the compensation awarded to Judge Z. and paid by the applicant company on 26 October 2004. The applicant company referred to section 17 of the Electric Power Industry Act, and stated that it followed from the law in force that it was for the State to cover the electricity payments, from which the judges were exempted. 10. The applicant company further referred to decision No. 426 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 31 March 2003 “On adoption of the Regulation on provision of privileges, compensation and guarantees to employees of the budget entities and to military personnel”, in which, according to the claimant, a mechanism for provision of the said privileges was created. In particular, the regulation provided that the reimbursement of expenses relating to an employee’s exemption from various payments should be covered by the budget-funded institution which employed him/her.. Therefore, the applicant company stated that the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal had failed to comply with its obligation to cover the remaining part of Judge Z.’s electricity expenses. 11. On 21 April 2006 the court found against the applicant company. It stated, inter alia, that: “The claimant’s reference to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 426 is irrelevant for the following reasons. Part 3 of the Regulation provides that expenses for reimbursement of costs for reduced payments are to be covered at the expense of and within the limits of budget allocations to budget entities. Part 5 of the Regulation provides that the person entitled to reduction should provide the copies of his receipted bills for communal charges to the accounts service of the relevant budget entity. The monetary equivalent of the relevant reductions and compensations is to be paid to the respective person together with other payments (salary etc.) (part 8 of the Regulation). The State Judicial Administration of Ukraine was created by the Presidential Decree no. 780 of 29 August 2002. It is a central executive authority which covers the logistical needs of the courts of general jurisdiction and of other judicial entities (Section 125 of the Judiciary Act). The logistical needs of the courts include financial, material, technical, personnel, informational and other activities which form part of an independent judiciary. In accordance with Section 120 of the above Act, the State Judicial Administration is a key budget spending unit which meets the needs of the courts of general jurisdiction. According to Section 121.1 of the above Act, the courts of general jurisdictions are financed in accordance with budget plans and monthly expenses plans, adopted in accordance with the Act, within the limits provided by the Budget Act for the relevant year, and in accordance with the Budget Code. ... As follows from the case materials, there were no breaches in the actions of the State Judicial Administration and of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal. They had no commercial obligations in respect of the claimant, and were not parties to its case with Z. It should be also noted that the State Judicial Administration, as a key budget spending unit in respect of the State expenses for financing the functioning of the general jurisdiction courts, did not receive any funding in 2003-2005 to cover judges’ communal charges expenses. As a key budget spending unit the State Judicial Administration creates a budget plan and submits it to the Ministry of Finance. It further receives budget allocations as provided in the State Budget Act pursuant to Sections 22 and 23 of the Budget Code of Ukraine. ... ... the State Judicial Administration has no right to make budget payments without a relevant budget allocation. Given that any payments ... from the Budget may only be made when there is a relevant budget specification, which was not provided by the 2003-2005 State Budget Acts in respect of payments by the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (as a key budget spending unit) for communal utilities for judges , the court sees no legal grounds for satisfying the claims”. 12. On 24 April 2007 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. 13. On 18 July 2007 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant company’s appeal on points of law. On 4 October 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant company’s request for leave to appeal on points of law against the decision of 28 July 2007. 14. In 2007-08 the applicant company instituted a number of proceedings against other judges, seeking payment in full for electricity (see Annex). The courts rejected the applicant company’s claims, referring to the legal provisions entitling judges to the reduction in question. The applicant company appealed, arguing that the law in force did not provide for an obligation on a private entity to cover judges’ welfare payments, which were for the State to make. The courts rejected this argument, finding that “material guarantees of judges’ independence should not depend on budget resources”. All the applicant company’s further appeals were to no avail.

8. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mardin. 9. On 22 December 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. 10. On 10 March 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand. 11. On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutor's office requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 12. On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment. Before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court, the applicant was tried together with 624 co-suspects. 13. Following the applicant's appeal, his case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation. 14. On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question. 15. On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention. 16. Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case. 17. On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the offence fell within the scope of Article 168 § 2 and consequently the statutory time‑limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired. It accordingly ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated. 18. On 10 September 1998 the judgment became final in respect of the applicant.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pskov. 6. From 5 January 2000 to 22 March 2001 the applicant worked at the Pskov Department of the Federal Debt Centre. On 22 March 2001 the Debt Centre terminated his employment due to its liquidation, failing to pay him certain compensation amounts. On various dates the domestic courts granted the applicant’s claims and awarded him compensation of salary arrears, indexation amounts, non-pecuniary damage and postal expenses. The particulars of the respective judgments may be summarized as follows: Domestic court Date of the judgment Final on Awarded amount, Russian roubles (RUB) Justice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov 27 June 2003 15 July 2003 20,634.50 Justice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov 15 September 2003 15 October 2003 2,421 Pskov Town Court, Pskov Region 13 September 2004 28 September 2004 3,470 Pskov Town Court, Pskov Region 12 May 2005 24 May 2005 1,529.42 7. The applicant submitted writs of execution in respect of the above judgments to the Ministry of Finance in 2003–2005. The writs were returned to him in September 2005. The applicant sought before the courts the clarifications as to the enforcement of the four judgments, but his claims were refused. He filed the writs anew with the Ministry of Finance in December 2006 and September 2009 and they were sent back to him without execution in June 2007 and December 2009 respectively. 8. In 2010 the applicant claimed compensation for the lengthy non‑enforcement of the judgment of 27 June 2003 under the Federal Law no. 68-ФЗ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”, see paragraph 12 below). On 10 December 2010 the Pskov Regional Court granted his claim and awarded the applicant RUB 30,000 (approximately 730 euros (EUR)) for non‑enforcement of the judgment, and RUB 200 for legal expenses. These amounts were fully paid to him on 16 March 2011. The judgment of 27 June 2003 remained unenforced. 9. In February 2012 the applicant again sent the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. The latter brought court proceedings seeking clarifications and amendment of the judgments, in the part related to the way of execution and rectification of calculation errors. By separate rulings of 29 March 2012 the Pskov Town Court and the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov amended the initial judgments as claimed. 10. On 18 April 2012 the four initial judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.

9. The applicant, Zvonko Čevizović, is a Croatian national born in 1966. When lodging his application, he was detained in Oldenburg, Germany. He is presently living in Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia. 10. On 17 June 1996 the applicant was arrested in Wilhelmshaven. On 18 June 1996 the Wilhelmshaven District Court issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on the ground that he was strongly suspected of having committed, with others, robbery connected with attempted murder. 11. On 4 November 1996 the Oldenburg Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with attempted murder, aggravated robbery, grievous physical injury and unauthorised carrying of weapons. 12. On 18 February 1997 the Oldenburg Regional Court admitted the indictment without modifications and decided to open the trial against the applicant and two other accused. The trial started on 14 March 1997 and took place on fifty-six days with an average duration of ninety minutes. On 22 May 1998 a lay assessor fell ill. As the additional lay assessor who was supposed to replace her had also fallen sick earlier on, the trial had to begin anew. 13. On 28 May 1998 the Oldenburg Regional Court upheld the arrest warrant against the applicant. It found that irrespective of the delay occasioned by the assessors’ illness, the applicant’s continued detention was proportionate given the serious nature of the crimes he was accused of. 14. On 2 June 1998 the trial reopened with two additional lay assessors. 15. On 22 June 1998 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Oldenburg Regional Court’s decision to uphold the arrest warrant. 16. On 25 March 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed request to suspend the warrant of arrest of 18 June 1996 on the ground that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having committed the crimes that he was accused of. On 7 May 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, reconsidered and confirmed its decision of 25 March 1999. It held that the delay in the trial had been caused by exceptional circumstances such as the difficulty in taking evidence, which required further investigations during the trial, and the illness of a lay assessor as well as the temporary illness of the presiding judge. The strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious crimes he was accused of had not been invalidated during the trial. As the applicant’s partner and son lived in Slovenia, the applicant was also likely to abscond if released. 17. On 1 June 1999 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the lower court, stating that although the applicant had at that point already been in custody for nearly three years, this did not justify his release. 18. On 9 July 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint. 19. On 14 June 2000 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s new request to suspend the warrant of arrest of 18 June 1996 on the ground that the allegedly new evidence submitted by the applicant did not justify such a suspension. It found that if released, the applicant was very likely to abscond, given the circumstances of his arrest and the sentence which he risked incurring if found guilty as charged. The Regional Court noted that the applicant was residing illegally in Germany and that an expulsion order had been issued against him. The length of the applicant’s detention on remand did not compare to the risk mentioned above. The Regional Court included a detailed account of the trial, explaining the continued conduct of the proceedings, which disclosed that on several occasions witnesses could not be questioned by the court because they either did not come to the hearing or made use of their right not to testify. Furthermore, the applicant and his co-accused had, often later than necessary, filed numerous motions for evidence to be taken. It observed that at the present time, it was not possible to disjoin the applicant’s case from those of the other accused, as they were accused of committing the offences jointly. 20. On 21 June 2000, following the applicant’s appeal, the Oldenburg Regional Court confirmed its original decision. It pointed out that the prolonged investigations by way of letters rogatory in Macedonia and the summoning of witnesses from abroad, which were necessitated by the belated alibi produced by one of the applicant’s co-accused, did not warrant the applicant’s release. 21. On 27 June 2000 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal confirmed this decision. 22. On 10 August 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint. 23. On 26 September 2000 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further request to suspend the arrest warrant on the grounds that contrary to his allegations, the suspicion persisted that he had committed the crimes he was accused of and was still likely to abscond if released, especially considering the high prison sentence he risked incurring if found guilty according to the indictment. 24. On 20 March 2001 the Oldenburg Regional Court pronounced its judgment after having held an average of less than four hearings per month with an average duration of less than two and a half hours each. It convicted the applicant of attempted murder, aggravated robbery and grievous physical injury as well as of unauthorised carrying of weapons and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment. In fixing the length of the applicant’s sentence, the Regional Court took into consideration the inordinate length of his detention and of the criminal proceedings, in particular the delay occasioned by the sickness of the lay assessor and the ensuing suspension of proceedings. 25. On 21 March 2001, the applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment. In the negotiations that followed between the applicant’s legal counsel and the Prosecutor’s Office, the latter eventually consented to the applicant’s expulsion to his country of origin in lieu of serving his prison sentence in Germany. In exchange for this, and due to the increasing length of his detention on remand, which would have continued during the appeal proceedings, the applicant agreed to withdraw his appeal. 26. On 4 April 2001, the applicant withdrew his appeal. On 5 April 2001 the Oldenburg Regional Court made an order for costs following the applicant’s withdrawal of the appeal. On 28 May 2001, the Prosecutor’s Office suspended the further execution of the applicant’s prison sentence and agreed to his expulsion to Croatia. A new arrest warrant was issued to the effect that, upon returning to Germany before the year 2026, the applicant would be arrested and imprisoned instantly in order to complete his prison sentence. On 25 July 2001, the applicant was expelled to Croatia.

5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Polskava. 6. On 5 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court seeking annulment of a purchase contract. 7. On 6 July 1999 the first-instance court annulled the contract. An appeal was lodged. 8. On 24 October 2000 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. 9. Between 12 July 2006 and 15 February 2007 three hearings were held. 10. On 27 February 2007 the applicant withdrew the claim and a decision on termination of proceedings was issued on 21 March 2007.

5. The applicants were born in 1960, 1960 and 1959 respectively and live in Kyiv. 6. The applicants are owners and residents of apartments in a multi-apartment building. By 1998 all but three of some fifty apartments located in this building had been privatised by their residents pursuant to the Law of Ukraine “On Privatisation of the State Housing Stock”. The three non-privatised apartments remained in municipal ownership. 7. On 29 April 1998 the Kyiv City State Administration authorised Mrs N.N. to renovate the attic of the building and construct a mansard floor with a view to obtaining title to the renovated and newly constructed premises on condition that the residents' consent was sought for the project. 8. On 29 May 1998 Mrs N.N. signed an investment contract for renovation and construction works with the Radyansky District Housing Maintenance Company (Державне підприємство по утриманню житлового фонду Радянського району м. Києва) acting for the building's owner. According to the contract, the building was municipally owned, and the municipality was to grant Mrs N.N. title to the construction on completion of the works. Subsequently Mrs V.G. became party to this contract as the second investor. Neither the applicants nor the other apartment owners were asked for their consent to the project. On a number of occasions the apartment owners unsuccessfully contacted various authorities to object to the construction works. 9. In July 2001 the apartment owners formed the Apartment Owners Association (“the Association”), which was joined by the applicants. 10. In April 2002 the investors started the works on the building. 11. According to the applicants, their apartments suffered damage on account of the construction works (such as cracks in the ceiling and the walls, flooding and pieces of plaster falling off). 12. In October 2002 the Association instituted civil proceedings in Svyatoshynsky District Court, Kyiv, seeking to annul the investment contract and to restore the attic to its previous state, alleging, in particular, that the municipality owned only three apartments in the building and should have sought the consent of the other apartment owners in order to conclude the contract. The applicants, who were represented by the Association, subsequently also joined the proceedings on their own behalf, along with two other apartment owners. 13. The Shevchenkivsky District State Administration (the successor of the Radyansky District State Administration; “the Administration”) lodged a counterclaim, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from interfering with the works and to have their refusal to consent to them declared illegitimate. By way of reasoning, the Administration submitted that the building, and particularly its attic and roof, were old and in very poor condition. They urgently needed investment for renovations. The construction works were therefore beneficial for all the apartment owners and residents of the building. 14. On an unspecified date Svyatoshynsky Court ordered the suspension of the construction works in connection with the dispute. Nevertheless the works continued and were completed by 6 December 2002. 15. On 26 December 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Council granted the title to the renovated and newly constructed premises to the investors. On an unspecified date the applicants and the Association amended their claims, seeking to have this decision quashed. 16. On 29 January 2003 Svyatoshynsky Court dismissed the applicants' and the Association's claims and allowed the counterclaim by the Administration. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows: “From the moment of privatisation of the apartments, the plaintiffs and, at the material time, the Radyansky District Administration, which had remained the owner of three apartments, obtained joint divided ownership to the building, including auxiliary premises ... According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, possession, use and disposal of joint divided property shall be carried out with the consent of all the owners, while in the absence of consent the dispute is to be decided by a court. Consequently, the question of reconstruction of the attic and renovation of the building had to be decided with the consent of all the co-owners of the house. However, as established by court, the investment agreement was concluded by one of the co-owners of the building without the consent of other co-owners, in connection with which the present proceedings arose. ... Regard being had to the fact that the investment agreement has been practically completed by the material time, that this has facilitated improvement of the technical state of the entire building and that, in addition to the plaintiffs, the Shevchenkivsky District Administration also owns some apartments in it, the plaintiffs' refusal to consent to the construction works under the investment agreement is unlawful and encroaches on the rights of other co-owners; therefore the initial claim should be dismissed and the counterclaim allowed. ... Demands to quash the decision no. 114 of the Shevchenkivsky District Council of 26 December 2002 consenting to alienation ... of the premises constructed on the attic ... from municipal property ... shall not be allowed on the following grounds. ... The building was owned at all times by the municipal community represented by the Council, which, according to Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Governance”, unilaterally ... executes rights of possession, use and disposal of the objects of municipal property, including housing stock. Therefore, regard being had to the above and that the reconstruction of the attic... was carried out at N. N.'s and V. G.'s expense, the Shevchenkivsky District Council was empowered to take such a decision”. 17. In February 2003 the plaintiffs appealed, alleging various violations of substantive and procedural law by the trial court. In particular, they maintained that the Svyatoshynsky Court's reasoning concerning the District Council's right to transfer the title to the attic had been in manifest disregard of applicable law and in contradiction of the court's own findings that according to Article 113 of the Civil Code the attic was co-owned by the municipality and the plaintiffs. 18. On 14 April 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal. The judgment, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “... in rejecting the claim... the [district] court reasonably considered that before the creation of the Association (on 26 July 2001) and from the moment of privatisation by the plaintiffs of particular apartments... the building... was in the joint divided ownership of the individual apartment owners and the District Council; the legal status of which parties concerning possession, use and disposal of the building being governed by Article 113 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Deciding the present dispute and finding ... the refusal of the plaintiffs – co-owners of the building - to consent to the reconstruction of the attic premises and construction of the mansard floor unreasonable, the court had properly considered ... necessity to carry out such works ... regard being had to the technical state of the roof and the attic premises ..., [and] that ... [in the course of the reconstruction] some other works [were carried out] for the improvement of the living conditions of all the owners and tenants of the residential premises [as well as] the value of the building as a property. Regard being had to the fact that a mansard floor was constructed at the investors' expense and without the participation of the plaintiffs ... the Shevchenkivsky District Council had lawfully decided the issue of disposal of the above premises, in compliance with Article 119 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.” 19. The plaintiffs appealed in cassation, maintaining in particular that it was unlawful to deprive them, as they represented over 70% of the apartment owners, of their property on the basis of a reference to its alleged improvement by a third party, to which they had never consented. They also submitted that the condition of the house in general had been made worse as a result of the works. 20. On 13 August 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal in cassation. 21. Subsequently the plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an extraordinary review of their claims with reference to inconsistent jurisprudence of domestic courts in application of the law in similar cases.

3. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara. 4. The applicant was dismissed from his job at military facilities following disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Supreme Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of Defence against him for misconduct in office. He subsequently lodged an application with the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of his dismissal. 5. The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court regarding the applicant's dismissal, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant. 6. On 1 July 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it rejected the applicant's request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant. 7. On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.

8. The applicant, Mr Sabri Güneş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in İzmir. 9. He suffered a personal injury while doing his military service. He was hospitalised on 30 October 2001 and subsequently underwent several operations on his right knee. He is now permanently disabled. 10. On 7 April 2003 the applicant submitted a claim to the Ministry of Defence for compensation in respect of his permanent disability. 11. Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant brought an action for damages in the Supreme Military Administrative Court on 12 August 2003 in respect of the disability suffered during his military service. He claimed 15,000 Turkish liras (TRY – approximately 9,400 euros (EUR)[1]) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 12. Two expert reports ordered by the Supreme Military Administrative Court were added to the case file. The first, dated 12 March 2004, established a 5% disability. The second, dated 30 April 2004 and communicated to the applicant on 11 May 2004, assessed the applicant’s pecuniary damage at more than TRY 27,438 (approximately EUR 17,150). 13. Having held a public hearing on 7 July 2004, the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the same day. It ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his claim in respect of pecuniary damage, namely, TRY 15,000. It awarded him a further TRY 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court considered in particular that the conclusions of the expert report of 30 April 2004 were relevant and satisfied the criteria established by its case-law. 14. On 21 November 2004 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for additional compensation in respect of his permanent disability. He claimed that he had only become aware of the extent of his pecuniary damage for the first time on 11 May 2004, when he received the report of 30 April 2004 assessing his pecuniary damage at TRY 27,438. 15. On 29 March 2005, following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant lodged a fresh claim with the Supreme Military Administrative Court for additional compensation, namely, TRY 12,438 (approximately EUR 5,600), on the basis of the expert report of 30 April 2004. He argued that he had received the expert report of 30 April 2004 on 11 May 2004, whereupon he had become aware of the true extent of the damage he had suffered. 16. By a judgment of 22 June 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court considered the applicant’s fresh claim to be an application to have the initial amount amended (ıslah) and dismissed it for being out of time. The court stated in particular: “The claimant has clearly sought an amendment of the initial amount. The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Journal of 14 November 2000, we must conclude that, in civil law, injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the time-limits of one year and sixty days from the date of referral to the administrative authorities apply. Under section 46(4) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, the amount claimed cannot be rectified once those deadlines have passed. Consequently, this claim must be rejected for being out of time ...” One judge (out of five) expressed a dissenting opinion. He stated in particular: “The amount of damage in personal injury cases is established only upon production of an expert report. Moreover, the date on which such reports are confirmed is taken into account when calculating the time-limits for referral to the administrative authorities and for bringing an action ... The claim for additional compensation based on the expert report was lodged within the relevant time-limit because the applicant did not become aware of the extent of the damage until after that report had been issued ....” 17. On 9 September 2005 the applicant lodged an application for rectification of the judgment. 18. By a judgment of 16 November 2005, served on the applicant on 28 November 2005, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected that application.

4. The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kirovograd. 5. On 2 June 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He remained in detention throughout the major part of the proceedings against him. The applicant states, without providing any supporting documents, that during the first days of his detention unspecified police officers beat him. He also states that the police rejected his representative’s request to send him for medical examination. 6. Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 19 December 1998 the case was referred to the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the District Court”), which on 17 July 2001 delivered the judgment. On 2 April 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 12 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 7. On 24 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It rejected, as unsubstantiated, his complaint about beating in police custody. 8. On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the same court alleging that some of the court hearings had not been tape-recorded. On 24 May 2005 the court informed him that they had not been recorded because the tape recorder had been broken. 9. On 19 May 2005 and 2 February 2006, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 24 December 2004. 10. On 14 August 2007 the applicant was released on parole. 11. According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the investigators brought charges against five other persons and interrogated thirty seven witnesses and seven aggrieved parties; the courts heard five co‑defendants, twenty four witnesses and six aggrieved parties. This took the authorities about three months in total. Six hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s representative, which delayed the proceedings to three months and ten days. Thirty two hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the witnesses, the aggrieved parties, other co-defendants or their representatives or following their requests, as well as due to the absence of the judge or the prosecutor. Thirteen times the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses and aggrieved parties which repeatedly failed to appear. Thirteen expert examinations were carried out, their overall duration amounting to approximately seven months.

6. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow. 7. By a judgment of 12 October 1998 the Shymkent Town Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan convicted the applicant of storing and transporting drugs and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant started serving his sentence in Kazakhstan. 8. On 24 January 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation granted the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia, his country of citizenship and his mother’s place of residence, to serve the rest of his sentence. 9. On 3 February 2000 the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia was granted by the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office. 10. On 29 February 2000, following an agreement between the Russian and Kazakh authorities, the applicant was transferred to Russia. 11. Following the applicant’s request for supervisory review of his case, the Presidium of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court, in its decision of 16 March 2000, varied the judgment of 12 October 1998 by reclassifying the offence and reducing the sentence. In the same decision the court applied the 1999 Amnesty Act, discharged the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence and ordered as follows: “The convicted prisoner Lobanov is to be released from custody forthwith.” 12. Next day the Regional Court sent a copy of its decision to the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office, which received it on the same day and, since no information about the place where the applicant was serving his sentence had yet been received from the Russian authorities, launched an inquiry about his location. 13. On 29 March 2000 the applicant arrived at correctional facility no. 8 (penitentiary establishment YaK‑7/8) in Penza. 14. According to the applicant, on 18 April 2000, immediately after he had learned of the court decision of 16 March 2000, he notified it to the administration of his correctional facility and requested them to expedite his release. 15. On 10 May 2000, after having established the applicant’s location, the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office sent a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 to Russia. According to the Government, the decision was sent to the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department. According to the applicant, it was sent to Penza correctional facility no. 8. 16. According to the Government, a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 was received by the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department on 18 May 2000. 17. On 23 May 2000 the Information Centre, which was located in Penza, after having established the applicant’s location, forwarded the decision to Penza correctional facility no. 8, which received it on 26 May 2000 and forwarded it on the same day to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. 18. The Prosecutor General’s Office received the decision on 7 June 2000. On 13 June 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General ordered that the applicant be discharged from serving the remainder of his sentence. The next day, the prosecutor’s decision was sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for execution. On 6 July 2000 it was received by the Ministry of Justice’s Penza Region Department for Execution of Sentences. 19. On 10 July 2000 the prosecutor’s decision reached correctional facility no. 8 and the applicant was released on the same day. 20. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice of Russia and the Ministry of Finance of Russia seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his allegedly unlawful and unfounded detention for three months and ten days after the decision of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court. By a judgment of the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow of 9 October 2001 the applicant’s action was dismissed. On 30 November 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 21. On 15 August 2002 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow examined the case anew. It established what the Russian authorities had done in respect of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision. In particular, it noted that the decision had been received by correctional facility no. 8 from the Penza Regional Police Department on 26 May 2000. It found that the Convention of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 6 March 1998 on the Transfer of Convicted Persons for Further Serving of their Sentences was not applicable to the applicant’s case as it had not come into force in respect of Russia at the relevant time. It held that the Prosecutor General’s Office had issued the order for the applicant’s release on 13 June 2000 by virtue of its competence and relevant regulations, notably the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR of 10 August 1979 on the Procedure for Execution of Obligations arising for the USSR from the Convention on the Transfer of Convicted Persons to Serve their Sentences in a State of their Citizenship, signed in Berlin on 19 May 1978, and instructions of 25 October 1979 on enforcement of that decree. The court stated that the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office discharging the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence had been lawful. It held that there had been no fault on the part of the defendant authorities and that therefore there was no basis to grant the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Nor did it find grounds for granting the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage based on the loss of employment income. It noted that the applicant, who had been employed six months after his release, had failed to prove that he had been unable to find employment earlier through the fault of the defendant authorities. In rejecting the applicant’s claims the court relied on Articles 151, 1069-1071 and 1099 of the Civil Code. 22. The applicant appealed. On 26 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. It noted, in particular, that the District Court had established no unjustified delay on the part of the defendant authorities in executing the Kazakh court decision. There had thus been no fault on the part of the authorities, and the applicant’s claims had been rightly dismissed. 23. On 10 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the case. On 13 May 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected his application.

4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Dobrich. 5. On 21 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against a construction company, claiming that it had damaged her property by building a construction next to it. In February 2002 she modified her compensation claim. 6. In the period between 21 January 1996 and 13 January 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court conducted at least nineteen hearings. Between September 1999 and February 2001 the proceedings were stayed, awaiting the outcome of administrative proceedings in respect of the status of the construction. Two hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request, one for correction of certain flaws in her modified claim, one due to improper summoning, and five due to the absence of the experts or a failure to submit their reports. Two hearings were rescheduled upon the expert’s request. Several hearings were postponed because the parties posed additional questions to the experts or requested gathering of further evidence. 7. The applicant’s claim was partly granted by the Regional Court on 13 January 2003, and upon appeal, by the Varna Court of Appeal on 22 May 2003. The courts ordered the defendant company to repair the damage caused to her property or to pay her BGN 11,960 (approximately EUR 5,980) plus interest and court fees. 8. In a final judgment of 18 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 9. While the proceedings were pending before the Regional Court, the applicant requested that property of the defendant company be attached as a security of her claim. On 18 January 2000 the Regional Court imposed an injunction forbidding the defendant company to perform transactions with two of its real estates and one lorry. On 19 May 2000 the Varna Administrative Court annulled the injunction in respect of one of the real estates, reasoning that the other injunctions guaranteed the applicant’s claim to a sufficient extent. 10. After the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 22 May 2003 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. At the defendant company’s request, on 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the review on points of law, because the defendant company had deposited the amount of BGN 11,960, equal to the damages awarded to the applicant. 11. After the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, on 29 February and again on 28 March 2005 the applicant requested from the enforcement judge the resuming of the enforcement proceedings, the transfer of the deposited amount to her bank account and the scheduling of other actions for gathering the awarded interest. However, she was informed that the deposited guarantee had been returned to the defendant company on 16 December 2004. 12. On 28 July 2005 the applicant and the defendant company signed an out-of-court agreement, under which she received the amount of BGN 22,000 (about EUR 11,000) which, according to her submissions, was less than the entire amount of the debt. On 17 September 2005 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued at the applicant’s request. 13. In 2007 the defendant company requested the lifting of the injunction in respect of the second real estate, stating that it had settled its debt. The applicant did not comment. On 28 November 2007 the Regional Court granted the request, reasoning that the injunction was no longer necessary. As the parties did not appeal against the decision, it became final on 7 December 2007.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and currently lives in Certeze, Satu Mare. 6. On 12 May 1997 the applicant and his associate (“T.L.”), through their company, S.C. Harmony Shipping International S.R.L., made an offer to buy the Romanian Company for Oceanic Fishing Tulcea (Compania Română de Pescuit Oceanic Tulcea, “the company”), a State-owned company specialising in oceanic fishing, which was in the process of being privatised by the Bucharest State Property Fund (Fondul Proprietăţii de Stat, “FPS”). While negotiations were taking place, FPS expressly forbade the sale of the company's ships. The applicant and his associate gave their agreement to the prohibition in a statement signed with FPS on 4 June 1997. 7. On 26 November 1997 FPS agreed to sell the applicant and T.L. 51% of the company's stocks. 8. During criminal proceedings against the applicant the courts found that he and his associate had sold five of the company's ships as scrap. They had used part of the money to pay the price asked for by FPS. With the remaining money they had paid some of the company's debts in order to substitute themselves for the company's creditors and thus obtain the remaining 49% of the company's stocks. 9. The applicant was arrested on 10 March 1998 and released from prison on 22 June 2009, after having served his sentence. He described as follows the conditions of detention in the various penitentiaries where he was held. The Government's view, based on the official documents issued by the penitentiaries, is also presented. 10. On 10 March 1998 the applicant was taken to the Constanţa police detention rooms, situated in the basement of the police headquarters. He remained there until 4 June 1998. His pre-trial detention was endorsed and extended on several occasions by the prosecutor attached to the Constanţa Court of Appeal. 11. He claimed that during his detention there he had not been allowed to contact his family, counsel or co-accused either by telephone or in writing. He had not been allowed to have a pen and paper in the cell. He had shared a cell with ten other detainees. The cell had been equipped with three-tier bunk beds which occupied 12 sq. m. There was no toilet in the cell (the inmates used a bucket for that purpose), no running water or sewerage system, no light and no fresh air. 12. According to the information from the Constanţa police, the cells in the police detention facilities measured 12-15 sq. m with three to four beds each, electric light and one window. The detainees were allowed to walk outside for one to two hours per day. Toilets were in the corridor. No concrete information about the applicant's contacts with family and counsel or about his correspondence rights was furnished by the police, as, according to the regulations, the relevant documents are only kept by the authorities for five years. 13. In June 1998 the Galaţi County Court ordered the applicant's transfer to Bucharest Jilava Penitentiary, on health grounds. He was detained in this penitentiary on three occasions: from 4 June to 12 August 1998 and from 10 to 21 May 2005 (in the hospital section); and from 9 October to 19 November 2003 (in the penitentiary itself). 14. The applicant claimed that during his first stay in the hospital section, he had been handcuffed to his bed with chains around his legs after attempting suicide. He was awoken from a period of unconsciousness by bites from lice and bedbugs and recollected having been refused water by a warden on one occasion during his recovery. The applicant also mentioned one week spent in the transit zone in Jilava before his transfer from Poarta Albă to Galaţi Prison. He claimed that he was placed in a dirty cell there and received no food or water. 15. According to the information provided by the Government, the applicant was mainly detained in a 42.08 sq. m cell with eleven beds, a separate toilet and individual heating. The detainees were allowed two showers per week in the common bathroom. They were allowed to walk outside for one hour per day. The Government also referred to the applicant's telephone conversations, the parcels received from home and a visit from his daughter. The Government have given no information about the period spent by the applicant in the transit zone. 16. The applicant spent a few weeks in Poartă Alba Penitentiary in Constanţa, from 12 August to 2 September 1998. 17. The applicant alleged that the cells had been overcrowded and had lacked hygiene facilities. The inmates were allowed to walk outside for two to three hours per month and to receive one visit and one telephone call in that time. The applicant was allowed to receive 15 kg of food per month. According to his statement, it was the only time during his detention when he could eat properly. His family brought him medicines and food. 18. The Government stated that the applicant's cell measured 36.35 sq. m and included ten beds, one window, running water, electricity, central heating and a separate toilet room. Seven to ten persons had shared that cell during the applicant's detention. The inmates were allowed to walk outside for thirty minutes to one hour per day. During his stay, the applicant received two visits and two parcels. 19. The applicant was held in this penitentiary on five occasions: from 2 September 1998 to 16 August 2001; from 29 January 2003 to 9 October 2003; from19 November 2003 to 26 February 2004; from 21 April 2004 to 29 June 2006; and from 5 October 2007 to 12 December 2008. 20. He alleged that the first cell where he had been detained was 25 sq. m in size. There were twenty to twenty five detainees in the cell at all times with an average of three persons to one bed. No outdoor exercise was allowed. Water was available two hours per day. No medicines were given and the food was very poor. After eight months, because of the deterioration of his health, the applicant was moved to a cleaner cell. 21. The Government averred that the applicant spent most of his stay in the infirmary in a 24 sq. m cell with six beds, windows, central heating and separate toilets. The detainees were allowed to walk outside for three hours per day. The penitentiary also had a football field for the detainees' use. 22. The applicant was held in Bucharest Rahova Penitentiary on three occasions: from 16 August 2001 to 29 January 2003; from 26 February 2004 to 21 April 2004; and from 29 June 2006 to 5 October 2007. 23. According to his statements, he was entitled to three visits per month and 60 packets of cigarettes and 15 kg of food per month − all provided by his family. 24. The official documents submitted by the Government indicate that the applicant shared a 19.55 sq. m cell with ten bunk beds with a maximum of nine co-detainees. A 5.55 sq. m toilet room with cold water was attached to the cell. Hot water was available twice per week, between 12 midday and 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The cells and the toilets had windows, to allow in air and natural light. The detainees were allowed to walk outside for one to two hours per day and twice per week they were given access to sports fields. Three public phones were available and the applicant was allowed two ten-minute phone calls per week. 25. The Government informed the Court that the applicant had been held in Brăila Penitentiary from 12 December 2008 to 22 June 2009. During his stay he received 202 visits and 215 parcels. 26. On 10 March 1998, the applicant gave a statement to the police in the presence of his counsel. The next day he was taken to the prosecutor attached to the Constanţa Court of Appeal, who informed him for the first time that he was accused of having sold ships belonging to the Romanian State. On 9 October 1998 the applicant received the Greek translation of the indictment. 27. On 8 October 1999 the Galaţi County Court gave judgment in the case, convicting the applicant of bribery, embezzlement (delapidare), forgery and use of forged documents and smuggling (contrabandă) and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment. The County Court awarded damages of 890,284 US dollars (USD) to the company, to be paid by the applicant together with two other convicted persons. It also ordered the applicant to be expelled after having served his sentence. 28. On 9 March 2001 the Constanţa Court of Appeal rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the judgment. According to the applicant, the Court of Appeal refused to hear evidence from him, claiming lack of time, and asking him to send his defence statement in writing, from prison. 29. On 27 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision, which became final. 30. On 7 November 2005 the Galaţi County Court declared inadmissible a request by the applicant for revision of the above decisions. The judgment was upheld in a final decision of 2 October 2006 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Trzebinia. 5. On 9 August 2005 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Internal Security Agency (Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego) on suspicion of revealing State secrets and bribery. As submitted by the applicant, the officers had handcuffed and beaten him. He was taken to the Internal Security Agency and subsequently to the Kraków District Prosecutor’s Office where he was again beaten and urged to confess. At the same time another group of armed officers had broken into his apartment and handcuffed and terrorised his wife. Their apartment was ransacked during the search for documents and other evidence. 6. On 11 August 2005 the Kraków District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence to be imposed and the complexity of the case. The court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant, while at liberty, would have had unlimited opportunities to contact other persons who were directly linked to his criminal activities. In particular, the court considered that the applicant had presumably been acting with accomplices. 7. An appeal by the applicant against the detention order was dismissed on 8 September 2005 by the Kraków Regional Court. 8. In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions, inter alia on 7 November and 29 December 2005 by the Szczecin District Court, on 17 March and 12 September 2006 by the Szczecin Regional Court, on 19 February and 27 April 2007 by the Szczecin Regional Court and on 4 July 2007 by the Szczecin Court of Appeal (until 15 October 2007). In all their decisions regarding detention the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. In addition, they considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially in view of the considerable number of witnesses to be heard and confronted, as well as the extensive body of evidence to be examined, justified holding him in custody. 9. Numerous appeals by the applicant against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful. 10. On 20 December 2005 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and twelve other co-accused. The applicant was charged with revealing state secrets and bribery. One hundred and four persons were listed to be examined as witnesses. 11. On 12 January 2006 a request to transfer the case to the Szczecin Regional Court was filed owing to the special nature of charges brought against the applicant, including, inter alia, revealing State secrets and involvement in the case of high-ranking police officers. On 27 January 2006 the request was granted by the Szczecin Court of Appeal. 12. On 3 October 2007 the Szczecin Court of Appeal decided not to allow the Szczecin Regional Court’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention. It ordered the imposition of another preventive measure. The court held that even if grounds for the initial detention of the applicant still remained valid, they no longer sufficed to justify extending it further beyond the permissible period of two years. Such lengthy prolongation of his detention would change it into an actual sentence and was contrary to the aim of Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lastly, the court stressed that the risk that the accused might influence the outcome of the evidentiary proceedings had ceased to exist. 13. On 11 October 2007 the Szczecin Regional Court lifted the detention order. No other preventive measure was ordered. The Kraków Appeal Prosecutor appealed. 14. On 24 October 2007 the Szczecin Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 11 October 2007 and remitted the case for reconsideration in respect of the need for applying preventive measures. 15. On 6 November 2007 the Szczecin Regional Court decided that the applicant could be released if he put up bail of 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). In addition, an order was given to seize his passport and he was placed under police supervision. 16. The applicant appealed and requested that the amount of bail be reduced. 17. On 5 December 2007 the Szczecin Court of Appeal allowed his request and set bail at PLN 20,000, to be deposited before 12 December 2007. 18. It appears that the applicant was eventually released on payment of the bail, at the latest on 15 December 2007. It further appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending. 19. On 22 October 2007 the applicant received a letter from the Szczecin Regional Court posted to the Szczecin Remand Centre bearing a stamp “censored” (“ocenzurowano”).

9. On 13 August 1992, following proceedings on appeal, the Arnhem Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) convicted the applicant of attempted homicide and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. In addition, the Court of Appeal imposed a TBS order (terbeschikkingstelling) with confinement to a secure institution (met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege). The TBS order took effect on 4 September 1992 and expired two years later, on 4 September 1994. 10. By decision of 9 September 1994, the Arnhem Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Arnhem prolonged the TBS order by one year. It was consequently due to expire on 4 September 1995. 11. On 18 July 1995 the public prosecutor filed a request for a further prolongation with the Arnhem Regional Court, where it was registered on 19 July 1995. This prolongation request was based on an advice of 6 July 1995 by the secure institution where the applicant was being treated. In this advice, a prolongation of the TBS order was recommended because the applicant was still considered capable of being seriously aggressive towards other people. 12. The Regional Court examined the request in the course of a hearing held on 22 September 1995. The applicant submitted that the public prosecutor’s request for a prolongation should be declared inadmissible since the Regional Court was no longer competent to prolong his TBS order as it had expired on 4 September 1995. The applicant further submitted that the Regional Court had failed to comply with Article 509t of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering; hereinafter referred to as “CCP”) which provides that a decision on a request for prolongation has to be taken within two months after the submission of the request for prolongation. 13. In its decision of 6 October 1995, the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s arguments and prolonged his TBS order with confinement to a secure institution by one more year, taking into account the advice issued by the secure institution where the applicant was being treated and the testimony of an expert witness, recommending that the TBS order should be extended because the applicant was still considered capable of being seriously aggressive towards others. The Regional Court admitted that the examination of the request had not taken place within the time-limit contained in Article 509t CCP and that the reason therefor was the fact that during the holiday months it had not been able to hold sufficient hearings with judges having the specialised knowledge needed. However, it held that a failure to observe the time-limit in Article 509t CCP did not imply that the public prosecutor’s request should be declared inadmissible. It noted that the date of the hearing in the instant case had been fixed on 20 July 1995, i.e. within a period of two months after the submission of the prolongation request. It further noted that, by summons of 28 July 1995, the applicant had been invited to appear at the hearing of 22 September 1995 and that a copy of the summons had been sent to his representative. The Regional Court considered that, if the latter had objected to the fixing of that date, the hearing could have been rescheduled for an earlier date during the recess. The Regional Court concluded that in all these circumstances the general security of persons required a prolongation of the TBS order. 14. The applicant filed an appeal with the Arnhem Court of Appeal on 11 October 1995. In the course of a hearing held on 15 January 1996, the Court of Appeal heard the applicant and a psychologist working in the secure institution where the applicant was under treatment. 15. In its decision of 29 January 1996, the Court of Appeal noted that the decision of 6 October 1995 had been taken seventeen days after the expiry of the time-limit provided for in Article 509t CCP. It held that the Regional Court could and should have scheduled a hearing date before the expiry of the time-limit. Moreover, Article 509t CCP made the Regional Court responsible and not the applicant or his lawyer to see to it that the time-limit was observed. It further held that failure to observe the time-limit entailed neither the inadmissibility of the prosecution’s request, nor the incompetence of the Regional Court to examine this request, nor yet the expiry of the TBS order. On the basis of the failure to respect the time-limit referred to in Article 509t CCP and the unsatisfactory reasons therefor stated by the Regional Court, the Court of Appeal decided to quash the decision of 6 October 1995 and, on appeal, to determine itself the prolongation request. 16. After having noted the advice of the secure institution where the applicant was receiving treatment and an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s medical condition, the Court of Appeal decided to extend the TBS order with confinement to a secure institution by one year. 17. The applicant’s post-sentence confinement, the order was finally terminated on 9 December 2000.

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in İzmir. 5. The applicant was a member of the executive board of the İzmir Branch of the Human Rights Association (“the Association”) at the time of lodging his application to the Court. 6. On 10 July 2001 the İzmir Governor sent a letter to the Association requesting that the membership of thirteen persons be annulled as they were considered to be involved in illegal activities. 7. On 6 August 2001 the Association replied to the Governor, maintaining that they would not execute the request since none of these thirteen persons had convictions which would ban them from founding or becoming a member of an association, as provided by Article 4 §§ 2 and 3 of the Law on Associations (Law No. 2908). 8. On 8 August 2001 the İzmir Public Prosecutor took the applicant's statement and informed him that a prosecution had been initiated against him for non-compliance with Article 4 of Law No. 2908 and that no court proceedings would be initiated if he paid a fine of 142,366,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] within ten days. The applicant did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the payment order. 9. Subsequently, on 3 December 2001 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and the other members of the executive board of the İzmir Branch of the Human Rights Association. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be sentenced to a fine under Article 75 of the Law on Associations and Article 119 of the Criminal Code for their failure to comply with the İzmir Governor's request. The bill of indictment was not notified to the applicant. 10. On 26 December 2001 the İzmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicant and other co-accused guilty as charged and, by a penal order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced them to a fine of TRL 213,548,400[2] per person. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences. 11. The applicant and the other co-accused filed an objection with the İzmir Criminal Court against the decision of 26 December 2001. 12. On 6 February 2002 the İzmir Criminal Court dismissed the objection, without holding a hearing. 13. On 13 February 2002 a payment order was issued in respect of the applicant. The applicant paid the due amount in three instalments on 12 March, 9 April and 9 May 2002 respectively. 14. Subsequently, on 16 December 2002 one of the co-accused, Mr N.B., applied to the Ministry of Justice, requesting the Minister to refer the case to the Court of Cassation by way of a written order (yazılı emir). 15. On 29 January 2003 the Minister of Justice issued a written order and instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to ask the Court of Cassation to set aside the judgment concerned. 16. On 14 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the İzmir Criminal Court dated 6 February 2002 and the case file was remitted to the İzmir Magistrate's Court. 17. On 14 May 2003 the İzmir Magistrates' Court held a preparatory hearing and included the case in its list. It further decided to summon all of the defendants, including the applicant, to its next hearing. 18. On 14 July, 7 August and 22 October 2003 respectively, the court held three hearings. The applicant did not attend any of them. 19. At its last hearing held on 22 October 2003, the Magistrates' Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because, following the promulgation of Law No. 4854 on 24 April 2003, the sentence imposed on the applicant for not complying with the İzmir Governorship's order had been classified as an administrative fine. During the proceedings, none of the defendants made submissions to the court. 20. On 20 November 2003 some of the defendants, but not the applicant, appealed against this decision. 21. On 25 February 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the İzmir Criminal Court. The case file was sent to the Governorship of İzmir.

6. On 19 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty of corruption and an abuse of official powers and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed alleging, in particular, that he was innocent, that the prosecution had been unlawful and the trial court had applied the criminal law erroneously. 7. On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted it for a new hearing. 8. On 2 March 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty as charged before and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. He complained, among other matters, about erroneous interpretation of law, improper assessment of evidence by the courts, and an excessive severity of the penalty 9. On 23 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal reducing the sentence to four years’ imprisonment. 10. Between 2 March and 16 June 2011 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-21/1 in the Cheboksary Region. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 39 measuring 23 sq. m was equipped with fourteen sleeping places and accommodated up to ten inmates. 11. The applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the above allegations: his complaints to the prison management and their reply and statements by three cellmates.

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Split. 5. On 23 February 1999 the applicant brought a civil action for defamation against the Croatian Radio Television in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), seeking non-pecuniary damages. 6. In the period between 20 May 1999 and 19 May 2000 the first‑instance court held seven hearings. 7. By a judgment of 19 May 2000 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 8. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 21 May 2004 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 9. In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held three hearings, and on 21 September 2009 delivered a judgement whereby it ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 10. Following an appeal by the defendant, on 26 November 2010 the Split County Court reduced the amount of damages payable to the applicant to HRK 20,000. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 4 January 2011. 11. Meanwhile, on 5 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Split County Court. 12. On 18 August 2008 the Split County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 12,500[1] in compensation and ordered the Split Municipal Court to give a decision in her case within six months of the service of its decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the Split Municipal Court on 31 October 2008.

6. The applicant was born in 1962. Before 2000 she was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, which she left for Ingushetia. She currently resides in Norway. 7. The submissions of the parties with regard to the facts concerning the circumstances of the events of 19 January 2000 and the ensuing investigation are set out in Part A below. A description of the documents submitted to the Court is contained in Part B. 8. In July 2004 the applicant produced a detailed account of the attack on her. She submitted that prior to 1999 she and her family lived at 10 Skvoznoy Lane in the Katayama settlement in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny.[1] The applicant has a daughter who was born in 1982. They lived in Kazakhstan until 1990 and then moved to her parents' flat in Grozny. In 1993 the applicant removed her daughter from Chechnya after the school which she attended came under attack. 9. In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between the Russian forces and the Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the town, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submitted that most residents of the district left for safer areas. The applicant, who stayed because of her poor health, spent the winter of 1999-2000 hiding from bombardments in the cellars, along with the few other remaining residents of the district. Following heavy fighting, as of December 1999 the Russian forces started to regain control over the city from the north, and by the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were finally taken. 10. On 19 January 2000 a massive attack by the federal forces on their district began. The applicant and five other persons were hiding in a garage located in 4th Neftyanoy Lane and when the shelling intensified they ran to a nearby cellar. While running, the applicant was wounded in her leg. When the shelling subsided, several military servicemen appeared and ordered everyone out of the cellar. The applicant and others walked out, with their hands on their heads. The soldiers told them that they had an order to kill everyone and that those who remained in the city had assisted the fighters (“boyeviki”). 11. The applicant submitted that the soldiers had not listened to their explanations and refused to look at their identity documents. They had ordered the inhabitants to return to the cellar and, once the residents went downstairs, threw tear-gas grenades into it. The people in the cellar wept and asked them to stop, and finally the soldiers ordered them to come out again, one by one. The applicant, who was wounded, could not walk by herself and was assisted by a Chechen man. Two Russian women and another Chechen man walked out first and were shot at the entrance to the garage by machine-gun fire. The soldiers then shot at the third woman and at the applicant and her helper, whose body eventually covered hers. 12. The applicant lost consciousness and, when she awoke, she realised that the others were dead. She was wounded in the chest and was bleeding from the mouth. When night fell, the applicant walked over to a neighbouring street where the Khashiyev family lived (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005). They gave her first aid and allowed her to stay in their shed. They said that they were expecting a second check [by security forces] and were afraid to let her into the house. 13. The applicant, who was bleeding and afraid to remain in Grozny, changed clothes and walked to the roadblock with a white flag. There the soldiers checked her documents and let her through. The applicant did not tell them about the attack on her. On the morning of the following day the applicant was taken to Ingushetia by Petimat Goygova (the applicant in the case of Goygova v. Russia, no. 74240/01) who had been looking for her relatives in the Staropromyslovskiy district (they were later found killed). 14. The applicant remained in the Ordzhonikidze village (Sunzhenskiy district) hospital until 7 February 2000. There she was diagnosed with gunshot and shrapnel wounds to the knee joints and chest, concussion and neurotic asthenia. She was treated and her wounds were operated on. She submitted the relevant medical documents. 15. While in the hospital the applicant was interviewed by human-rights activists, who later reported her story. It was also related in several publications. 16. After being discharged from hospital, the applicant stayed in Ingushetia, in the premises of an old pig farm used by other refugees from Chechnya. In summer 2000 the applicant went to Grozny to find out about the state of her flat and property. Her neighbours told her that unknown persons had been looking for her. 17. The applicant did not seek any direct contacts with law-enforcement bodies in the aftermath of the attack. Nevertheless the events in the Staropromyslovskiy district, including the attack on the applicant, became known to the authorities shortly afterwards due to NGO and media reports. 18. Several human-rights NGOs contacted the law-enforcement authorities in relation to the events in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny in January 2000, when several dozen local residents were allegedly executed by unidentified detachments of the Russian military. 19. In February 2000 Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled “Civilian Killings in Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny” in which it accused the Russian forces of deliberately murdering at least 38 civilians between late December and mid-January. Human Rights Watch interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and relatives of the dead. The report contains information about the attack on the applicant and the killing of five people in a cellar, based on an interview with her. 20. On 10 February 2000 Human Rights Watch contacted the Russian authorities, including the President, the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Defence with a request to investigate credible allegations of the murder of at least 38 civilians in the Staropromyslovskiy district, with reference to the applicant's case. 21. On 3 May 2000, following the publication of an article entitled “Freedom or Death” in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper on 27 April 2000, the investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation under Article 105 (a), (d), (e) and (j) of the Criminal Code “concerning mass murder by the '205th brigade' of the civilian population in the Novaya Katayama settlement of Grozny on 19 January 2000”. Within the scope of that investigation, on 12 July 2000 Mrs Roza Akayeva submitted a statement to the Chief Military Prosecutor about the murder of her brother Adlan Akayev, whose bullet-ridden body had been found on 25 January 2000 in the courtyard of his house in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. In her letter she submitted that on 9 February 2000 she had seen five bodies (three women and two men) in a garage at 4th Neftyanoy Lane. She gave the applicant's full name, referred to her as a witness of the killings committed on that day and stated that she had talked to her in the hospital in Ingushetia (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, cited above, §§ 61-62). 22. In February 2001 Human Rights Watch issued a document entitled “Memorandum on Domestic Prosecutions for Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Chechnya”, in which it reported a lack of progress in the investigation into the attack on the applicant and into other killings committed in the Staropromyslovskiy district at the same time. 23. The applicant submitted that certain persons were looking for her and wanted to punish her for relating her story. She submitted that, between 2001 and 2004, her father in Kazakhstan, a friend in Ingushetia, her former boyfriend and her sister in the Stavropol region had been contacted by persons asking about her whereabouts. Her former boyfriend had been beaten and told to “keep away” from her. The applicant, who still suffered from the consequences of her wounds, was afraid of approaching the authorities for fear that her whereabouts might become known to her persecutors. She submitted that in July 2004 she had received medical treatment in Moscow for neurological problems resulting from the attack. 24. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to apply to the authorities with a complaint, as a result of which the circumstances of the attack had become known to them only after the communication of the present application. On 26 April 2005 the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office initiated criminal investigation file no. 43037 under Article 111 § 1 of the Criminal Code (infliction of serious injuries). The investigation confirmed the attack on the applicant. It also confirmed that the applicant had spent time in hospital in Ingushetia suffering from gunshot wounds. More than 25 witnesses were questioned. However, the investigation could not question the applicant because she did not make her whereabouts known to the authorities. In October 2005 the Government forwarded to the Court a request by the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office seeking assistance in finding the applicant, and a copy of the decision to grant her victim status in the proceedings of criminal investigation no. 43037, to be countersigned by her. 25. In August 2006 the investigation concerning the attack upon the applicant was joined with another investigation, pending since 2003, concerning the discovery of five bodies with gunshot wounds at 4th Neftyanoy Lane. The investigation had been adjourned and reopened, and was on-going. It failed to locate and question the applicant or to identify the culprits. 26. Following the Court's requests, the Government submitted documents from the criminal investigation file opened in relation to the attack on the applicant (see Part B below). 27. The Government submitted about 115 pages of documents from the investigation file in criminal case no. 43037. The most important documents submitted by the Government can be summarised as follows: 28. On 26 April 2005 the Deputy Chechnya Prosecutor decided to open criminal investigation into the infliction of serious injuries on the applicant, following receipt of the appropriate information from the Registry of the European Court. The case file was assigned no. 43037 and the investigation was entrusted to the investigative department of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (Следственное управление при МВД ЧР). 29. The investigation made several unsuccessful attempts to locate and question the applicant through the Interior Ministry entities in Chechnya, Ingushetia and in the Stavropol region. 30. In April 2005 the housing bureau of the Staropromyslovskiy district informed the local department of the interior (ROVD) that house no. 10 at Skvoznoy Lane was unsuitable for habitation and that the applicant was not listed among the residents. 31. In May 2005 the investigation questioned a friend of the applicant in Ingushetia. The woman stated that she had collected the applicant from the Sunzhenskiy hospital in February 2000 and that the latter had stayed in her house for a month afterwards. She confirmed that the applicant had told her that she had been shot by armed men during a “mopping-up” operation in Grozny and that five or six people had been killed during the same attack. The witness was not aware of the applicant's whereabouts. 32. In June 2005 the investigation questioned Olga Zh., the applicant's sister who lived in the Stavropol region and at whose address the applicant had a formal registration. The witness stated that the applicant had stayed with her in 2002, after which she had left and the witness was not aware of her whereabouts. The applicant had told her that she had been wounded during a “mopping-up” operation in Grozny in January 2000, when armed men had killed several people in the cellar. The witness stated that her sister continued to suffer from the consequences of the attack, that she could not talk about the incident and that remembering it provoked serious nervous distress. 33. In September 2005 the investigation requested the criminal police of Chechnya to assist in finding the applicant and to investigate her complaint about harassment by unknown persons in retribution for her complaint. Similar requests were forwarded to the Stavropol Interior Ministry regional investigation department and to the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD. 34. In May 2005 the Sunzhenskiy district hospital in Ingushetia informed the investigation that the applicant had been treated there between 22 January and 8 February 2000 for gunshot wounds to the knees and chest. 35. The investigation then questioned medical personnel from the hospital's accident ward. They confirmed that in January – February 2000 the applicant had been treated there. The applicant's medical record had been destroyed during a fire in the hospital, except for a registration log containing basic information about the applicant's stay. 36. In May 2005 the investigation questioned Tamara R., whose brother Kasum had been killed during the same attack in which the applicant had been wounded. The witness stated that around 20 January 2000 she had visited the applicant in hospital and had learnt from her that her brother had been killed in the cellar of a garage in 4th Neftyanoy Lane by armed men in camouflaged uniforms. The witness and her two sisters had travelled to Grozny and found seven or eight bodies with gunshot wounds in the cellar of house no. 9 in 4th Neftyanoy Lane. The witness and her sisters removed the body of their brother Kasum, which bore numerous gunshot wounds, and took it to the Nadterechny district for burial. No additional questions were put to the witness at that time about the other details of her brother's death, nor was she asked if an investigation had been mounted. 37. Several local residents questioned by the investigators in April 2005 stated that in the winter of 1999– 2000 they had been outside Grozny and that they were not aware of the circumstances of the attack on the applicant or of her whereabouts. They were aware, however, mostly by hearsay, of the murders of residents who had remained in Grozny, committed in January 2000 by unknown men in military uniforms. Several witnesses stated that they were aware that the murders had been committed during a “mopping-up” operation. In particular, several witnesses were aware of the killing of the Khashiyev family, of Magomed Goygov and of Adlan Akayev (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia mentioned above). 38. Zhabrail Ye. testified that he was aware of the killing of five persons and the wounding of a woman named Yelena in the garage of house no. 9 at the 4th Neftyanoy Lane. 39. In May 2005 the investigation questioned Fatima Goygova (the applicant in the case of Goygova v. Russia, no. 74240/01), whose mother and brother had been found killed in the Staropromyslovskiy district in January 2000. She stated that she was aware of the attack on the applicant, but had no information about the exact circumstances of the attack or of the applicant's whereabouts. 40. On 14 April 2005 the investigator from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD examined the courtyard and the buildings located at no. 9 in 4th Neftyanoy Lane. They found the house and the garage destroyed and uninhabited. Nothing of interest to the investigation was noted. 41. On 30 August 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. As the applicant's whereabouts were not established, she did not countersign the document. 42. In May 2005 an officer of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD in charge of collecting information on the applicant's case reported to the head of the ROVD that, as a result of questioning of the local residents, it could be presumed that “the crime could have been committed by military servicemen, possibly of Ossetian ethnic background, possibly enrolled on a contractual basis. Numbers of military units, vehicles and armoured vehicles could not be established”. 43. In September 2005 the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD informed the investigator in charge of the case that they were unable to identify the army units which had conducted the special operations in the district. 44. The investigation requested several agencies of the Ministry of Defence and of the Ministry of the Interior to provide them with information about the location and activities of their units in January 2000 in the Katayama settlement of the Staropromyslovskiy district. In response they were informed that such information was unavailable because the currently functioning structures had been established after January 2000 and had no information relevant to the preceding periods. 45. On 22 September 2003 the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation with regard to the discovery of five bodies in 4th Neftyanoy Lane. 46. In September 2005 the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office wrote to the local ROVD and informed it that their office was investigating criminal case no. 50115, related to the discovery of five bodies at “house no. 11 in 4th Neftyanoy Lane”. The letter alleged that the information received from the European Court indicated that the applicant had been a witness to the murder of five people at “house no. 4 in Neftyanoy Lane”. It further stated that the applicant had never applied to the authorities with information about the incident and instructed the ROVD to carry out a verification of the facts, including locating and questioning the applicant and examination of the site as indicated by her. 47. On 18 August 2006 the proceedings in the two criminal cases were joined, as they concerned the same incident. The new case file was assigned no. 50115 and the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office was charged with the investigation. 48. In the course of the proceedings several orders were issued by the supervising prosecutors enumerating the steps to be taken by the investigators. In particular, in October 2005 a prosecutor from the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office ordered that additional information be obtained from the local authorities and from the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA), and that to other possible witnesses to the crimes, including the applicant, be identified and questioned.

8. The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Naples. 9. He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to R.T. 10. In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1988, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate. 11. By a provisional decision of 20 January 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 January 1990 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case. 12. On 22 February 1989, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. By a judgment of 14 April 1994, the court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1987 and confirmed the date of vacation indicated by the Magistrate. The judgment was made enforceable on 2 September 1994. 13. On 1 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 14. On 21 April 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995. 15. Between 30 May 1995 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 16. On an unspecified date in 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.

8. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Częstochowa. 9. By a decision of 3 April 1979 the property of the applicant’s predecessors in title was expropriated. The property comprised a plot of land located in Częstochowa, at 30 Wieluńska Street (plot No. 30). A house located on this plot was later demolished. 10. On 20 October 1987 the Częstochowa Municipal Architect issued a permit, authorising J.M., the owner of a furniture repair workshop leasing premises situated on an adjacent plot (No. 28), to modernise the premises by, inter alia, fitting windows and a door in the boundary wall between the former property of the applicant’s predecessors in title and plot No. 28. On an unspecified later date J.M. opened a furniture shop on plot No. 28. 11. By a decision of the Częstochowa Municipal Council of 6 March 1990 the property situated at 30 Wieluńska Street in Częstochowa was returned to the applicant as the aim of the expropriation – the construction of an apartment building – had not been realised. 12. On 10 January 1992 the applicant requested the Częstochowa Governor to declare the decision of 20 October 1987 null and void. 13. On 28 July 1992 the Częstochowa Governor declared null and void the 1987 decision. The M. Company, owned by J.M., leasing plot No. 28, lodged an appeal with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. On 9 November 1992 the Minister upheld the contested decision. The M. Company lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. 14. On 3 March 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decisions of 28 July and 9 November 1992 whereby the M. Company leasing plot No. 28 had been ordered to block doors and windows in a wall facing the applicant’s plot and adjacent to the boundary of the plot. 15. On 14 June 1994 the Częstochowa Governor refused the applicant’s request to have the 1987 decision declared partly null and void. On 18 August 1994 this decision was upheld by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Apparently on 5 October 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 16. On 1 April 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions by which the administration refused to declare null and void the 1987 decision in so far as it authorised the fitting of a door and windows in the boundary wall between the plots. The court considered that the issue needed to be reconsidered, with special attention being paid to the question whether the building on plot No. 28 had been constructed on the basis of a building permit or, in the alternative, in the absence of any legal basis. 17. On 10 August 1996 the applicant was informed by the Częstochowa Regional Office that an administrative enquiry had been instituted in order to establish whether the building on plot No. 28 had been constructed lawfully. On 22 August 1996 he was further informed that the proceedings would not be terminated before 26 August 1996. 18. On 29 October 1996 the Częstochowa Regional Office refused to declare null and void the 1987 decision concerning the adjacent parcel No. 28. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision. 19. On 19 February 1997 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the 1987 decision concerning parcel No. 28 in its entirety, considering that the fitting of windows and a door in the wall adjacent to the applicant’s parcel No. 30 was unlawful in that it rendered it impossible for the applicant to use his plot. 20. By a letter of 27 March 1997 of the Częstochowa Municipal Office the applicant and other parties to the proceedings were informed that the case concerning the 1987 decision could not be dealt with within the time-limit provided for by Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. A new time-limit was fixed. According to the new time-limit, the case was to be disposed of by 5 May 1997. 21. On 18 April 1997 the M. Company appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 19 February 1997. 22. In a letter of 14 May 1997 the applicant was informed by the Supreme Administrative Court, in reply to his complaint that the appeal against the decision of 19 February 1997 had not yet been decided, that, in view of the Court’s case-load, there was a delay of approximately eighteen months for cases to be heard and judgment given. 23. On 10 April 1997, J.U., one of the co-owners of parcel No. 30, which was also co-owned by the applicant, sold her share of the property to a third party. 24. On 19 May 1997 the applicant submitted a complaint about the inactivity of the administration to the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision. On 9 July 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Office informed the applicant that his complaint about the inactivity of the administration in the proceedings concerning parcel No. 28 could not be dealt with within the one-month time-limit provided for by law. On 28 July 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Office informed the applicant that the complaint was unfounded. 25. On 2 July 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision of 19 February 1997, considering that the lower authorities had failed to establish whether the supervision of the Principal Inspector of Conservation of Cultural Heritage should apply to the area within which parcel No. 28 was situated. 26. On 14 January 2000 the applicant sold his share in parcel No. 30 to third parties. 27. On 14 February 2000 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the decision of 29 October 1996 and ordered that the case be re-examined by the organ of the first-instance. The applicant appealed. On 20 June 2000 the applicant lodged his pleadings with the court, complaining, inter alia, that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. The protracted nature of the proceedings had forced the applicant to sell this property. He had no other choice as the property was losing value as a result of the length of the proceedings. His property rights had been flagrantly breached in the proceedings in which the authorities have shown a manifest disregard of his legitimate interests. 28. On 25 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 14 February 2000 rendered by the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision, considering that there was no need to remit the case to the first-instance body, especially in view of the excessive length of proceedings. 29. On 13 January 2003 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the decision of 29 October 1996 and declared the 1987 decision entirely null and void, considering that the latter had been rendered in flagrant breach of the substantive provisions of construction law. 30. On 10 January 1992 the applicant requested the Częstochowa Municipal Department of Architecture and Land Development to grant him planning permission for the construction of an apartment house on his plot (No. 30). 31. On 12 February 1992 the Department granted the applicant preliminary planning permission (wskazania lokalizacyjne). 32. In a letter of 11 April 1992 directed to the Częstochowa Municipal Department of Architecture and Land Development the applicant’s neighbour, leasing the plot at 28 Wieluńska Street, protested against the preliminary building permission given to the applicant. In reply dated 23 April 1992 the Department informed him that his objections were unfounded, and that plot No. 28 had to be used in a manner consistent with the applicant’s property rights to plot No. 30. It was further stated that the preliminary permission given to the applicant was consonant with the general vision of land development in the part of the town concerned, which was of a historical character and was to be preserved and enhanced. Similar arguments were set out in a letter of 19 June 1992, apparently in reply to further complaints made by the applicant’s neighbour. 33. On 23 December 1992 the applicant requested that he should be given a building permit and submitted relevant technical documents in support of his request. 34. On 18 January 1993 the Director of the Częstochowa District Office stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for the grant of final building permit, pending the final decision in the proceedings for a declaration of nullity of the 1987 decision. The applicant appealed to the Częstochowa Governor. The contested decision was upheld by the Governor on 1 March 1993. The applicant lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. 35. On 16 November 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the contested decision relating to the stay of the proceedings. The court pointed out, firstly, that the proceedings concerning the status of the 1987 decision had in fact been terminated by a final decision and, secondly, that there was nothing in the character of these proceedings, which essentially concerned the fitting of doors and windows in the boundary wall between plots Nos. 28 and 30, which would make it impossible to proceed in the case concerning the applicant’s request for the grant of final building permit. 36. On 19 January 1994 the Częstochowa District Office requested the applicant to submit the documentation confirming his legal title to plot No. 30. 37. By a decision of 21 February 1994 the Częstochowa Municipal Department of Architecture, Town Planning and Construction Supervision refused to grant final building permit to the applicant. That Department considered that the applicant had failed to submit documents in order to show that his proposed development complied with the local land development plans. The Department further stated that no final decision had as yet been given on the issue concerning the fitting of a door and windows in the boundary wall between the applicant’s plot and plot No. 28. 38. On 15 April 1994 the Częstochowa Regional Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 21 February 1994. 39. On 6 June 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the refusals of 21 February 1994 and 15 April 1994 to give the applicant building permission. The Administrative Court observed that if the applicant had indeed failed to submit the required documentation, he should have been invited to supplement his motion in order to comply with formal requirements. The Supreme Administrative Court further noted that the administrative organs had failed themselves to collect all the evidence which was necessary for issuing the relevant decision. 40. On 31 August 1995 the Częstochowa District Office requested the applicant to submit the documents confirming his legal title to his plot and the notary consent of the co-owners to construct a building on it. The applicant was informed that if he did not submit the requested documentation his application for a building permit would not be examined. 41. On 18 September 1995 the District Department of Architecture, Town Planning and Construction Supervision requested the applicant to submit a decision concerning the development plan for the plot concerned, which, according to the provisions of the new Construction Act of 7 July 1994, was a prerequisite for a further examination of the applicant’s request for the grant of building permit. He was also requested to submit amendments to the original building project so as to take into account the presence of windows and a door on the boundary between the plots. 42. The proceedings did not progress until on 10 April 1997 and on 14 January 2000 respectively, J.U. and the applicant sold their shares in parcel No.30 to third parties.

10. The applicants, Franja and Ivan Šilih, were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec. 11. On 3 May 1993, at some point between midday and 1 p.m., the applicants' twenty-year-old son, Gregor Šilih, sought medical assistance in the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital for, inter alia, nausea and itching skin. He was examined by a duty doctor, M.E. On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid (Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic (Synopen). Following the injections, the applicants' son's condition significantly deteriorated. This was probably a result of him being allergic to one or both of the drugs. His skin became very pale, he began to tremble and to feel cold; M.E. noticed signs of tachycardia. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made. Subsequently, at 1.30 p.m., the applicant's son was transferred to intensive care. M.E. ordered the administration of, inter alia, adrenaline. By the time the cardiologist arrived, the applicants' son had stopped breathing and had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was given. At around 2.15 p.m. the applicants' son was connected to a respirator and his blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma; his brain was severely damaged. 12. On 4 May 1993 he was transferred to the Ljubljana Clinical Centre (Klinični center v Ljubljani), where he died on 19 May 1993. 13. The exact timing of the events which led to the death of the applicants' son and the action taken by M.E. in response to his deteriorating condition were disputed in the domestic proceedings. 14. On 13 May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint (ovadba) with the Slovenj Gradec Unit of the Maribor First-Instance Public Prosecutor's Office (Temeljno javno tožilstvo Maribor, Enota v Slovenj Gradcu) against M.E. for the criminal offence of “negligent medical treatment” (nevestno zdravljenje) which, following the applicants' son's death, was characterised as “a serious criminal offence that [had] caused damage to health” (hudo kaznivo dejanje zoper človekovo zdravje). The applicants argued that, through the intravenous injection of the two drugs, M.E. had given their son the wrong treatment and had subsequently failed to take appropriate corrective measures after his condition deteriorated. 15. In the course of the preliminary proceedings (predkazenski postopek) medical documents concerning the treatment administered to the applicants' son were seized by the police and, following his death, the duty investigating judge (preiskovalni sodnik) directed the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine (Inštitut za sodno medicino v Ljubljani) to conduct an autopsy and prepare a forensic report. 16. On 26 August 1993 the police submitted a report to the public prosecutor from which it appears that the Ministry of Health (Ministrstvo za zdravstvo) requested the Medical Association (Zdravniško Društvo) to set up a commission to prepare an opinion in the case. The commission was composed of the same experts as those who were preparing the forensic report (see paragraph 17 below). According to the report, the opinion was sent on 11 June 1993 to the Ministry of Health, which published it in two of Slovenia's main newspapers on 19 June 1993. 17. On 1 July 1993 the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine submitted their report, which stated, inter alia: “The anaphylactic shock which ... followed the administration of Dexamethason and Synopen was most likely due to sensitivity to one of the mentioned drugs. The medical treatment of anaphylactic shock in the Slovenj Gradec Hospital was, on the basis of the medical records, in accordance with established medical practice. The consequent ventricular fibrillation was influenced by the infection of the heart muscle, which Gregor Šilih must have contracted several weeks before 3 May 1993. After the ventricular fibrillation occurred, the hospital staff gave resuscitation. According to the medical records, this was performed in accordance with established medical practice. In the period from Gregor Šilih's admission to the Slovenj Gradec Hospital until his death, we have not found any acts or omissions in his medical treatment which could be characterised as clearly inappropriate or negligent.” 18. On 8 April 1994 the public prosecutor dismissed the applicants' criminal complaint on the ground of insufficient evidence. 19. On 1 August 1994 the applicants, acting as “subsidiary” prosecutors (subsidiarni tožilec), lodged a request for the opening of a criminal investigation (zahteva za preiskavo) into M.E.'s conduct. 20. On 8 November 1994, having heard representations from M.E. on 26 October 1994, the investigating judge of the Maribor First-Instance Court (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru) granted their request. On 27 December 1994, on an appeal (pritožba) by M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel (zunaj-obravnavni senat) of the Maribor First-Instance Court overturned the investigating judge's decision after finding that the evidence in the case-file, in particular the forensic report, did not afford reasonable grounds for suspecting M.E. of manifestly acting in breach of professional standards. 21. An appeal by the applicants and a request for the protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) were dismissed, the latter in a decision of 29 June 1995 by the Slovenj Gradec District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Slovenj Gradcu), which obtained jurisdiction in the case after the reorganisation of the judiciary in 1995. The applicants contested that decision. On 5 October 1995 the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru) dismissed their appeal on essentially the same grounds as those on which the previous appeal and request for the protection of legality had been rejected, namely that the applicants were not entitled to appeal against the interlocutory-proceedings panel's decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctor. 22. Subsequently the applicants obtained a medical opinion from Doctor T.V. who stated, inter alia, that myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), which had previously been considered a contributory factor in the death of the applicants' son, could have occurred when he was in anaphylactic shock or even later. As a result, on 30 November 1995 they lodged a request to reopen the criminal investigation (see paragraph 90 below). In addition, they lodged a motion to change the venue of the proceedings to the Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru). On 31 January 1996 the Maribor Higher Court granted their motion for a change of venue. 23. On 26 April 1996 the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court granted the applicants' request for the reopening of the investigation. An appeal by M.E. was rejected by the Maribor Higher Court on 4 July 1996. 24. In the course of the investigation, the investigating judge examined witnesses and obtained an opinion from P.G., an expert at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Graz (Austria). P.G. stated in his report that the administration of the antihistaminic had led to the applicants' son's serious allergic reaction. He expressed doubts as to the pre-existence of myocarditis. 25. On 10 February 1997 the investigating judge closed the investigation. 26. Owing to the complexity of the case, the applicants asked the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office (Okrožno državno tožilstvo v Mariboru) to take over the conduct of the prosecution. Their request was rejected on 21 February 1997. The Head of the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office subsequently explained to the Supreme Public Prosecutor (Vrhovni državni tožilec) that, while P.G.'s report confirmed the existence of reasonable suspicion that M.E. had caused the death by negligence, it was not a sufficient basis on which to lodge an indictment as that required a degree of certainty. 27. On 28 February 1997 the applicants lodged an indictment accusing M.E. of the criminal offence of “causing death by negligence” (povzročitev smrti iz malomarnosti). 28. On 7 May 1997, upon M.E.'s objection to the indictment, the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court directed the applicants to request, within three days, additional investigative measures (see paragraph 93 below). 29. The investigating judge subsequently examined several witnesses and ordered a forensic report by K.H., an Austrian forensic expert in the field of emergency medicine and anaesthesia. K.H. stated in his report that the ultimate reason for the death of the applicants' son was relatively uncertain, so that the issue of the effectiveness of the measures taken by M.E in response to the son's condition was of no relevance. 30. On 22 June 1998 the investigating judge informed the applicants that it had been decided to close the investigation. He reminded them that they must either lodge an indictment or a further request for additional investigating measures within fifteen days (see paragraphs 91-92 below). 31. On 30 June 1998 the applicants asked the investigating judge to question K.H., P.G. and T.V. 32. On 24 November 1998, after questioning K.H., the investigating judge informed the applicants that the investigation had been closed. They were again reminded that they must either lodge an indictment or a further request for additional investigative measures within fifteen days. 33. On 10 December 1998 the applicants lodged an indictment supplemented by evidence that had been obtained in the extended investigation. On 12 January 1999 an interlocutory-proceedings panel rejected M.E.'s objection to the initial indictment as unfounded. 34. On 22 January 1999 M.E. lodged a request for the protection of legality, claiming that the indictment submitted on 10 December 1998 had not been served on her. On 25 February 1999 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) quashed the Maribor District Court's decision of 12 January 1999 and remitted the case to the District Court with instructions to serve the indictment of 10 December 1998 on M.E. M.E. subsequently lodged an objection to that indictment and on 3 June 1999 the interlocutory-proceedings panel decided to refer the case back to the applicants, directing them to obtain further evidence – by requesting additional investigative measures – within three days from the service of its decision. 35. The applicants complied with the directions and on 21 June 1999 requested additional investigative measures, in particular the examination of K.H., P.G. and T.V. In their request, they complained of the remittal of the case since they considered that the evidence should have been further assessed at the trial and not at that stage of the proceedings. 36. Further to their request, the investigating judge ordered a supplementary report from K.H. and, on 3 December 1999, informed the applicants that further investigative measures had been taken and that they had 15 days in which to lodge an indictment or request additional measures. 37. Following a request by the applicants on 16 December 1999 for further measures, the investigating judge ordered a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 1993 and the examination of two witnesses. 38. The investigation was closed on 3 May 2000. The applicants were reminded of the requirements under section 186, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Act (“the CPA” – see paragraph 92 below). 39. In the meantime, on 28 June 1999 the applicants again made an unsuccessful request to the public prosecutor to take over the conduct of the prosecution. 40. On 19 May 2000 the applicants filed a further indictment and the additional evidence they had been directed to obtain. 41. In August 2000 the applicants complained to the Judicial Council (Sodni svet) about the length of the criminal proceedings. They also challenged the three judges sitting on the interlocutory-proceedings panel which had previously heard M.E.'s objection to the indictment. On 10 October 2000 the President of the Maribor District Court rejected the applicants' request for the judges to stand down. 42. Following a further objection to the indictment by M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel examined the case on 18 October 2000 and decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings. Relying in particular on the opinions of the Ljubljana Institute of Forensic Medicine and K.H., it found that the applicants' son's reaction to the administration of Dexamethason and/or Synopen was a consequence of his sensitivity to those drugs and of myocarditis, which was undoubtedly a pre-existing condition. As regards the conduct of M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the applicants' accusation that she had committed the criminal offence alleged. The applicants were ordered to pay the court fees and the expenses incurred in the proceedings since 23 January 1999 (the date the CPA was amended so as to require the aggrieved party to pay costs if the proceedings ended with the dismissal of the indictment). 43. On 7 November 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal which the Maribor Higher Court dismissed on 20 December 2000. They then petitioned the Public Prosecutor-General (Generalni državni tožilec), asking him to lodge a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court. Their petition was rejected on 18 May 2001. 44. In the meantime, on 13 March 2001 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče), complaining of procedural unfairness and the length of the proceedings and that they had been denied access to a court since the indictment had been rejected by the interlocutory-proceedings panel. On 9 October 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed their appeal on the ground that after the final discontinuance of criminal proceedings a “subsidiary” prosecutor could not appeal to the Constitutional Court, as he had no locus standi before that court. 45. On 27 March 2001 the applicants also lodged a criminal complaint alleging improper conduct on the part of seven judges of the Maribor District and Higher Courts who had sat in their case. The complaint was dismissed as unfounded by the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office on 13 June 2001. 46. Subsequently, the applicants made several attempts to reopen the case. Among other motions filed by the applicants that were rejected as inadmissible by the authorities were the following. On 3 July 2001 they lodged a “request for the criminal proceedings to be reinstated”, which was considered in substance to be a request for the reopening of the case. On 29 August 2001 the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court dismissed the request on the grounds that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued in a decision that was final and that it would be detrimental to the accused to reopen the case. On 9 November 2001 the Maribor Higher Court rejected an appeal by the applicants dated 4 September 2001. On 24 June 2002 the applicants lodged with the Maribor Higher Court a “request for immediate annulment of the entire criminal proceedings ... conducted before the Maribor District Court”. This was also considered in substance to be a request for the reopening of the case and was likewise dismissed. On 27 November 2002 the Maribor Higher Court rejected an appeal by the applicants. 47. Ultimately, on 17 July 2002 the applicants lodged a fresh indictment against M.E. On 14 July 2003 the Slovenj Gradec District Court struck the indictment out because the prosecution of the alleged offence had become time-barred on 3 May 2003. 48. On 6 July 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital and M.E. in the Slovenj Gradec District Court for the non-pecuniary damage they had sustained as a result of their son's death in the amount of 24,300,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT). 49. On 10 August 1995 they also instituted proceedings against the head of the internal medical care unit, F.V., and the director of the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital, D.P. Further to a request by the applicants, the court joined the two sets of proceedings. 50. All the defendants in the proceedings had lodged their written pleadings by October 1995. 51. On 30 August 1997, in a supervisory appeal (nadzorstvena pritožba) to the President of the Slovenj Gradec District Court, the applicants argued that the civil proceedings should proceed despite the fact that criminal proceedings were pending since the latter had already been considerably delayed. 52. On 21 October 1997, referring to sub-paragraph 1 of section 213 of the Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 97 below), the court stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings. It noted that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend to a large extent on the determination of the preliminary question (predhodno vprašanje), namely the verdict in the criminal proceedings. The applicants did not appeal against that decision, which therefore became final on 17 November 1997. 53. On 22 October 1998 Judge S.P. replied to a supervisory appeal by the applicants dated 15 October 1998, inter alia in the following terms: “[The applicants] are 'subsidiary' prosecutors in the criminal proceedings and therefore are very well aware that the proceedings before the Maribor District Court, where the preliminary question is being determined, have not been completed. Their supervisory appeal concerning the stay of the [civil] proceedings is therefore pure hypocrisy.” Upon a complaint by the applicants lodged with the Ministry of Justice, Judge S.P. was ordered to explain her reply to the applicants. 54. In February 1999 the applicants again filed a supervisory appeal; the stay, however, remained in force. 55. On 27 August 1999 Judge P.P., to whom the case appears to have been assigned in the meantime, sent the applicants a letter, in which he stated, inter alia: “In the instant case the determination of criminal liability is a preliminary question which is relevant to the determination of the civil claim, since a civil court cannot establish facts which are different from those established by the criminal court.” 56. On 8 September 1999 the applicants filed a motion for a change of venue which the Supreme Court rejected on 13 October 1999. 57. On 6 December 1999 the Slovenj Gradec District Court informed the applicants that the reasons for staying the proceedings still obtained. 58. On 12 March 2001 the applicants filed a supervisory appeal requesting that the stay of the civil proceedings be lifted. On 19 May 2001 Judge P.P. scheduled a hearing for 13 June 2001. However, that hearing was subsequently cancelled at the applicants' request after their representative explained that she had been injured in a road accident and was on sick leave. 59. On 11 June 2001 the applicants filed a further motion for a change of venue. On 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court decided to move the venue to the Maribor District Court on the grounds of “tension that was impeding and delaying the trial”. 60. The case was subsequently assigned to Judge M.T.Z. On 3 April 2002 the Maribor District Court held a hearing which was adjourned as the applicants indicated that they wished to lodge a request for the judges officiating at that court to stand down. 61. After lodging a criminal complaint against some of the judges (see paragraph 45 above), the applicants filed a motion on 8 April 2002 for all the judges at the Maribor District Court and Maribor Higher Court to stand down. Having been asked to comment on the applicants' request, Judge M.T.Z. stated, inter alia, that she had realised at the hearing on 3 April 2002 that one of the defendants, with whom she had shaken hands at the hearing, was a close acquaintance (“dober znanec”) of her father. She added that the applicants were constantly lodging objections which had made it impossible to conduct the proceedings properly. It would appear that Judge M.T.Z subsequently herself requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 12 August 2002 the request for the judges to stand down was granted in so far as it concerned Judge M.T.Z. The case was assigned to Judge K.P. 62. On 21 November 2002 and 20 March 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' motions for a change of venue. 63. A hearing scheduled for 12 June 2003 was adjourned at the applicants' request, after they had alleged that their lawyer was unwilling to represent them since her daughter had been denied medical care in the Ljubljana Clinical Centre. They subsequently informed the court that their lawyer would, in fact, continue to represent them. 64. On 28 October 2003 the Maribor District Court held a hearing at which it examined F.V. and M.E. It would appear from the records of the hearing that the applicants were not allowed to ask a series of twelve questions they wished to put. The judge's decision not to allow the questions was based mostly on objections made by the defendant, although on four occasions the court does appear to have stated reasons for its decision not to allow the question concerned. 65. On 8 December 2003 the applicants filed a motion for Judge K.P. to stand down. That request was rejected on 18 December 2003. 66. A hearing scheduled for 16 January 2004 was adjourned because the applicants had lodged a further motion for a change of venue. On 5 March 2004 the applicants lodged another motion. Both motions were rejected by the Supreme Court (on 22 January 2004 and 13 May 2004 respectively). 67. It appears that hearings scheduled for 23 and 24 March 2005 were adjourned because of the applicants' newly appointed lawyer's commitments in another, unrelated case. 68. On 4 May 2005 the applicants filed written submissions and amended their claim for damages. They also requested that the proceedings be expedited. 69. On 12 October 2005 Judge D.M., to whom the case had apparently meanwhile been assigned, was ordered by the President of the Maribor District Court to treat the case with priority and to report every sixty days on the status of the proceedings. The President explained his decision by referring to the length of the proceedings, the case's high profile and the intervention by the Ombudsman (Varuh človekovih pravic). 70. A hearing was held on 23, 25 and 27 January 2006 before Judge D.M. The applicants withdrew their claims in respect of F.V. and D.P. After the hearing, they requested Judge D.M. to stand down on the grounds that she had refused to allow them adequate time to reply to their opponent's extensive submissions which had been filed on the same day. Their request was rejected by the President of the Maribor District Court on 30 January 2006. However, on 31 January 2006 Judge D.M. herself asked to withdraw from the proceedings on the ground that her full name had been mentioned in a newspaper article on 28 January 2006 which had also stated that she had been asked to stand down owing to the alleged unequal treatment of the parties in the proceedings. The president of the court upheld her request as being “certainly well-founded”. 71. The case was subsequently assigned to Judge A.Z. 72. Hearings were held on 16 June and 25 August 2006. 73. On 25 August 2006 the Maribor District Court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicants' claim, which ultimately amounted to SIT 10,508,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and SIT 5,467,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicants were ordered to pay legal costs to the defendants. Relying on the expert opinions, the court concluded that M.E. could not have foreseen the applicants' son's reaction to the drugs that were administered to him and that she and the hospital staff had acted in accordance with the required standard of care. In addition, the court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicants' claim that the hospital was not properly equipped. 74. On 25 October 2006 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Maribor Higher Court. They argued that the first-instance court had not correctly established all the relevant facts, had wrongly applied the substantive law and had committed a procedural error by not allowing or taking into account certain evidence and, in particular, by refusing to obtain a further expert opinion. 75. On 15 January 2008 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated and upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 76. On 28 February 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija). 77. On 10 July 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal on points of law after noting that, apart from the reference to the European Court of Human Rights' judgment finding a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, it raised essentially the same complaint as their appeal to the Higher Court, namely the refusal to obtain or consider certain evidence the applicants considered relevant. It rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated, finding that the lower courts had acted in accordance with the law. It further held that the European Court of Human Rights' judgment, which related to the requirement for the prompt examination of cases concerning death in a hospital setting, could not have influenced its conclusion as to the lawfulness of the refusal to obtain or consider the evidence in question. 78. On 15 September 2008 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of the following constitutional guarantees: the right to equality before the law, the inviolability of human life, the right to equal protection, the right to judicial protection and the right to legal remedies. The proceedings are still pending. 79. On 29 April 2002 the Maribor District Public Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment (obtožni predlog) against the first applicant alleging that she had engaged in insulting behaviour by saying to an official at the Maribor District Court “I have had enough of this f*** court, the damn State does not do anything, isn't it aware that our son was killed!”. The prosecution was based on a criminal complaint filed by the Maribor District Court. 80. On 5 October 2004 the Maribor District Court withdrew the criminal complaint as a result of the Ombudsman's intervention (see paragraph 85 below). The Maribor Local Court subsequently dismissed the bill of indictment. 81. The applicants lodged several petitions with the Ombudsman's office concerning the conduct of the civil proceedings. Their case was reported in the Ombudsman's Annual Reports of 2002, 2003 and 2004. 82. In a letter to the President of the Slovenj Gradec District Court on 24 April 2001, the Deputy Ombudsman stressed that the issue of criminal liability could not be regarded as a preliminary question in the civil proceedings instituted against the doctor and the hospital. He further stated that there was no justification for staying the civil proceedings. 83. In a letter to the applicants of 29 August 2002 and his Annual Report of 2002 (pp. 42 and 43), the Ombudsman criticised the conduct of Judge M.T.Z. He stressed that the judge had expressed concerns about her ability to appear impartial only after the applicants had filed the request for her to stand down and after the Ombudsman's intervention in the case, although she had been aware of the reasons for the concerns beforehand. 84. The section of the Ombudsman's Report of 2003 (pp. 226-228) dealing with the applicants' case and in particular criticising aspects of the judge's conduct of the civil proceedings states, inter alia: “In the record of the hearing [of 28 October 2003] reference is made to twelve questions which the plaintiffs were not permitted to ask. ... As regards the majority of these twelve questions, the record contains no indication why the judge did not allow the plaintiffs to put the questions. In each instance, there was a prior objection by the defendants' representatives to the question. ... Although [the applicants'] reactions, statements and proposals were perhaps extreme on occasion, the authorities, including the courts, ought to have taken into account their emotional distress ... [a factor which] may necessitate the trial being conducted in a particularly tolerant and flexible way, [though] without breaching procedural rules to the detriment of the defendants. However, the record of the hearing gives the impression of a tense rather than dispassionate atmosphere at the hearing, an impression that is reinforced also by the records of the exchanges between the judge and the plaintiffs' representative.” 85. In his Annual Report of 2004 (pp. 212-214), the Ombudsman criticised the Maribor District Court for filing the criminal complaint against the first applicant. The report drew attention to the Maribor District Court's explanation that it was required by law to file and pursue the criminal complaint as it would be guilty of a criminal offence if it did not. The Ombudsman stressed that there was no legal basis for such a conclusion. On the contrary, a criminal charge for an offence of insulting behaviour could only be pursued on the basis of the aggrieved party's criminal complaint, which in the instant case was the Maribor District Court's complaint. Following the Ombudsman's intervention and in view of the arguments set out in his letters, the Maribor District Court decided to withdraw the criminal complaint against the first applicant.

5. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia. 6. On 19 November 1998 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant on allegations of wilfully inflicting intermediate bodily harm on a former colleague of his at a construction site. On 15 February 1999 he was charged and ordered to pay bail. On 18 February 1999 he appealed to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, asking for a reduction of the bail. On an unspecified date that office granted the request, but its decision was not notified to the applicant. As he was unaware of it, he did not pay the bail. Accordingly, on 21 April 1999 an order was made for him to be placed in pre‑trial detention. He was not notified of that order either. 7. At about 2.40 p.m. on 28 May 1999, following a visit by a police officer to his home earlier that day, the applicant appeared at the first district police department in Sofia. At about 5.30 p.m. he was formally taken into custody. Several days later the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request for his release with the Sofia District Court. On 8 June 1999 that court made an order to that effect and the applicant was set free on 10 June 1999. 8. According to the applicant’s allegations, some time after being taken into custody the applicant was taken to a room on the fourth floor of the police department, where he saw a uniformed and a plain clothes police officer. Shortly after that the investigator in charge of his case, Ms T., came in and asked him to sign certain papers relating to his pre‑trial detention and the criminal charges against him. The applicant refused, whereupon she started shouting at him. The applicant still refused to sign, as in the papers it was stated that he did not wish to give evidence, which was not the case. He said that the offence alleged against him was not an arrestable one. After a verbal exchange the uniformed police officer started kicking the applicant on the left tibia and beneath the right knee. The plain clothes officer punched him in the face and the chest and slapped him on the face. In the same time Ms T. insisted that the applicant sign the papers presented to him, which he eventually did. 9. After that another uniformed police officer entered the room and, together with the one already present, took the applicant out. They cuffed both of his hands to a pipe running at head level along the corridor. He spent about two hours in this position. 10. At about 7.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to the cell block, situated on the top floor of the police department. He was put in a cell with three other detainees, Mr G.M., Mr T.T. and Mr E. 11. On the morning of the following day, 29 May 1999, the applicant requested to contact his mother or a lawyer, or to be interviewed by the investigator. However, nothing ensued. As the applicant was persisting in his requests, on 30 May 1999 the guards apparently became annoyed with him. 12. According to the applicant’s allegations, on the evening of 30 May 1999 he was let out of his cell together with Mr G.M. to go to the toilet. On the way back, in the corridor, he waited for Mr G.M. to move away from him and closer to the cell, and broke the glass of one of the corridor’s windows. Hearing the noise, Mr G.M. turned to see what was happening. The applicant made him a sign to move away, and Mr G.M. went back to the cell. Then the applicant took a piece of broken glass and cut himself on the forearms, allegedly in protest against the way in which he was being treated in custody. Thereupon one of the guards, sergeant R.V., came out of the guards’ room, holding two truncheons. He hit the applicant on the forearms to make him drop the piece of glass. Then he kicked him into the toilet and started hitting his waist with the truncheons. After that he threw him to the ground and started kicking him. The applicant lost consciousness. Sergeant R.V. poured water over him to restore him to consciousness, pulled him upright and made him strip naked. Then he poured more water on the applicant to clean him. He put him back in the cell naked and handcuffed him lying on the floor, with his hands secured behind his back. The applicant spent two to three hours like this. At about 7 p.m. chief sergeant S.S. arrived and ordered that the handcuffs be secured in front of the applicant’s body, and that he be dressed and covered with a blanket. 13. On the morning of 31 May 1999, some time before 9 a.m., the applicant banged his head against the cell wall several times, allegedly to protest against his treatment. Thereupon sergeant R.V. dragged him out of the cell and hit his thighs with a truncheon. As a result of his being dragged along the floor the applicant’s back was grazed. 14. Later that day the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case, Ms T., was informed of the incident and ordered that the applicant’s handcuffs be removed and that he be examined by the in‑house doctor. As the applicant was unable to move alone, one of his cellmates, Mr T.T., helped him go there. The doctor, first lieutenant N.T., found that the applicant was uncommunicative and somnolent. Later the applicant was taken to a hospital operated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where he was examined by doctor K. After that he was taken back to the detention facility, where he remained until 10 June 1999. 15. On 11 June 1999, the day following his release, the applicant made colour photographs of his body. They showed a number of bruises. 16. On 12 June 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Chair of Forensic Medicine and Professional Ethics of the Sofia Medical Academy. The doctor noted the following marks on his body: (i) a grazing scar measuring 4 to 2.5 cm on the right upper part of the forehead, near the hair, accompanied by a very slightly pronounced yellowish‑violet haematoma; (ii) a pale‑rose scar of a healing wound, about 1 cm long, in the middle of the lower part of the chin; (iii) three oval yellowish‑violet haematomas with diameters from 3 to 5 cm on the chest; (iv) an area measuring 28 to 20 cm covering the lower left third of the thorax, the flank and the buttocks, where one could observe a number of obliquely positioned strip‑shaped haematomas, almost parallel to one another, higher in the back and lower in the front; this area was almost diffusely swollen and filled with blood, but there existed distinct haematomas consisting of two dark strips around one light strip, each being about 0.5 to 1 cm wide and 8 to 15 cm long; (v) a number of yellowish‑violet haematomas with various shapes and sizes (some strip‑shaped, others oval) on the right shoulder and the lateral‑back surface of both forearms; (vi) a multitude of pale‑rose strip‑shaped scars on the internal side of the right forearm, along its length, and four such scars on the left forearm; some of those on the right one were crossed by transversal scars; the longitudinal ones, which were several millimetres wide, ran from the elbow to the wrist joint; (vii) spotted yellowish‑violet haematomas on the highest third of the right forearm; (vii) a haematoma measuring 20 to 13 cm on the lateral surface of the upper part of the left thigh; (ix) a similar haematoma, measuring 19 to 16 cm, on the front surface of the right thigh; (x) a haematoma measuring 10 to 8 cm on the back surface of the right thigh; (xi) a number of yellowish‑violet haematomas on both knees and on the front surface of both legs beneath the knee, almost diffusely from the knees to the ankles. The doctor was of the opinion that the injuries to the applicant’s body were consistent with the blows described by him. In his view, these injuries amounted to intermediate bodily harm within the meaning of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 25 below) and were the result of a number of blows made with considerable strength and causing pain for prolonged periods of time. 17. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office and requested the opening of criminal proceedings against the officers who had allegedly ill‑treated him. After conducting a preliminary inquiry, during which it gathered certain documents but carried out no interviews, in a decision of 19 October 1999 a prosecutor of that office rejected the applicant’s request. He stated that at the time of his arrest the applicant had not had any “health‑related complaints”. The prosecutor further found that when the guards had tried to take away the piece of glass which the applicant had used to cut his veins, he had waved it towards them and his cellmates, which had compelled the use of force and handcuffs. He also briefly described the banging of the applicant’s head against the cell wall, but did not refer to any of the allegations of beating with truncheons and kicking, and did not mention the applicant’s injuries. He stated that the guards’ actions had been in line with the applicable legal provisions and therefore did not amount to a criminal offence. 18. The applicant appealed to the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. In a decision of 29 December 1999 the deputy head of that office dismissed the appeal. He stated that the inquiry conducted pursuant to the applicant’s allegations had been “especially thorough and comprehensive”. The applicant had broken a window and had tried to cut his veins. When the guards had intervened, he had put up strong resistance, including reaching out with a piece of glass, which had driven the guards to forcibly handcuff him. Later on he had banged his head against the cell wall. All of this led to the conclusion that no criminal offence had been committed by the guards. 19. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office. In a decision of 26 January 2000 a prosecutor of that office dismissed the appeal. He described the 30 May 1999 incident in some detail and noted that the guards had denied beating the applicant or using force against him beyond what had been necessary to restrain him and take the piece of glass away from him. As regards the 31 May 1999 incident, he did not make any mention of beating following the applicant’s banging his head against the cell wall. He also described the applicant’s injuries, as noted in the 12 June 1999 medical certificate, but said that they could have been the result of guards’ subduing his resistance and placing him on the ground. The injuries could have also been caused by the applicant’s cellmates. There was furthermore no indication that he had been medically examined on being taken into custody, whereas the medical certificate presented by him did not specify the time when the injuries had been sustained. The decision was sent to the applicant on 1 February 2000. 20. The applicant later lodged a criminal complaint with the Sofia District Court. In a decision of 22 May 2000 the court dismissed the complaint, holding that the facts alleged by the applicant amounted to a publicly prosecutable offence, which made it impossible to institute private criminal proceedings pursuant to them. 21. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 22 June 1999 the director of the pre-trial detention facilities directorate of the Ministry advised him that an internal inquiry had been carried out. It had found that in using force against the applicant the custodial staff had acted adequately and had not exceeded their powers. If the applicant disagreed with this conclusion, it remained open to him to issue proceedings under the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 28 below). A second complaint by the applicant resulted in a letter dated 4 August 1999 by the same director, in which he stated that a second check had confirmed that the guards had not used excessive force. It invited the applicant to name the guards who had allegedly ill‑treated him. 22. Meanwhile, on 3 August 1999, the Ministry of Internal Affairs wrote to the applicant, apparently in reply to a complaint. It stated that there was no indication that the applicant had ever been taken to the First District Police Department in Sofia. 23. On 25 October 1999 the applicant wrote again to the Ministry of Justice, requesting an investigation of the incident. On 3 November 1999 the Deputy Minister of Justice replied that sergeant R.V. had denied hitting the applicant and had stated that he had used force only to the extent necessary to restrain him. There was no indication that the applicant had been subjected to degrading treatment. This was also confirmed by the decision of the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office. If the applicant disagreed with this conclusion, it remained open to him to bring an action under the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 28 below). 24. In reply to further complaints by the applicant, the Deputy Minister of Justice advised him in a letter of 16 March 2000 that the matter fell within the competence of the military prosecution authorities.

7. On 16 August 1994 the applicant applied for benefits under the General Labour Disability Act (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet – “AAW”) for incapacity to work since birth. On 16 February 1995, the New General Occupational Association (Nieuwe algemene bedrijfsvereniging – “NAB”) rejected his request. On 17 March 1995 the applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal with the Administrative Law Division of the Utrecht Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank). 8. On 27 April 1995 the Registrar to the Utrecht Regional Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that the appeal could only be examined after payment of registration fees amounting to 50 Netherlands Guilders (NLG). On 12 May 1995 the applicant paid these fees, which were received by the Regional Court on 19 May 1995. 9. On 11 August 1995 the Utrecht Regional Court requested the NAB to submit its response to the applicant’s appeal, as well as documents relating to the case. It sent a reminder to the NAB on 12 September 1995. 10. On 14 September 1995, not having heard anything from the Regional Court since 27 April 1995, the applicant’s lawyer requested information from the Regional Court about the state of affairs. On the same day the Regional Court granted a request filed by the NAB to be allowed more time for the submission of the documents which the court had requested. 11. On 5 October 1995 the applicant submitted to the Regional Court a report from a psychiatrist, Mr M., according to which the applicant was incapacitated for work and that the reasons for his incapacity had existed since birth. 12. On 13 October 1995 the NAB filed a second request with the Regional Court for a postponement of the submission of the documents requested. The court granted this request. The NAB filed a third request for postponement on 14 November 1995. 13. As he had still received no reply from the Regional Court, the applicant’s lawyer sent a further request for information on 30 November 1995. 14. On 15 December 1995 the NAB filed a fourth request for postponement with the Regional Court. On 18 December 1995, the court informed the NAB that a postponement of four weeks had been granted, but that no further extension would be granted. In the absence of any submissions from the NAB, the Regional Court would proceed with the examination of the applicant’s case. 15. On 8 January 1996 the NAB submitted its response to the applicant’s appeal as well as a number of documents. The Regional Court transmitted these submissions to the applicant’s lawyer on 11 January 1996. 16. On 24 January 1996 the Regional Court commenced its examination. On the basis of preliminary conclusions reached, it requested the NAB on 20 June 1996 to provide further information and submissions on the merits of the case. On 16 July 1996, the NAB requested a postponement for these submissions. 17. On 18 July 1996 the Regional Court transmitted a copy of the report of Mr M. to the NAB. On 12 August 1996, the NAB submitted further documents to the Regional Court as well as a reaction to Mr M.’s report from a social security medical officer. These submissions were transmitted to the applicant on 28 August 1996. The applicant replied on 13 September 1996. His response was transmitted to the NAB on 3 October 1996. 18. On 2 December 1996 the Regional Court requested the NAB to explain why it had considered itself competent to determine the applicant’s request of 7 September 1994 rather than transmit it to the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry (Bedrijfsvereniging voor het Slagers- en Vleeswarenbedrijf, de Groothandel in Vlees en de Pluimveeslachterijen). The NAB was requested to submit its answer within four weeks. On 20 December 1996, the NAB requested an extension of that time-limit. 19. On 16 January 1997 the applicant filed further documents with the Regional Court. These were transmitted to the NAB on 21 January 1997. 20. On 30 January 1997 the NAB informed the Regional Court that, although this could not be determined with certainty, it was very likely that the applicant had in fact been insured under the AAW with the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry and that it could no longer be traced why his request for AAW benefits had not been transmitted to this Occupational Association. The NAB noted in addition that in the decision of 16 February 1995 no adequate reply had been given to the applicant’s request for benefits, in that the applicant claimed to have been incapacitated as from birth, whereas the decision of 16 February 1995 only concerned a period starting on 29 May 1986. 21. On 4 February 1997 the Regional Court transmitted the further submissions of the NAB to the applicant’s lawyer. 22. On 24 February 1997, the Regional Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that its preliminary examination had now been completed and that, in the court’s view, the case was now ready for decision. The Regional Court asked whether the parties could agree to a determination of the appeal without a hearing, in accordance with Article 8:57 of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht). 23. On 25 February 1997 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Regional Court that he wished to have a hearing. The applicant’s lawyer further drew the court’s attention to the fact that the case had now been pending for two years before the Regional Court and, referring to the case-law of the Convention organs under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, argued that it was unlikely that such a duration, for a mere jurisdictional decision, was compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of that Convention provision. 24. On 1 March 1997 the National Social Insurance Institute (Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen – “LISV”) replaced the NAB. 25. On 8 April 1997 the Regional Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that a hearing had been scheduled for 6 May 1997 at 11.10 a.m. On 9 April 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested a postponement of the hearing as he had to appear before a different Regional Court in another case on the same day at around the same time. 26. Confirming an agreement reached over the telephone on 14 April 1997, the Regional Court informed the applicant’s representative on 25 April 1997 that the hearing scheduled for 6 May 1997 would proceed as planned. On 1 May 1997, the applicant’s lawyer informed the Regional Court of the name of a colleague who would represent the applicant at the hearing. The hearing before the Regional Court in the applicant’s case was held on 6 May 1997. 27. In its decision of 13 June 1997, the Regional Court held that the decision of 16 February 1995 failed to give an adequate reply to the applicant’s request for AAW benefits on grounds of an incapacity to work from birth, as the decision was based on an incapacity to work as from 29 May 1986. It further held that the NAB had not been competent to determine the applicant’s request. This should have been done by the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry. Consequently, the Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 February 1995, ordered the LISV to take a new decision and to reimburse the registration fees paid by the applicant to it. Costs were also ordered against the LISV. 28. On 16 July 1997 the applicant filed an appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep), requesting the Central Appeals Tribunal to quash the decision of 13 June 1997 and to award him, as from 1 October 1976, social security benefits on the basis of an 80-100% incapacity to work. 29. On 18 July 1997 the LISV also filed an appeal against the decision of 13 June 1997 with the Central Appeals Tribunal. However, by letter of 27 August 1997, the LISV informed the applicant’s lawyer that it had decided to withdraw its appeal and that the applicant’s case-file had been transmitted to the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry for a new decision on the applicant’s request for benefits for his incapacity to work. 30. On 18 September 1997 the Central Appeals Tribunal informed the applicant’s lawyer that, to date, he had not submitted any grounds for the appeal that he had lodged. He was invited to remedy this within four weeks. 31. On 14 October 1997 the applicant’s lawyer submitted his grounds of appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal, including a reference to a letter of 26 September 1997 in which the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry had stated that it could not be excluded that it would conclude that it was not competent to determine the applicant’s request for AAW benefits. These grounds of appeal were transmitted to the LISV on 3 November 1997. 32. On 24 December 1997 the LISV submitted its response to the applicant’s appeal, which was transmitted to the applicant’s lawyer on 7 January 1998. 33. On 17 March 1998, the applicant’s lawyer requested information from the administration of the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry about the applicant’s request for benefits. On 5 May 1998 the administration office informed the applicant’s lawyer that, given the appeal apparently lodged against the decision of 13 June 1997 and pending the outcome of that appeal, it was unable to take a new decision on the applicant’s request. On 13 May 1998 the applicant’s lawyer transmitted a copy of that letter to the Central Appeals Tribunal, requesting that it be included in the case-file. 34. On 22 September 1998 the Central Appeals Tribunal informed the parties that a hearing had been scheduled for 28 October 1998. In its decision of 25 November 1998, following the hearing on 28 October 1998, the Central Appeals Tribunal upheld the decision of 13 June 1997. It did, however, partially amend the reasoning to the effect that the LISV should first determine which organ was in fact competent to decide on the applicant’s request. On this point, it held: “In the preparation of the new decision to be taken, [the LISV] must consider, on the basis of inter alia the exact employment history of the applicant, which social security implementation agency (uitvoeringsinstelling) must take that decision on behalf of [the LISV] by virtue of the LISV Mandate Order (Mandaatsbesluit) of 3 March 1997... On the basis of the information currently available [the Central Appeals Tribunal considers that], differing from the Regional Court, this is still unclear.” 35. On 26 May 1999, with reference to a previous letter of 21 December 1997, the LISV informed the applicant’s lawyer that, after an investigation, the competent organ to determine the applicant’s request had been identified, namely the Joint Administration Office (Gemeenschappelijk Administratiekantoor – “GAK”) Nederland BV. 36. By decision of 21 July 1999, GAK Nederland BV granted the applicant, as from 16 August 1993, benefits on the basis of an 80‑100% incapacity to work, the arrears amounting to a net sum of NLG 64,333.47 (29,193.26 euros (EUR)). On 20 September 1999, the applicant was awarded a further amount of NLG 23,484.74 (EUR 10,656.91) in statutory interest on the arrears.

5. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Baku. 6. The applicant was a member and former President of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. He has been awarded a number of Soviet and Azerbaijani prizes and honours for his scientific achievements in the fields of physics and mathematics. He was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR several times and between 1995 and 2000 was a member of the Milli Mejlis (Parliament) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 7. At the time of the events in question the applicant was in retirement. 8. On 27 October 2005 the applicant was summoned to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) as a witness in a criminal case concerning an attempted coup d'état by several incumbent and former high-ranking government officials, as well as the incumbent Ministers of Healthcare and Economic Development and the self-exiled former Speaker of the Milli Mejlis. The alleged means by which this attempted coup d'état were to be accomplished was to overthrow the current Government by organising mass disorder after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005. 9. At approximately 10 a.m. on 27 October 2005 the applicant arrived voluntarily at the MNS building. 10. According to the applicant, he was forcibly kept inside the MNS building after his arrival there and was not allowed to leave it even for lunch. During this time he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer of his choosing and he was subsequently provided with a State-appointed lawyer. 11. At 8.15 p.m. the Chief Investigator of the Investigation Department of the MNS issued a record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of the applicant and a State-appointed lawyer. The investigator noted that the applicant was suspected of the crimes of attempted organisation of mass disorder and attempted usurpation of state power by force, as provided by Articles 28, 220 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 12. According to the applicant, he wrote by hand on the second page of the document that he denied all the accusations. However, his lawyer was given only a copy of the first page of this two-page document. 13. The applicant was summoned to the MNS as a witness within the framework of a criminal case and he arrived at the MNS building at approximately 10.45 a.m. 14. His questioning by an investigator began at 11.40 a.m. and lasted until 2.30 p.m. Following this questioning, the investigator decided to hold a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and an accused person in the criminal case in question. This confrontation began at 5.10 p.m. and continued until 6 p.m. The applicant's State-appointed lawyer entered the MNS building at 7.57 p.m. and the record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect was issued at 8.15 p.m. 15. From the moment of the applicant's arrival at the MNS building to the end of the confrontation, there was no restriction on the applicant's liberty. He was not held in a special room or cell and he was not prohibited from leaving the MNS building. Moreover, he was in a room for witnesses in which there was a telephone line and, despite the investigator's explicit suggestion that he go for lunch after the end of questioning at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant did not want to go for lunch, noting that he was keeping a religious fast. 16. On 29 October 2005, by a decision of the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, the applicant was formally charged with criminal offences under Articles 28, 220.1 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 17. On 29 October 2005 at 5.30 p.m. a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months. The judge gave as grounds for this measure the gravity of the applicant's alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. The hearing concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was held in the MNS building. 18. On 31 October 2005 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court's decision of 29 October 2005, complaining that he had been detained as a suspected person for several hours in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period prescribed by law. He further alleged that the holding of the hearing in the MNS building was a breach of the relevant law, and that the judge had merely relied on the prosecution's submissions and had not assessed any evidence independently in order to establish whether there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also noted that the court had not taken into consideration his age, state of health and other personal circumstances when it had ordered his detention. 19. On 2 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's order. The Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's detention, reiterating the first-instance court's findings concerning the gravity of the applicant's alleged criminal acts and the possibility that he would abscond from the investigation. 20. On 16 November 2005, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Nasimi District Court replaced the applicant's remand in custody with the preventive measure of police supervision pending trial. 21. In the meantime, as the applicant was suffering from a serious eye problem, he requested the Prosecutor General's Office to grant him permission to travel to the USA to receive urgent medical treatment which was not available in Azerbaijan. By a letter of 15 February 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that he was prohibited from leaving Azerbaijan pending trial. 22. Following requests by several well-known scientists from Russia and Azerbaijan on the applicant's behalf to the Azerbaijani authorities, arguing that the applicant was at imminent risk of going blind, and asking the authorities to grant him permission to leave the country to receive medical treatment, by a letter of 26 May 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that he was exceptionally granted permission to travel abroad for the purposes of receiving necessary medical treatment. 23. By the time of the most recent communication with the parties no information had been provided to the Court as to the subsequent stages of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Uşak. 5. On 2 July 1999 Mr A.Ç. filed a criminal complaint with the Hatay public prosecutor against Mr M.Y. to whom he had sold his vehicle with registration number 04 M 3070. He alleged that, during the sale, Mr M.Y. used fake identity papers and gave him fake bonds in return for his vehicle. 6. On 4 August 1999 the applicant bought a vehicle with a registration number 64 AF 984 from Mr M.O. to use in the course of his professional activities and registered it under his name in the Traffic Registry. 7. On 20 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor found that the vehicle which had been sold by Mr A. Ç to Mr M.Y. was subsequently sold to the applicant with a fake registration number. The prosecutor therefore ordered the confiscation of the vehicle. 8. On 28 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr M.Y. for fraud and for forging false identity papers. The charges were brought under Article 503 § 1, 522 and 350 of the Criminal Code. 9. On 8 October 1999 the criminal proceedings against Mr M.Y. commenced before the Hatay Criminal Court and the applicant intervened in the proceedings as a third party together with three other people. 10. On 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the restitution of his car. This request was rejected by the court on 18 July 2000 on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute. 11. On 18 October 2000 the first-instance court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Hatay Assize Court. 12. On 31 October 2000 the proceedings before the Hatay Assize Court commenced. 13. In the hearing held on 11 January 2001, the court dismissed the requests of restitution of both the applicant and Mr A.Ç. on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute. 14. On 26 June 2001 the court decided that the car could be returned to the applicant for his use pending the criminal proceedings. It set the amount of TRL 5,000,000 as a deposit. The applicant was unable to request the return of the car since he could not pay the deposit. 15. On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court to allow the car to be returned to him, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. 16. On 19 September 2002 the court ordered the return of the car to the applicant, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. The car was examined for any damage sustained during its seizure before being delivered to the applicant on 2 October 2002. 17. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the Hatay Assize Court since, despite an arrest warrant, Mr M.Y. has still not been found.

6. The first applicant, Ms Zita Paliukienė, was born in 1954. The second applicant, her husband Mr Vytautas Pauliukas, was born in 1953. They are both Lithuanian nationals and live in Kaunas. 7. In December 1995 the first applicant bought a portion (339/631) of a plot of land at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas. In January 1996 the subplot was registered in her name in the Real Estate Registry. 8. It appears from a letter from the authorities of 29 April 2003 to the applicants’ neighbour, Č.P., that on 3 April 2003 the Kaunas territorial planning authorities issued an administrative-law penalty notice against the first applicant on the ground that she was pursuing construction works inside a warehouse (ūkinio pastato viduje) built on the above-mentioned plot of land and was disregarding the orders of the official supervising construction works. The Government state that to their knowledge that decision has not been quashed. On 7 November 2003 the first applicant was again ordered to stop the building works as she had no permit to carry them out. 9. On 29 September 2003 the Kaunas region territorial planning authorities issued an administrative-law penalty notice on the ground that the first applicant had unlawfully reconstructed a house situated at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas. The first applicant was fined 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL). On 7 November 2003 the administrative court quashed the decision, on the procedural ground that the penalty notice of 29 September had been issued in the absence of the first applicant. The case was returned to the territorial planning authorities. On 25 November 2003 the authorities issued a repeat penalty notice about the unlawfully reconstructed house. This time the applicants’ daughter was present and signed the document. She told the authorities that they could not enter the house because she had no keys to it. The first applicant was fined in the same amount, LTL 1,000. 10. By a decision of 5 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court quashed the decision of 25 November 2003 due to procedural flaws. The court considered that the first applicant’s offence was of a continuous nature, and that it was therefore necessary to establish the date on which the offence had become known, because a fine under the Code of Administrative Law Offences could be imposed only within six months of the date the violation became known. The territorial planning authority appealed. 11. On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal in part and returned the case for new examination due to procedural flaws. The court noted however that the legal qualification of the first applicant’s actions was not questioned in that case. 12. By a decision of 1 June 2004 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court found that the date on which the administrative violation by the first applicant had come to light was 15 May 2003. Given that the fine on the first applicant was imposed only on 25 November of that year, more than six months had passed since that violation surfaced, and therefore no administrative punishment was possible. The case was discontinued. 13. In January 2009 the first applicant asked the Kaunas territorial planning authority to approve the house in question, built on the plot of land belonging to both applicants, as fit for habitation. The authorities informed her, however, that there were certain deficiencies in respect of the arbitrarily reconstructed house. Moreover, after those deficiencies had been eliminated the second applicant was also obliged to obtain approval in relation to the building from their neighbour Č.P. 14. The applicants’ neighbour Č.P. had sued the second applicant in civil proceedings for pecuniary damage, on the ground that on 13 October 2002 the second applicant had arbitrarily and unlawfully demolished Č.P.’s fence. In that connection the municipal authorities had earlier found the second applicant guilty of a violation of administrative law. Their decision was upheld by administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction. By a decision of 28 September 2003 the Kaunas City District Court allowed Č.P.’s civil claim in full. 15. On 4 April 2003 the territorial planning authorities gave the first applicant an administrative warning, because she had unlawfully built a wall on State land and had refused to demolish it. This conclusion was confirmed by the Kaunas City District Court on 24 April 2003. 16. Further, on 12 July 2003 the applicants’ neighbours Č.P., P.Ž., J.D. and L.B. addressed a written complaint to them. The neighbours stated that for the last eight years the applicants had been ignoring the law, had lied, and had used corrupt connections when managing their property. They also submitted that the second applicant had used his position as a Kaunas city elder for his personal proprietary interests, instead of trying to keep an untarnished reputation. The neighbours gave a detailed list of the applicants’ misdemeanours as confirmed by the authorities’ decisions, where it had been mentioned that the applicants’ house was too large, and that they had unlawfully occupied certain parts of a plot of land belonging to neighbours J.D. and L.B., and had also occupied State land. The neighbours expressed the wish, however, that in future all the neighbours would be able to live in peace, and that the applicants would abide by the law. The Government state that later on a copy of this note was given to a journalist. 17. On 27 February 2004 the first applicant was informed by the authorities that some parts of her house were outside the boundaries of the plot of land at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas and were on land belonging to the State. She was reminded that arbitrary occupation and use of State land entailed administrative liability. On 9 March 2004 a penalty notice for an administrative offence was issued to the first applicant for arbitrary occupation of State land. However, by a ruling of 14 April 2004 the court found that the boundaries between the applicants’ land and the State land had been established only after those parts of the house had been built, and that therefore the first applicant could not be held liable for the offence. 18. In 2004 the first applicant brought court proceedings against her neighbour Č.P., claiming that in 1994 he had built a brick wall between her plot of land and his, and that that wall encroached on her plot by 1.16 square metres and thus breached her property rights. Her civil claim was dismissed as unfounded by both the first-instance and the appellate courts. On 2 November 2005 the Supreme Court terminated the proceedings, upholding the lower courts’ conclusions. 19. On 11 November 2003 the daily newspaper Respublika published an article covering the applicants’ boundary disputes with Č.P. and the other neighbours. The article mentioned that that year the second applicant had been elected elder of Kaunas city centre (Kauno miesto centro seniūnas). The article alleged that the applicants were illegally building on their plot of land and had occupied part of the land belonging to the other owners and the State. The relevant passages of the article stated as follows: “The elder was occupying the neighbours’ land [Seniūnas užėmė kaimynų žemę]; Elected Kaunas city centre elder this year, Vytautas Pauliukas has been building illegally on his plot after occupying land belonging to his neighbours and the State, and is not complying with prohibitions by various institutions on rebuilding the derelict dwelling house situated in his yard [Šiemet Kauno miesto Centro seniūnu išrinktas Vytautas Pauliukas, pažeisdamas įstatymus, savo sklype vykdo savavališkas statybas, yra užėmęs valstybinę ir kaimynams priklausančią žemę, nepaiso įvairių institucijų draudimo rekonstruoti apleistą gyvenamąjį namą, stovintį kieme]; When going through the process of acquiring the land in 1995, [Mr and Mrs] Pauliukai enlarged their plot at the expense of the neighbours and the State – the entrance to L.B.’s yard was narrowed and the roof of [the applicants’] house overhung P.Ž.’s outhouse [1995 metais tvarkydami žemės įgijimo dokumentus, Pauliukai pasididino teritoriją kaimynų ir valstybinės žemės sąskaita – susiaurėjo L.B. įvažiavimas į kiemą, o virš nedidelio P.Ž. namuko pakibo Pauliukų namo stogas]; The residential dwelling section of the city’s housing department ordered Pauliukai [reference to both applicants] either to submit a reconstruction project or to demolish the building by 2 May. However, Pauliukai did not comply with the order, and continued to build a new house inside the old one without permission [Miesto ūkio departamento būsto skyrius įpareigojo Pauliukus iki gegužės 2-osios parengti statinio kapitalinio remonto projektą arba jį nugriauti. Deja, Pauliukai nurodymo nepaisė ir senojo pastato viduje, neturėdami tam leidimų, ėmė statyti naują namą]; 20. After the article was published, on 1 December 2003 the second applicant asked the newspaper to correct the part of the article he considered to be erroneous and damaging to his reputation as a Kaunas city centre elder. He was also dissatisfied at being linked to the Inkaras company, owned by the EBSW group of companies, which was at that time under criminal investigation for bringing Inkaras to insolvency. As the newspaper did not comply with this request, he then brought a claim in the civil courts, seeking rectification of the article and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The third party in the civil proceedings, the applicants’ neighbour Č.P., told the court that the article did not contain any untruths, and suggested that the civil claim be dismissed. 21. On 3 December 2004 the Vilnius City Second District Court dismissed the second applicant’s claim. The court took into account that when preparing the publication the journalist had talked to the applicants’ neighbours, examined documents, telephoned the second applicant and had regard to his opinion. The court pointed out that, in accordance with Article 2.24 § 5 of the Civil Code, the press could be held liable for defamation if it knew that information it published did not correspond to reality, that is if it acted in bad faith. However, in some circumstances the media had a right to trust certain sources of information (for example, an official police report or a document by other municipal or State authorities). In such cases the media were exempt from the obligation to verify the accuracy of that information. On this point the court noted that the applicants’ neighbours had repeatedly addressed complaints to State and municipal institutions about the applicants’ housing projects. Those complaints had been investigated by the authorities and official replies had been received. For the court, the case file showed that both of the applicants had been held liable under administrative law for rebuilding the house without a permit and for unlawfully occupying State land. Conversely, the applicants’ neighbours had been honest when they addressed the State and municipal institutions, because, as the replies from those institutions indicated, their accusations in respect of the applicants had proved to be true. These were precisely those written replies that were given to the journalist when she was preparing the publication. Given that they were official documents, the journalist had a right to trust their content. 22. The district court also noted that the first applicant had been named in the article as the owner of the plot of land in question. Given that no evidence had been submitted to the court to the effect that the property had been divided between the two applicants, the presumption that the plot of land was joint property of the two applicants as spouses was a valid one. This explained why the article mentioned not only the first applicant but also the second applicant. It was also noteworthy that in the civil court the second applicant had acknowledged that the authorities had ordered a halt to construction on the plot of land belonging to his wife, but argued that they had obeyed the order. However, from the letter of 29 April 2003 (see paragraph 8 above) it was clear that the reference in the article to administrative sanction was correct. As regards the second applicant’s prior work at Inkaras, he himself admitted that he had worked at the Inkaras factory as head of a production unit (cecho viršininkas). Accordingly, the second applicant had failed to prove that his dignity had been insulted because of the published reference to his position at Inkaras. 23. The Vilnius City Second District Court next observed that defamation meant publication of material which did not correspond to reality and which in the light of law and moral and customary norms damaged a person’s honour, dignity or reputation in society. It indicated further that the insulting nature of the material published did not have to be proven if the words or combination of words used were manifestly insulting. The court concluded that the publication at issue did not contain such language. Next, the court noted that in defamation cases the court had to examine the construction of the sentence as well as the whole context of the publication in order to find out the exact meaning of the word or combination of words. The court concluded that the second applicant had indicated only separate sentences but had not had regard to the whole content of the publication. 24. By a ruling of 13 April 2005, the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the second applicant’s claim in part and ordered the daily to print a rectification. The appellate court considered that the lower court had erred as regards the factual circumstances of the case. Specifically, the documents from the Real Estate Registry showed that the owner of the house and of the plot of land was the first applicant. Consequently, the published material did not correspond to reality, because the evidence of inappropriate use of the property had been linked to the first applicant but not to the second. Similarly, as regards the second applicant’s former post at Inkaras, which belonged to the EBSW group, that statement was misleading, because the second applicant had in fact worked as a director at a [subsidiary] enterprise, Inkaro padai, which he did not deny. The appellate court thus concluded that naming the second applicant separately and together with the first applicant as persons who had broken the law, and linking those breaches of the law to the first applicant’s employment, as well as stating that in the past the second applicant had had links to the EBSW group, was damaging to his authority as a public figure. The court considered that the journalist had deliberately ignored her obligation to provide information that was fair, accurate and impartial, in breach of Article 3 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. 25. On 2 November 2005 the Supreme Court took a final decision in the case. The court indicated that Article 25 of the Lithuanian Constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, that right was not an absolute one, and had to be exercised taking into account the rights of others as well as the interests of society. Furthermore, Articles 4 and 19 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public obliged the media to present information correctly, without bias and in compliance with the requirements of journalistic ethics. 26. As regards the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court noted that the publication at issue described a situation in which there was conflict among four co-owners of the plot of land over the boundaries of that plot, the applicants’ illegal construction and their unlawful occupation of the neighbours’ and State land. It was clear from the content of the applicants’ neighbours’ complaints to various institutions and the replies they had received that those neighbours were trying to protect their rights which had been breached, and also to make sure that the second applicant, who was a public figure, abided by the law. The neighbours, acting in good faith, gave copies of those complaints and replies to the journalist, who in turn wrote an article on the subject. The first-instance court was correct to find that the official replies from municipal and State institutions, which referred to violations of law committed by both applicants in that they had reconstructed the house without a permit and had also occupied State-owned land and demolished part of a neighbour’s wall, among others, were a sufficient basis for publication of information about a public figure, the second applicant, who had been elected Kaunas city centre elder. 27. The Supreme Court also emphasised that the mere fact that the second applicant was not mentioned in the replies from the municipal authorities did not confirm that the violations could not be linked to him. Despite the fact that the plot of land and the house where both applicants lived were registered in the first applicant’s name, that property had been acquired during their marriage. Accordingly, this was their joint property which they had equal rights to manage and use, in accordance with Article 21 of the Code of Marriage and Family. Moreover, in the event that a co-owner of the property of a public figure exercised their co-ownership rights inappropriately, the public figure (in this case the second applicant) had a duty to control his co-owner’s actions and to prevent violations of the law, as in this case. For the Supreme Court, if a co-owner exercising the joint property rights of both spouses violated the pecuniary and non-pecuniary rights of other persons, the other co-owner incurred liability as well, the more so if that other co-owner was a public figure. Having regard to the above arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had wrongly interpreted Article 3 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public and erred in finding that the journalist had deliberately violated that law by breaching her responsibility to present correct, precise and impartial information. The Supreme Court concluded that those errors made the decision of the appellate court invalid. The decision of the first-instance court was upheld.

4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Penza. 5. According to the applicant, in December 1997 she lodged an action against the electricity supplier, seeking to have her home connected to the electricity supply network and asking for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6. On 17 July 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza found for the applicant. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 1 December 1998 and re-examination of the case was ordered. 7. On 15 April 1999 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the action. The judgment became enforceable on 22 June 1999 when the Penza Regional Court upheld it on appeal. 8. On 28 April 2000 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court, acting upon the applicant's request, quashed the judgments of 15 April and 22 June 1999, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 9. On 24 August 2000 the Leninskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant's action and ordered that the company connect the applicant's home and pay her 1,000 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 40 euros) in compensation. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 17 October 2000. 10. Enforcement proceedings were opened and on 22 January 2001 the applicant received the awarded compensation, but the company refused to connect her home because it did not meet certain technical requirements. Thus, the applicant complained to a court that the bailiffs had failed to enforce the judgment of 24 August 2000, as upheld on appeal on 17 October 2000. 11. On 23 January 2001 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Penza held that the bailiffs had been inactive in securing the execution of the judgment in the part concerning provision of electricity. The District Court furthermore informed the applicant of the possibility of lodging a separate civil claim for damages against the local treasury. It appears that the applicant did not lodge such a claim. 12. On 29 December 2001 the company connected the applicant's home to the electricity network. 13. On 21 March 2002 a Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000. 14. On 26 April 2002 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court quashed the judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Presidium held that the District and the Regional courts had incorrectly assessed the facts of the case and misinterpreted the relevant legal norms. 15. On 25 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. On 10 September 2002 the Penza Regional Court upheld the judgment. However, the applicant was not ordered to repay the compensation of RUR 1,000 and her house was not disconnected from the electricity network. 16. The applicant lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights, complaining about a violation of her rights in the course of the abovementioned domestic proceedings. On 19 December 2002 she received an empty envelope from the Court. The applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court about unlawful actions of the Penza post office. On 31 January 2003 the District Court instructed her to correct certain defects of her statement of claim by 6 February 2003. That instruction was upheld on appeal on 18 February 2003. There is no indication that the applicant fulfilled the courts' instructions and apparently no further action has been taken.

4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warszawa. 5. He is a taxi driver by profession. On 4 February 1974 he had a car accident in Bulgaria. On 28 November 1995 he was involved in another car accident in Warsaw. 6. On 5 August 1996 the applicant lodged a claim for a disability pension in connection with both accidents. On 16 October 1996 the Warsaw Social Security Board gave a decision. On 20 December 1996 the applicant appealed against it. 7. On 14 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings with respect to the disability caused by the accident of 28 November 1995 pending the termination of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 18 December 1997. 8. As regards the disability resulting from the accident which had occurred in 1974, the Regional Court has still not determined the matter. 9. On 23 July 1998 the applicant filed another motion with the Warsaw Social Security Board to be granted a disability pension in connection with the 1974 accident. On 24 February 1999 he lodged a complaint with the Regional Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Social Security Board. 10. On 3 November 2004 the Regional Court severed part of the applicant’s claim concerning the 1974 accident. 11. On 10 November 2004 the Social Security Board gave a decision in respect of the 1974 accident. On 25 November 2004 the applicant appealed against it. 12. On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the accident which had occurred in 1995. The judgment is final. 13. On 27 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment upholding the decision issued by the Warsaw Social Security Board in 2004 in connection with the 1974 accident. The judgment is final. 14. On 1 February 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment granting the applicant a right to a disability pension in connection with the 1995 accident. Both parties appealed against that judgment. 15. On 14 August 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment in which it rejected the applicant’s appeal and entertained the appeal lodged by the Warsaw Social Security Board. The Court of Appeal quashed the second-instance judgment of 1 February 2007 and remitted the case. 16. The proceedings in respect of the 1995 accident are still pending. 17. On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act as regards the proceedings relating to the 1995 accident. 18. On 8 February 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the proceedings had been stayed because the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending. 19. On 17 February 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act alleging that the proceedings concerning the 1974 accident had been unreasonably lengthy. 20. On 5 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment and confirmed that the proceedings had been lengthy. It also granted the applicant PLN 4,000 [EUR 1,200] in compensation. 21. Subsequently, the applicant filed several complaints under the 2004 Act as regards the proceedings relating to the 1995 accident. On 5 September 2007, having examined the applicant’s complaint on the merits, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. On 19 June 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused to entertain the applicant’s complaint lodged on 6 May 2008 on the ground that the statutory period of twelve months had not lapsed since the date of the previous complaint.

5. The applicant was born in 1912 and lived in Gdynia in Poland. She died in 2002. 6. In 1972 the applicant and her husband transferred the ownership of their house and land to their son – Z.J., and kept a lifetime usufruct interest for themselves. Under the terms of the contract Z.J. was supposed to take care of the applicant and her husband and to provide them with food and medical care. However, he had failed to do so. Moreover, on two occasions criminal proceedings against him, for assault on the applicant, had been discontinued (pursuant to the relevant amnesty law). 7. On 2 February 1985 the applicant sued Z.J. in the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for damages for his failure to comply with the terms of the contract. 8. On several occasions before 1 May 1993 the applicant modified her claim. 9. On 13 July 1993 the Gdańsk District Court held a hearing and ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. On 16 December 1993 it ordered an additional expert opinion to be obtained. 10. On 1 February 1994, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, the President of the Gdańsk District Court acknowledged that they were indeed lengthy and promised to supervise their conduct. On 4 March 1994 the court held a hearing. 11. The hearings set for 3 June 1994, 5 July 1994 and 6 September 1994 were adjourned. 12. The court held hearings on 20 December 1994 and 6 January 1995. 13. On 31 January 1995 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The defendant appealed. On 22 December 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. 14. On 24 January 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice. She complained about the slow conduct of the proceedings. On 26 February 1996, in reply to her complaints, the President of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) admitted that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and gave his assurance that he would supervise their conduct. 15. On 23 April 1996 the Gdańsk District Court held a hearing. On the same date the court ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. On 31 May 1996 and 2 July 1996 the court held further hearings. On 6 June 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. 16. On 4 September 1996 the court ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. It was submitted to the court on 6 May 1997. 17. On 6 June 1997 the court held a hearing. On 9 June 1997 the case was transferred to the Gdańsk Regional Court as that court had become competent to consider it. On 30 September 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment. 18. Upon the applicant’s further appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave judgment on 21 April 1998. 19. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 25 May 1999 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. 20. On 29 October 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing and ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. It was submitted to the court on 13 January 2000. 21. On 11 May 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. The applicant’s legal aid lawyer did not file a cassation appeal. On 9 October 2000 the applicant asked to be granted leave to file an appeal out of time and to be assigned another legal aid lawyer. On 14 November 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected her application. The court considered that in view of the value of the claim, a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case was inadmissible in law.

4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Muurla. 5. The applicant was employed by a bank, working in the relevant years 1989-90 in the bank’s new campaign to grant loans and to invest in property abroad. 6. The applicant’s suspected offending in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements, which led to the bank’s winding-up in the beginning of the 1990s, was reported to the police on 23 June 1992. The criminal investigation was begun by the police on 7 July 1992. A total of fourteen reports of offences had been made. The corresponding investigations lasted from 7 July 1992 to 9 December 1994 and from 9 April 1996 ending on 9 May 1996. On 7 August 1992 the police carried out a search at the applicant’s home and seized his assets, at which point he became aware that he was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank. 7. The hearing of the case, which involved 33 defendants, began in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 7 March 1995. It included several adjournments and lasted approximately five years in total. The case was heard during a total of 68 days. The judgment was rendered on 24 March 2000 and it ran to almost 900 pages. The applicant was convicted of four counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of one year and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. 8. On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) gave judgment. It added a fifth count of serious fraud and increased the applicant’s sentence to four years and six months of unconditional imprisonment and a loss of military rank. The court decided to examine the case directly including the part which had been declared inadmissible by the District Court (charge 12), i.e. without returning the case to the District Court, referring to Article 6 of the Convention and the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed therein. Furthermore, it stated in its reasons (p. 138) that it was taking the length of the proceedings into account as a factor lessening the sentence for all defendants in the case. 9. On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal. 10. The applicant submitted an extraordinary appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2003.

8. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Reykjavik. In 1969, at the age of 20, the applicant completed his training as a navigation officer at the Icelandic College of Navigation and started work as a seaman. This he continued to do until 1978, when he sustained a serious work accident on board a trawler. His right leg was struck by a 200 kg stone object, causing a compound fracture of his ankle. As a result, he had to give up work as a seaman. His disability was assessed at 100%, which made him eligible for a disability pension from the Seamen’s Pension Fund (“the Pension Fund”), to which he paid premiums intermittently from 1969 until 1981. The assessment was made on the basis of the criteria that applied under section 13(1) and (4) of the Seamen’s Pension Fund Act (Law no. 49/1974 – “the 1974 Act”), notably that the claimant was unable to carry out the work he had performed before his disability, that his participation in the Fund had been intended to insure against this contingency, and that he had a sustained loss of fitness for work (of 35% or more). The applicant underwent regular disability assessments by a physician accredited by the Pension Fund and was each time assessed as 100% disabled in relation to his previous job. 9. After his accident the applicant joined a transport company, Samskip Ltd, as an office assistant, and is still employed there as head of the claims department. 10. In 1992 the 1974 Act was amended by sections 5 and 8 of Law no. 44/1992 (“the 1992 Act”), which considerably altered the basis for the assessment of disability in that the assessment was to be based not on the Pension Fund beneficiaries’ inability to perform the same work but work in general. The new provisions had been enacted on the initiative of the Pension Fund and in view of the Fund’s financial difficulties (according to an audit, at the beginning of 1990 the Pension Fund had a deficit of at least 20,000,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK)). The Pension Fund applied the new provisions not only to persons who had claimed a disability pension after the date of their entry into force but also to persons who were already in receipt of a disability pension before that date. 11. Under an interim provision in section 5, the above change to the reference criteria was not to apply for the first five years after the commencement of the 1992 Act to a person who, before its entry into force, was already receiving a disability pension. 12. Under the new rules, a fresh assessment of the applicant’s disability was carried out by an officially accredited Pension Fund physician, who concluded that the applicant’s loss of capacity for work in general was 25%, and thus did not reach the minimum level of 35%. As a result, from 1 July 1997 onwards the Pension Fund stopped paying the applicant the disability pension and related child benefits he had been receiving for nearly twenty years since the accident in 1978. 13. According to information obtained by the Government from the Pension Fund and submitted to the Court, the applicant had been one of 336 Fund members who were receiving disability pensions in June 1992 under the interim provision in section 5 of the 1992 Act (see paragraph 21 below). On 1 July 1997 the total number of disability pension recipients was 689. This included Fund members who had not become entitled to a disability pension until after the commencement of the 1992 Act in June 1992. The cases of the aforementioned 336 persons receiving disability pensions from the Fund, who had acquired their entitlement before that time and were still drawing disability pensions in 1996, were reviewed in late 1996 and early 1997 in the light of their capacity for work in general. Altogether, 104 members of this group of disability pensioners had their benefits reduced in July 1997 as a result of the new rules on disability assessment under the 1992 Act. In the case of 54 Fund members, including the applicant, the disability rating for work in general did not reach the level of 35% required under the Act to retain entitlement to disability benefit, and so benefit payments were discontinued. The disability ratings of 29 members were reduced from 100% to 50% and those of 21 members from 100% to 65%. 14. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Pension Fund and, in the alternative, against both the Fund and the Icelandic State, challenging the Fund’s decision to discontinue the payments to him. In a judgment of 12 May 1999, the Reykjavik District Court found for the defendants. 15. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, which by a judgment of 9 December 1999 upheld the judgment of the District Court. 16. The Supreme Court accepted that the applicant’s pension rights under the 1974 Act were protected by the relevant provisions of the Icelandic Constitution as property rights. However, it considered that the measures taken by virtue of the 1992 Act had been justified by the Pension Fund’s financial difficulties. The Supreme Court stated: “The pension rights that the appellant had earned under Law no. 49/1974 were protected under what was then Article 67 of the Constitution (currently Article 72 of the Constitution – see section 10 of the Constitutional Law Act, Law no. 87/1995). Under the constitutional provision referred to above, he could not be deprived of those rights except under an unequivocal provision of law. The Court does not consider that section 8 of Law no. 49/1974 provided authorisation for the [Pension Fund] Board to curtail the benefit provisions; this could only be done under an unequivocal provision of law. Nor can the Court accept that the wording of subsection (1) of section 13 of Law no. 49/1974 meant that the Fund member did not have an unequivocal right to have his disability assessed in terms of his capacity to do his previous job. The evidence in the case shows that the Pension Fund was operated at a considerable deficit, and that at the end of 1989 more than ISK 20,000,000,000 would have been needed for the principal of the Fund, together with the premiums that it could expect, to cover its commitments, this estimate being based on an annual interest rate of 3%. In order to tackle this large deficit, the Fund’s Board asked for amendments to be made to the Act under which the Fund operated. It is clear that the reduction of the pension rights that resulted from Law no. 44/1992 was based on relevant considerations. Even though that Act was repealed by Law no. 94/1994, this does not change the fact that the appellant’s legal position had already been determined by Law no. 44/1992. The Court concurs with the District Court’s view that Law no. 94/1994 did not constitute a valid legal authorisation for making amendments to the rights that the Fund member had earned during the period of validity of the former legislation. The reduction according to Act no. 44/1992 was of a general nature as it treated in a comparable manner all those who enjoyed or could enjoy pension rights. An adaptation period of five years applied to all pensioners, as stated above. All those who can be considered to be in a comparable situation have been treated equally ...” 17. On 1 July 1997 the applicant lost pension rights (disability and children’s annuity benefits) amounting to ISK 12,637,600. He presented the following breakdown of this figure: Value of the principal, based on disability pension payment of ISK 61,356 per month until he reached the age of 65: ISK 9,373,300 Value of the principal of child benefit based on the same premises, until the children reached the age of 18: KristinnJuly 1997-March 1998ISK 136,100 Anna Margrét July 1997-August 2006ISK 1,469,600 Asmundur July 1997-January 2009ISK 1,658,600 TotalISK 12,637,600 18. The applicant has supplied the following information about his income from 1997 onwards: 1997ISK 2,789,995 1998 ISK 3,305,268 1999ISK 3,454,445 2000 ISK 3,774,248 2001 ISK 4,187,987 2002 ISK 4,558,248 Total ISK 22,050,191 19. The applicant has also submitted certain figures from a survey of seamen’s salaries obtained from the Icelandic Merchant Navy and Fishing Vessels Officers’ Guild: “Ordinary seaman” Second mate First mateMaster 19975,153,4246,441,7807,730,13710,306,849 19985,580,7956,975,9948,371,19311,161,590 19996,166,0297,707,5379,249,04412,332,059 20005,949,0757,436,3448,923,61311,898,150 20016,415,2528,019,0649,622,87712,830,503 20025,654,7567,068,4458,482,13411,309,513 Total 34,919,33243,649,16452,378,99769,838,663 Income derived by the applicant from office work: 22,050,19122,050,19122,050,19122,050,191 Difference12,869,14121,598,97330,328,80647,788,472

9. The applicants were born in 1946 and 1941 respectively and live in Kent. 10. On 7 February 1986 the applicants granted to a company now known as Buckingham International Limited (“Buckingham”) an option to purchase 90% of the share capital in Worldwide Dryers Limited (“WWD”) for 2 pounds sterling (“GBP”) a share, with a further option to purchase the remaining 10% at a price to be fixed by an agreed formula. On 2 October 1986 the first lot of shares in WWD was purchased. Relations between Buckingham and the applicants subsequently deteriorated. 11. On 12 February 1988 WWD and Buckingham issued High Court proceedings against the applicants claiming, inter alia, damages for breach of contract. On 27 October 1988 Buckingham exercised its call option on the remaining 10% of the shares of WWD, Buckingham alleging that no further payment was due to the applicants given its outstanding claims against them. 12. In January 1990 the second applicant was granted legal aid. 13. The plaintiffs finally served their statement of claim on 1 May 1990 having received numerous extensions of time (ordered by the court on the basis of the parties’ consent). The statement of claim ran to fifteen pages. It included many allegations of breaches of warranties in the option agreement and claims that the applicants owed WWD substantial sums of money which they had borrowed from WWD through directors’ loans schemes. 14. The applicants served a short-form defence on 31 July 1990 after two extensions of the relevant time-limit granted by the High Court following contested hearings. Further particulars of the defence were requested by the plaintiffs in November 1990. At a directions hearing on 28 February 1991, a Master of the High Court, inter alia, allowed the applicants to amend their defence and to file a counterclaim, and ordered that the action be set down for hearing on or before 23 March 1991. This date was subsequently vacated by the parties’ agreement. On 23 April 1991 the applicants were accorded until 14 May 1991 to file the amended defence and counterclaim, and it was so filed. In June 1991 the first applicant was granted legal aid. The plaintiffs’ reply and defence to the counterclaim was served on 9 September 1991, after an extension of time. 15. At the request of the applicants’ solicitors, on 23 October 1991 the High Court ordered that the plaintiffs’ claim and the applicants’ counterclaim be set down for hearing. The relevant setting down notice was filed by the plaintiffs on 31 October 1991. 16. On 13 November and 19 December 1991 the High Court ordered the plaintiffs to file outstanding pleadings. By letter dated 7 November 1991, the applicants requested an expedited hearing from the Lord Chancellor’s office. The letter of the Administrator of the Royal Courts of Justice dated 20 November 1991, in response, explained that the applicants could apply to the High Court to advance the hearing but that the court was otherwise unable to bring the hearing date forward. It further explained that such delays often occurred given the number of cases waiting to be heard, in the light of the estimated hearing time (then ten days) and because a fixed hearing date had been requested. 17. In late 1991 and early 1992 the applicants were advised by solicitors and by junior and Queen’s Counsel that an application for an expedited trial was unlikely to succeed as inter alia there were no grounds for granting the applicants priority over other litigants. On 9 January 1992 the plaintiffs filed outstanding pleadings (further and better particulars of the statement of claim) and in February and March 1992 discovery of documents took place in the case. 18. On 6 February 1992 counsel for all parties submitted an increased estimated hearing time of fifteen days. On 27 February 1992 the hearing date was fixed for 7 March 1994. The High Court later confirmed in its judgment of 5 November 1997 that the two-year delay in such cases was “not untypical” and that the reason was that the Chancery lists were “extremely congested”. 19. On 8 December 1993 WWD was ordered (on its own petition) to be wound up. 20. On 24 February 1994, due to the late discovery of the plaintiff’s documents (some 120 boxes), the applicants applied for an adjournment of the hearing date and for an expedited hearing date thereafter. Both requests were granted and the hearing date was re-scheduled for April 1994. On 12 April 1994 the applicants served further amendments to their defence and counterclaim. 21. The hearing began on 26 April 1994 and lasted 20 days. Since WWD was in liquidation and did not appear, the judge dismissed WWD’s action at the outset. Buckingham applied to make substantial amendments to its pleadings and its claims were adjourned. Only the applicants’ counterclaim was therefore examined. Judgment (ninety-nine pages) was delivered by Ferris J. on 18 July 1994 in favour of the applicants in the sum of GBP 3,681,143.47 plus costs. 22. The execution of that judgment was stayed by order of the High Court on 27 July 1994 pending the lodging of a notice of appeal. On 29 July 1994 the High Court made an order for security for costs against Buckingham and on 15 August 1994 Buckingham lodged an appeal. On 12 September 1994 Buckingham’s claims were dismissed by consent and costs were awarded to the applicants. The stay was partially lifted, allowing the applicants to pursue execution of a small part of the judgment. On 20 April 1995 a High Court Master made a provisional charging order over the property of Buckingham in the sum of the judgment. 23. On 27 April 1995 creditor banks appointed administrative receivers in respect of Buckingham. On 22 May 1995 the High Court Master confirmed the charge on Buckingham’s property in the amount of the judgment and of the interest and legal costs accrued since the judgment. On 8 June 1995 Buckingham withdrew its pending appeal since the receivers did not wish to pursue it. The appeal was therefore dismissed by the High Court on 29 June 1995 and costs were awarded to the applicants. The stay was also lifted. 24. In March 1996 the Taxing Office assessed the applicants’ costs (including those of the appeal but less the periods for which they were legally aided) at GBP 500,000 approximately. 25. Given the appointment of administrative receivers to Buckingham, the applicants investigated how to achieve priority for their judgment over unsecured and preferential creditors of Buckingham, and it was considered that the judgment could be enforced against the intra-group indebtedness of certain subsidiaries of Buckingham in the United States (“US”). 26. In early 1996 the applicants therefore had the judgment registered in Florida. In May 1996 they issued proceedings in the US to garnishee funds owed to Buckingham by its US subsidiaries. On 8 May 1996 a circuit court in Florida made an order by which over 7,000,000 US dollars of those subsidiaries’ funds were held in court as security for the judgment debt in the United Kingdom. 27. On 21 May 1996 the High Court, on the application of Buckingham’s administrative receivers for a winding up order, appointed provisional liquidators to take over its affairs. In May 1996 those provisional liquidators obtained from the US courts a provisional discharge of the order garnisheeing the subsidiaries’ funds. That provisional order was subject to the courts in the United Kingdom determining whether the latter would permit the applicants to enforce their judgment debt ahead of the existing secured and preferential creditors of Buckingham. 28. The applicants therefore issued new proceedings (no. 2835/1996) on 11 June 1996 in the High Court in the United Kingdom to have determined the issue identified by the US courts. Pointing to the delay in the determination of their claim against Buckingham in the substantive proceedings, they requested the High Court to exercise its discretion to give them priority over the secured and preferential creditors of Buckingham. 29. On 3 July 1996 a compulsory winding up order of Buckingham was obtained which confirmed the provisional liquidators in office. 30. On 1 August 1996 the High Court ordered, on the basis of the parties’ consent, that the jurisdiction issue be dealt with as a preliminary matter. On 11 October 1996 the High Court found that it did not have jurisdiction. A notice of appeal was issued on 28 October 1996 and leave to appeal was granted on 14 January 1997. On 21 February 1997 the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had jurisdiction and remitted the case to it. (Mitchell and another v. Carter and another, Re Buckingham International plc [1997] 1 BCLC 681). 31. On 12 May 1997 the applicants requested that their application be certified as fit for a speedy trial and that application was granted on 3 June 1997. The High Court heard the matter again on 9 July 1997. On 5 November 1997 Harman J. handed down the High Court’s judgment. He found that he could not prefer the judgment debt of the applicants over the secured and preferential creditors of Buckingham. He described the “lamentable history” of the proceedings and was critical of the conduct of those proceedings by Buckingham and their legal representatives, referring to their “highly successful spoiling tactics”, to the “carefully dilatory conduct of the action before mid-1992” and to their “extremely overdue” statement of claim pointing out, in this context, that “if litigation is about the obtaining of justice at a fair trial it is equally clear that that process was wholly obstructed”. A notice of appeal was filed on 5 December 1997. 32. On 3 February 1998 the Court of Appeal heard the appeal and on 16 February 1998 it confirmed the judgment of the High Court (Mitchell and another v. Buckingham International plc (in liq) and others, Re Buckingham International plc (in liq) (no 2) [1998] 2 BCLC 383). The Court of Appeal also referred to the “delaying tactics adopted in the litigation by Buckingham and its solicitors” which “may have amounted to, or come close to, abuse of process”. It went on: “The civil justice system has unfortunately failed to give [the applicants] prompt relief for their complaints, and their eventual victory before Ferris J has become a very hollow victory. Nevertheless, there was in our judgment no substantial flaw in the way in which Harman J exercised his discretion.” 33. The Court of Appeal also refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords (filed on 16 March 1998) was rejected by that body on 29 June 1998. 34. The applicants finally recovered from the liquidators of Buckingham approximately GBP 100,000 after payment of their costs.

5. The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Lugansk. The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Slatino. 6. In April 2005 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Lugansk Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension. 7. On 12 July 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 October 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months. 8. On 1 December 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions. 9. On 26 December 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court, relying on paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice, ruled that the applicant's appeal in cassation should be remitted to the Higher Administrative Court. 10. By a ruling of 24 March 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time. 11. In October 2004 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Kharkiv against the Kharkiv Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension. 12. On 20 May 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 September 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months. 13. On 11 November 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions. 14. By letter dated 30 November 2005, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal in cassation had been remitted to the Higher Administrative Court. 15. By a ruling of 11 April 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.

9. The applicant, Mrs Assya Anguelova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Razgrad. 10. On 29 January 1996 her son, Anguel Zabchekov, aged 17, who had been known to the police as a suspect on theft charges, died after having spent several hours in police custody in Razgrad following his arrest for attempted theft. The ensuing investigations conducted by the prosecution authorities ended with the conclusion that the death must have been caused by an accidental injury which pre-dated Mr Zabchekov's arrest. The applicant contested that conclusion. The applicant describes herself and her late son as belonging to the Roma/Gypsy ethnic group). 11. According to the statements of several witnesses, on 28 January 1996 Mr Zabchekov spent part of the day doing some odd jobs for a neighbour. In the evening he went home for a while and then went out with his sister, her boyfriend and a Mr M., another friend of his. He then spent most of the evening in their company at a local bar. He consumed alcohol. At about 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. Mr Zabchekov's sister and her boyfriend left the bar, leaving him there with Mr M. The bar closed shortly afterwards. Mr M. stated that he had then left the bar with Mr Zabchekov and that they had parted at the door, Mr M. returning home. All the witnesses (the owner of the bar, the person for whom Mr Zabchekov had worked that day, his sister and her boyfriend, and Mr Zabchekov's father, who was at home when his son dropped in on his way to the bar) were unanimous that he had been in good health, that he had no visible injuries on his body, that he had not been involved in any quarrel or fight, and that he had consumed alcohol. 12. At about midnight on 29 January 1996 a Ms I.A., who lived in a block of flats in Beli Lom Street in Razgrad, noticed from her balcony a man later identified as Mr Zabchekov hanging around by parked cars, bending over and “doing something”. Ms I.A. telephoned a neighbour, Ms I.M. The two women shouted at Mr Zabchekov from their balconies to ask him what he was doing. At that moment Sergeant Mutafov (“C”), a police officer who was not on duty that day, and a young man (“D”), both of whom also lived in the same block of flats, were passing by in the street and were alerted by their neighbours. 13. Mr Zabchekov attempted to run away, and C ran after him. The chase apparently continued for a minute or two. Then D and his two neighbours saw C appearing from around the corner, holding Mr Zabchekov and leading him back to the entrance of the building. The witnesses stated that there had been snow on the ground. 14. C later stated that while trying to run away Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down but had quickly stood up again. This was confirmed by Ms I.A. and Ms I.M., who had been watching from their balconies. They explained that Mr Zabchekov had fallen on a patch of grass. However, D, who had remained in the street and had also observed the incident, stated that he had not seen Mr Zabchekov falling at any moment before his arrest. He repeated that statement at a confrontation with the other witnesses. 15. C was the only witness of the events between the moment when Mr Zabchekov and he had turned round the corner and the moment when they had reappeared in front of the building in Beli Lom Street. C stated that Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down two more times. As a result, C had been able to catch up with him and, while Mr Zabchekov was back on his feet and running, C had tripped him up, Mr Zabchekov had fallen to the ground and C had pounced on him. C had then pulled Mr Zabchekov up by the arm and had led him back. Asked to specify the part of his body on which Mr Zabchekov had fallen, C replied that the boy had fallen on his face. C could not remember whether Mr Zabchekov had protected his face with his hands. C also stated that he had had difficulty in running and apprehending Mr Zabchekov because he had had a leg injury and his shoelaces had been untied. 16. Sergeant Dimitrov (“G”), one of the police officers who arrived later, stated as follows: “When we arrived on the spot [C] told us that while he was trying to arrest Mr Zabchekov the latter ran away and fell two or three times and that if he had not fallen C would not have been able to catch up with him.” 17. The witnesses were unanimous that, while C had been leading Mr Zabchekov back to the entrance of the block of flats, the latter had slipped and fallen. There were discrepancies as to precisely how that had happened. Ms I.M., who observed the incident from her balcony, stated that when C and Mr Zabchekov had reappeared from around the corner of the building, the latter had slipped, fallen and rolled over. D stated, however, that Mr Zabchekov's leg had slipped and he had fallen on his buttocks. C maintained that Mr Zabchekov had in fact only slipped but had not fallen, because he had been holding him. 18. C stated that he had not hit Mr Zabchekov and had not seen anyone hitting him. That was confirmed by Ms I.A. and Ms I.M. The latter, who was also the owner of one of the cars in the car park, clarified that she had indeed seen Mr Zabchekov rolling on the ground when C was leading him back after the chase, but stated that she had not seen anyone kicking him or beating him. D did not mention whether he had seen anyone hitting Mr Zabchekov. 19. C also stated that when he had been in close contact with Mr Zabchekov after arresting him he had not noticed any traces of blood or any grazes on his face. He added that Mr Zabchekov's hair covered part of his forehead and that the colour of his face was dark. D stated that he had not noticed any blood or grazing on Mr Zabchekov's face. He added that the latter smelled of alcohol. 20. Having apprehended Mr Zabchekov, C asked Ms I.M. to call the police, which she did at about 12.20 a.m. Afterwards, she remained inside her flat. 21. C, D and Mr Zabchekov waited at the entrance of the block of flats, apparently for about ten or twenty minutes. It appears that Ms I.A., who stayed on her balcony, did not have a view of the entrance. 22. The witnesses' statements contain few details as to whether there was any kind of verbal exchange between Mr Zabchekov and any of them before the arrival of the police. Some of the witnesses stated that Mr Zabchekov had been mumbling something barely comprehensible. According to Ms I.M., who was watching from her balcony, Mr Zabchekov had repeated several times that he was drunk. Ms I.A., Ms I.M. and C stated that, when Mr Zabchekov had fallen to the ground after being arrested, C had told him: “Get up, I'm not going to drag you.” D stated that he had not heard any such words being uttered. None of the witnesses' statements indicates whether C or D spoke with Mr Zabchekov during the time when they were alone with him at the entrance of the block of flats. 23. In the statement he gave on 29 January 1996, C said that, after the police had left with Mr Zabchekov, he had found a wrench on the spot where D, Mr Zabchekov and himself had been waiting for the police to arrive. C thought that it must have belonged to Mr Zabchekov as it was the right size for removing a car battery. C explained in his statement that he had kept the wrench and had handed it over to the investigator in the morning on 29 January 1996 when he had been summoned to the police station after the death of Mr Zabchekov. However, in a statement taken on 31 January 1996 Sergeant Atanassov (“H”), who had been on duty at the police station when Mr Zabchekov was brought there, said that he had noticed the wrench on a desk at the police station no later than 1.30 a.m., shortly after Mr Zabchekov had arrived there. At a confrontation with the other police officers on 26 April 1996, H recalled that he had in fact first seen the wrench at a later stage. 24. When the telephone call was received at the local police station a patrol car with two police officers, Sergeants Penchev (“A”) and Kolev (“B”), was dispatched to the address. When the police officers arrived they saw C and Mr Zabchekov at the entrance of the block of flats. D was also standing nearby. 25. A recognised Mr Zabchekov, whom he knew as a suspect in several pending theft investigations, and addressed him by name. He handcuffed him. A and some of the other police officers later asserted that at that moment A warned the others to be careful as Mr Zabchekov had a “brain disease”. 26. Another police car, with three police officers, Sergeants Ignatov (“E”), Georgiev (“F”) and Dimitrov (“G”), arrived shortly afterwards. The officers then proceeded to search the area for evidence of attempts by Mr Zabchekov to break into cars. At some point, A led Mr Zabchekov to one of the cars which appeared to have been broken into and asked him whether he had been trying to steal anything. Mr Zabchekov allegedly denied this. He was then handcuffed to a small tree and the police officers continued to search the area. Having identified two cars which had been broken into, the police officers rang the owners' doorbells. One of them came out and went to see the damage done to his car. During that time Mr Zabchekov remained handcuffed to the tree. 27. The only witnesses who gave details about the events between the police's arrival and their departure with Mr Zabchekov were the police officers on duty. Ms. I.A., and D merely stated that the police officers had searched the area. C stated that he had gone to alert the owners of the cars. He had only seen that at a certain point Mr Zabchekov was with the police officers at the car park, where his colleagues were comparing the soles of Mr Zabchekov's shoes with traces visible in the snow. One of the car owners was questioned, but only in respect of the damage caused to his car, by a police officer who visited the site later, at about 11 a.m. on 29 January 1996. 28. According to some of the police officers, at some point when they were searching the area they had noticed Mr Zabchekov lying or sitting on the ground. A stated that at that point he had released Mr Zabchekov from the tree, placed him on the back seat of the police car and handcuffed both his hands. All the police officers who were present in Beli Lom Street stated that at that time they had not noticed any trace of injury on Mr Zabchekov's face. Some of them stated that he appeared to be drunk, and that he had been mumbling and had not been communicative. 29. At about 12.50 a.m. Mr Zabchekov was taken to the police station by A and B. The sergeant on duty, H, stated that he had seen A and B enter the police station with Mr Zabchekov walking between them. The latter's hands had been handcuffed behind his back. A and B had been holding him by the arms and leading him in. Mr Zabchekov had been put in office no. 1. A stated that at that point he had removed the handcuffs from the boy. 30. No written order for Mr Zabchekov's detention was issued. 31. According to the statements of A, B and H, Mr Zabchekov stayed in office no. 1 with B and H, while A went to report to the senior officer on duty, Colonel Iordanov (“I”). H further stated that at that moment he had noticed a bruise on Mr Zabchekov's eyebrow. A and B did not mention any injury. H also stated that Mr Zabchekov's clothes had been wet. They all noticed that Mr Zabchekov had been drunk and mumbling. Colonel I stated that A had informed him that Mr Zabchekov had been brought to the police station; A had said that the arrested person had been identified, but was too drunk for questioning. Colonel I had not seen Mr Zabchekov until about 4.30 a.m. According to the sergeants' statements, Colonel I had ordered that Mr Zabchekov should be given a seat in the passage to sober up. A had then instructed H to call him over the radio as soon as Mr Zabchekov was able to communicate. At an unspecified time A and B had left the police station and returned to their patrol duties. 32. H stated that Mr Zabchekov had fallen asleep soon afterwards, on a chair in the passage, and had been snoring. At about 3 a.m. H had allegedly noticed that Mr Zabchekov had been lying asleep on the floor. H had woken him and put him back on the chair, thinking that “he might catch a cold”. H further stated that at about 3.50 a.m. he had again gone to see Mr Zabchekov who had been sitting on the chair, sleeping and shivering. H had decided to move him back to office no. 1, where it had been warmer. He had woken him and helped him enter the room. Shortly afterwards Mr Zabchekov had slipped from the chair. H had noticed that he had been breathing heavily. H stated that at that point he had contacted Sergeant Dontchev (“J”), and had told him “to call Sergeant Penchev [A] or an ambulance”. 33. J stated that, in accordance with the duty schedule, he had slept on the premises of the police station until 2 a.m. on 29 January 1996, when he had been woken for duty. He had not been informed that anyone was being detained. J's statement did not mention whether, between 2 a.m. and 3.50 a.m., he had gone down the passage where, at that time, according to H, Mr Zabchekov had been sleeping on a chair. J stated that he had only become aware of Mr Zabchekov's presence when at 3.50 a.m. H had reported that the boy's condition seemed to be deteriorating. J had then seen him, noticing injuries on his forehead, and had called A and B by radio. 34. At approximately the same time H or J had alerted Colonel I, the senior officer on duty. I stated that at that moment he had noticed injuries on Mr Zabchekov's face. 35. A and B stated that at 4.30 a.m. they had been contacted by radio and had been told that Mr Zabchekov's condition was rapidly deteriorating. Arriving at the police station, the sergeants had seen Mr Zabchekov lying on the ground, breathing heavily. B had then driven to the hospital and had returned, with Dr Mihailov, the paediatrician on duty, following in an ambulance. 36. Dr Mihailov later stated that at about 5 a.m. the hospital employee in charge of emergencies had asked him to go to the police station “for a 15-year-old boy”. Dr Mihailov explained that he had seen that employee talking to the police officers. He also pointed out that he had not been given any prior information about the boy's condition. 37. Dr Mihailov examined Mr Zabchekov at the police station and advised that he should be taken to hospital as his pulse rate was low. Mr Zabchekov was driven to the hospital in the ambulance, with A and B following in their police car. When they arrived at the hospital, A and B helped to bring Mr Zabchekov to the corridor in front of the office of the doctor on duty. According to the statements of A and B, when Mr Zabchekov was examined several minutes later by Dr Ivanova, the internist on duty, there had followed a heated discussion between her and Dr Mihailov. The police officers had then been informed that Mr Zabchekov had died. 38. B stated that Dr Ivanova had said to him and his colleague: “You must have known Mr Zabchekov's condition”, and that she had insisted that she had not seen him breathing. 39. Dr Mihailov stated that in the police station he had noticed bruises on Mr Zabchekov's chest and that at that time the boy had still been alive but had been unconscious with a weak pulse. Dr Mihailov had then asked the police officers how long the boy had been in such a condition. The police officers had replied: “He was brought to the police station in that condition. 40. Dr Ivanova stated that at about 5 a.m. she had been asked by Dr Mihailov to verify whether a patient who had been brought to the hospital had died. Having found that no cardiac activity was noticeable she had attempted cardiac massage, but to no avail. She further stated that, when she had asked why Dr Mihailov, and not herself, as the internist on duty, had been dispatched to the police station, the hospital employee in charge of emergencies had replied that the request for an ambulance had been said to concern a child, and so it had been decided to send the paediatrician on duty. 41. According to normal practice, all detentions are recorded in a register kept at the police station. The register contains a series of entries organised in columns: the number assigned to the detainee, the name of the officer entering information into the register, the name of the detainee, the reasons for detention, the action taken and the time of release. Information corresponding to each detainee is entered in chronological order. 42. At the Court's request the Government submitted a copy of the Razgrad police station's register for 29 January 1996. The register does not contain an entry for Mr Zabchekov. However, it contains an entry for an “unidentified person” who was assigned number 72. 43. The register does not contain a separate column recording the time of detention. In respect of some of the detainees listed on the same page the time of detention is mentioned together with the date. In respect of the “unidentified person”, as with some of the other detainees listed on the same page, there is no mention of the time of detention in the column indicating the date. However, immediately after the words “unidentified person”, there appears, spread over two columns and two lines, the entry “29 I 96, 01.oo”. A visual examination of the copy of the register shows that the figure “1.oo” has been written over a figure which, as far as legible, had originally read “3.oo” or “5.oo”. 44. It can be also observed that the registration numbers on the same page have been written over. From the copy provided by the Government it is difficult to see the original numbers that were altered. Nevertheless, it can clearly be seen that there are equal spaces between each of the entries except the numbers “72” and “73”, between which there is a significantly smaller space. 45. The entry under number 72 for the detention of an unidentified person states that that person was brought to the police station by A. On the right-hand side of the same line there appears a signature which, in so far as it is legible, appears to be that of Colonel I. 46. In the course of the investigation Colonel I, the senior officer on duty, and J, his assistant that night, were questioned in relation to the registration of Mr Zabchekov's presence at the police station. Colonel I stated that he had not instructed A to register the detainee since A was familiar with the procedure. J stated that shortly after 3.50 a.m., when he had been alerted by H about Mr Zabchekov's deteriorating condition, he had checked the register of detainees but had not seen any entry concerning him. Colonel I further denied having made an entry in the register and stated that the entry for an unknown person had not been there when he had left the police station after Mr Zabchekov's death. 47. Early in the morning of 29 January 1996 the police officers involved submitted a written account of the night's events to the head of the local police. Towards the end of his handwritten report C stated, with no apparent connection with the surrounding text: “The person I apprehended was swarthy (Gypsy)” (“Този когото задържах беше мургав (циганин)”). 48. The head of the local police opened file ZM-I no. 128 which contained a summary of the events, the reports of seven police officers and the written statements by D and one of the owners of the cars which Mr Zabchekov had allegedly tried to break into. Also early in the morning of 29 January 1996 Mr Neshev, an investigator from the Regional Investigation Service (Окръжна следствена служба) in Razgrad opened criminal proceedings under file no. 13/1996 to investigate the death of Mr Zabchekov. 49. According to the applicant, at 8 a.m. on the same day Mr Neshev, accompanied by two uniformed police officers, went to the house of the applicant's family to inform them of Mr Zabchekov's death. They spoke to the boy's stepfather. According to the applicant, the investigator stated that during the night Mr Zabchekov had tried to break into two cars, that the police had chased him, and that, during the chase, Mr Zabchekov had fallen down and had hit his head against the asphalt. 50. Also on 29 January 1996, Mr Neshev questioned the police officers involved and D, the young man who had been with Sergeant Mutafov (C) during the brief chase on Beli Lom Street. The investigator also visited the hospital and saw Mr Zabchekov's body. Pictures of the body were taken. 51. On the same day at about 11.45 a.m. an officer from the local police went to Beli Lom Street in connection with the reported car-theft attempt. He noted that two cars bore signs of attempted theft and questioned their owners. At about 5 p.m., this time apparently acting in connection with the investigation into the death of Mr Zabchekov, he took a sample from a large red patch in the snow. Laboratory analysis revealed that it was animal blood. 52. Also on 29 January 1996 Mr Neshev ordered an autopsy. He put the following questions to the medical experts: “What are the causes of Zabchekov's death? Are there any traumatic injuries on Zabchekov's body? Do they have any causal relation to the death? How were the injuries inflicted? How long was the period between the infliction of the lethal injury and the death and is it possible, as witnesses claimed, that Zabchekov was conscious until 4.30 a.m.? Is the lethal injury related to injuries in places where the skin was broken? Are there any other visible injuries and did they require, in view of their visible characteristics, immediate medical treatment?” 53. The autopsy was carried out on 29 January 1996 (starting at 11.30 a.m.) by three doctors at the Regional Hospital in Razgrad. These were Dr Minchev, head of the forensic department, Dr Militerov, head of the pathology department, and Dr Marinov, a doctor in the forensic department. 54. In their report, dated 29 January 1996 (“the first report”), the experts described their findings in detail. Photographs were taken. 55. The external inspection of the body revealed, inter alia: “At the outer end of the left eyebrow, over the orbital rim, a superficial wound of longish shape, measuring 1 cm by 0.4 cm, with slightly uneven and grazed edges, and covered by a thin brownish scab. The soft tissue around the wound is slightly swollen, the skin being of bluish-purple colour. The eyeball of the left eye is slightly protruded (outwardly) ... A slight surface scar 3.5 cm long, with mild bruising ... on ... the left wrist ... Two surface bruises measuring 7.5 cm by 0.5 cm and 3.5 cm by 0.6 cm, of brownish colour, covered by a reddish scab on the right wrist ...” 56. In the concluding part of the report the experts summarised the injuries on Mr Zabchekov's body as follows: “[1.] Skull and cerebral trauma: Superficial lacerated contusion (a deep bruise) located on the outer side of the left eyebrow along its orbital rim; haematomas on the skin and in the soft tissue around this wound and on the left eyelid, fracture of the back wall of the left 'eye bone' reaching its lower external side, with a bow-like fissure under the external injury described above; epidural haematoma on the left side (haemorrhage between the brain and the skull bones – 110 ml; epidural oedema ... [identified as the cause of death]). [2.] Haematoma on the skin, spotted in a characteristic manner, and haematoma in the soft tissue on the right side of the chest, along the anterior axillary line. [3.] Surface skin grazes on the right side of the forehead and on the upper surface of the left wrist with a limited haematoma in the soft tissue under the skin. [4.] Haematoma of an oval shape and diameter of 0.5 cm on the mucous membrane of the left lower lip. [5.] Two strip-like surface bruises on the skin of typical shape, and haematoma in the soft inner tissue, in the area of the wrist joint of the right hand.” 57. The experts further concluded: “[The death was caused by] accumulated epidural cerebral haematoma on the left-hand side of the forehead, containing 110 ml of blood, followed by a cerebral oedema, with wedging of the cerebellar tonsils into the foramen magnum; this oedema led to the suppression and detachment of vital brain centres (those of breathing and heart activity, which in turn caused a pulmonary oedema), and was the direct cause of death.” 58. Addressing the question of the manner in which the injuries had been inflicted, the experts stated: “1. The injury in the area of the left orbital rim and the left eyeball and the epidural haematoma were caused by a blow by, or against, a blunt object, or an object with a blunt edge, [which had] a delineated [limited] and uneven surface. The blow was sudden and sufficiently strong. It caused the fracture of the back wall of the left 'eye bone' reaching its lower external side (furthermore, the skull bones are 0.2 cm thick); 2. [The injury to the right side of the chest was caused by] a blow by, or against, a hard blunt object, or an object with a blunt edge, having a larger impact surface. The marks in this area are spotted in a manner characteristic of an imprint of the victim's clothes. 3. [The injuries to the right side of the forehead and to the wrists were the result of] blows, or pressing, by or against sharp-edged objects. [The injury to the left part of the lower lip was caused by] a blow by or against a hard blunt object having a delineated [limited] surface.” 59. The experts also stated that in cases of epidural haematoma of the kind Mr Zabchekov had suffered there was characteristically a lucid interval of four to six hours during which no visible signs would be displayed, except that “the victim gradually becomes feeble, apathetic and sleepy, after which he falls into a coma and dies – as happened in the present case (during the period between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 29 January 1996).” The report concluded that Mr Zabchekov's death had been inevitable in the absence of urgent surgical intervention. 60. The laboratory analysis found an alcohol level of 1.42‰ in Mr Zabchekov's blood and 2.40‰ in his urine, corresponding to a medium level of alcohol intoxication. 61. According to the applicant, in the morning of 30 January 1996 she went to the office of the Regional Investigation Service in Razgrad and requested information about the circumstances surrounding her son's death. Mr Neshev, the investigator, informed the applicant that her son had died of a skull fracture. According to the applicant, he explained that her son had been trying to steal car parts and that, when the police had sought to apprehend him, he had run away, had fallen down and had hit his head. According to the applicant, during this meeting Mr Neshev asserted that her son had been taken to hospital, omitting the fact that he had been in police custody. When asked how Mr Zabchekov's skull could have been fractured as a result of his fall, Mr Neshev had allegedly explained that the autopsy had found an “abnormally thin skull”. 62. In the afternoon of 30 January 1996, upon receiving Mr Zabchekov's body from the hospital, the applicant and other family members noticed bruises on his body. The applicant went to the office of a local newspaper, spoke with two journalists and took them to her home, where they took pictures of Mr Zabchekov's body and clothes. Late in the afternoon of 30 January 1996 Mr Zabchekov was buried. 63. On 31 January and 1 February 1996 the investigator questioned Ms I.M. and Ms I.A. 64. On 31 January 1996, by order of the regional prosecutor, Ms Hadzhidimitrova, the investigation was transferred to the Regional Military Prosecutor's Office (Окръжна военна прокуратура). That decision was based on the finding that Mr Zabchekov had died after having been in police detention. The regional prosecutor stated, inter alia: “... for several hours immediately preceding [his] death, the minor Zabchekov, apprehended at 1 a.m. on 29 January 1996 while attempting to steal car parts, was taken by [police] officers ... and placed within the premises of the unit on duty in order to restrict his freedom of movement. Therefore, although he was not detained pursuant to section 35(1) taken in conjunction with section 33(1)(1) of the National Police Act [Закон за националната полиция], as a matter of fact Zabchekov was forcibly held in the police station for about three hours and in the course of his stay [there] ... his condition suddenly deteriorated, and he lost consciousness.” 65. On 31 January 1996, having received the file on the case, the Regional Military Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation under a new file number (3-VIII/96, prosecutor's file 254/96). The case was assigned to a military investigator (военен следовател). During the following weeks the military investigator conducted new examinations of the police officers involved, questioned five persons who had spent the afternoon and evening of 28 January 1996 with Mr Zabchekov, and also heard Dr Mihailov and Dr Ivanova. 66. Two of the police officers, Sergeant Penchev (A) and Sergeant Georgiev (F), mentioned Mr Zabchekov's ethnic origin in their oral evidence to the military investigator. A stated that when he had arrived at Beli Lom Street he had seen two persons emerging from the entrance of the building, one of whom had been “a Gypsy with a criminal record – Anguel Zabchekov”. In his statement F. referred to the applicant's son as “the Gypsy” (three times), “the arrested” (seven times) and “Zabchekov” (twice). 67. On 12 March 1996 the investigator conducted examinations of the witnesses Ms I.A., Ms I. M., C and D. His questions related solely to the number of times Mr Zabchekov had fallen to the ground during the chase on Beli Lom Street and the places where this had happened. On 18 March 1996 the investigator appointed an expert to analyse the clothes which Mr Zabchekov had been wearing on 28 and 29 January 1996. In his report of 20 March 1996 the expert stated that no traces of shoe soles could be found but explained that microscopic remains from particles from a shoe sole would not normally be left on soft fabric. 68. On 20 March 1996 the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the events during Mr Zabchekov's arrest in order to clarify the witnesses' evidence. Those taking part were Sergeant Mutafov (C), the young man who had been with him on 28 and 29 January (D), and the two persons who had observed the scene from their balconies, Ms I.A. and Ms I.M. The police officers who had arrived at Beli Lom Street after Mr Zabchekov was arrested by C did not participate in the reconstruction, which was almost exclusively concerned with the events before the arrival of the two police cars. The reconstruction was videotaped. 69. On 11 April 1996 the applicant submitted to the Varna Military Prosecutor's Office a request for the exhumation of her son's body and for the assignment of a new medical expert, stating that her son had been buried in haste and that exhumation of his body was essential. The applicant suspected that her son's ribs might have been broken. She also submitted to the investigator, Mr Atanasov, two X-ray photographs of her son's head taken several months before his death, to be used for the purpose of establishing whether his skull had been “soft” or “thin”. 70. On 17 or 18 April 1996 five medical experts were appointed to re-examine the conclusions as regards the causes of Mr Zabchekov's death. One of them, Dr Minchev, had participated in the initial group of experts. The other four were Professor Pavlov, head of the forensic department at the Medical University in Varna, Dr Kiuchukov, from the university's neurosurgery department, and Dr Dokov and Dr Radoinova, senior assistants in the forensic department of the same university. The experts were asked the following questions: “1. What injuries did Zabchekov sustain? What was the cause of death? 2. In what manner were the injuries sustained and by how many blows could they have been caused? Could the injuries have been caused by consecutive falls (in accordance with the witnesses' statements and the findings of the investigation reconstruction as recorded on video), or were they the result of direct blows? 71. On 26 April 1996 the investigator held a confrontation between all the police officers involved. On the same day three additional witnesses were questioned. On 23 May 1996 the applicant repeated her request for an exhumation. On 29 May 1996 another witness was questioned. On 11 June 1996 Mr Dimitrov, a prosecutor from the Regional Military Prosecutor's Office, sent the applicant a copy of his information note on the proceedings. The note stated, inter alia, that exhumation could be envisaged if this was considered necessary by the five medical experts, who had not yet submitted their opinion. 72. On 28 June 1996 the five experts delivered their report (“the second report”), which was based on an examination of the material in the investigation file. They had also seen the videotape of the reconstruction of Mr Zabchekov's arrest, which had been recorded on 20 March 1996. 73. The experts confirmed that Mr Zabchekov's death had been caused by an epidural oedema resulting from a skull fracture. They also stated, inter alia, that the fatal injury could have been inflicted by a kick, a punch or a blow by a blunt object, or also by a fall and a collision against a “flat broad surface” (широка удряща повърхност). They noted that the autopsy had not recorded any morphological data to allow the identification of the object which had caused the injuries. The second report indicated that the blow which had caused the skull fracture had not been very strong. That conclusion was based on the “particular features of the skull structure (as witnessed by the X-ray photographs enclosed and the thickness as described [in the autopsy report])”. 74. Contrary to the first medical report, which had stated that the interval between the skull injury and Mr Zabchekov's death had been approximately four to six hours, the report of the five experts concluded: “The haematoma ... which caused the death of Zabchekov, had been present for at least ten hours before the time of death. The basis for this conclusion is the appearance of the haematoma (blood clot of dark red colour), which is clearly visible on the photographs attached to the file. Clots of that kind, without the presence of liquid blood, are formed during a period of more than ten hours from the moment when they were caused. During this period the patients' condition is usually characterised by the so-called 'lucid interval' – the time during which they do not display visible warning signs. Their condition gradually deteriorates ... they develop a headache, speech disturbances and problems of coordination of movement, [they] become unstable and sleepy, they stagger, etc., until they fall into a coma.” 75. The photographs relied on by the experts were taken at the time of the autopsy, which began at 11.30 a.m. on 29 January 1996. 76. The experts also found, in view of the amount of alcohol found in Mr Zabchekov's blood, that the symptoms resulting from the head injury had been masked by the effects of alcohol. 77. The report of the five experts also dealt with the other injuries to Mr Zabchekov's body: “The haematoma on the right side of the chest is the result of a blow by or against a flat object with a broad hitting surface, which could have taken the form of a kick, a fall and a collision against a larger object and other objects. The general appearance of the bruise corresponds to the imprint of the clothes of the deceased, which indicates that the blow was inflicted through the clothes ... The bruises and injuries to the right side of the forehead, the two wrist joints and the lower lip are the result of the use of hard, blunt and/or sharp-edged objects with a limited hitting surface. The characteristics of the injuries to the two wrist joints make it possible to conclude that they were caused when the handcuffs were put on, in accordance with the available information ...” 78. On 25 July 1996 the investigator drew up a report proposing to terminate the proceedings. 79. On 31 July 1996 the Regional Military Prosecutor's Office closed the investigation as there was no connection between the acts of the police and the death of Mr Zabchekov. That conclusion was based on the finding of the second medical report that at least ten hours had passed between the injury and death. 80. On 6 August 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the National Military Prosecutor's Office (Прокуратура на въоръжените сили). She contended that the investigation had been incomplete and pointed to the repeated refusal to carry out an exhumation, to the alleged discrepancies between the evidence of different witnesses and to the lack of explanation for certain facts, including all the injuries to Mr Zabchekov's body. 81. On 18 December 1996 the National Military Prosecutor's Office confirmed the closure of the investigation and refused the applicant's requests. Its decision stated, inter alia: “[A]part from the physical force used during the arrest of Zabchekov for attempting to steal from cars, there is no evidence that any violence was used against him by police officers, whether ... inside or outside the ... police station. Furthermore, the firm conclusion of the report of the five experts, who are highly qualified in their field, is that the lethal injury was caused more than ten hours prior to death.” 82. It was also decided to refer the case back to the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Razgrad, which was competent to deal with the question whether a criminal act had been committed by a person other than a police officer. 83. On 20 January 1997 the regional prosecutor, Ms Hadzhidimitrova, referred the case to the investigator, Mr Neshev. She noted that the investigation in respect of the police had been closed on the basis of the finding that the fatal injury had been inflicted more than ten hours prior to the death of Mr Zabchekov. Therefore, further evidence needed to be collected as regard the whereabouts and the condition of Mr Zabchekov before 7 p.m. on 28 January 1996. 84. The additional investigation entailed the examination of the applicant and six other witnesses on 23 January 1997 by Mr Neshev. 85. On 23 and 24 January 1997 the applicant made further requests for the exhumation of the body and for a fresh forensic examination, claiming that there were inconsistencies in the evidence. That was rejected by the Razgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office on 31 January 1997 as being unnecessary. 86. The applicant complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главен прокурор). She stated, inter alia, that the prosecutors had consistently failed to explain why the police had not taken proper care of Mr Zabchekov following his arrest. 87. On 17 February 1997 Mr Neshev summoned the applicant (represented by counsel) to allow her to consult the file on the investigation. The applicant made a number of requests and objections concerning shortcomings in the investigation. In particular, she stated that there had been fundamental contradictions between the first and the second medical reports, and that it was clearly impossible for a person suffering from such a grave injury as that found by the autopsy to steal car parts and resist arrest. The applicant again requested the exhumation of the body and the appointment of experts to answer the questions raised in her previous requests. 88. On 18 February 1997 Mr Neshev drew up a report stating that the additional investigation ordered on 20 January 1997 had not disclosed evidence that Mr Zabchekov had been beaten prior to his arrest. It was therefore proposed to suspend the investigation. 89. By an order of 4 March 1997 the regional prosecutor, Ms Hadzhidimitrova, suspended the criminal proceedings as all available evidence had been collected and it was not possible to determine the precise circumstances under which the fatal head injury had been inflicted. 90. The decision noted the findings of the military prosecutors, in particular those concerning the skull fracture, and confirmed them. In respect of the other bodily injuries, the prosecutor stated that they had not placed Mr Zabchekov's life in danger. The decision also mentioned that when he had been taken to the police station Mr Zabchekov had been in good health. 91. On 10 March 1997 the applicant appealed to the Chief Public Prosecutor against the decision to suspend the proceedings. On 20 March 1997 the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office confirmed the suspension of the proceedings. 92. The applicant has submitted four colour photographs of the dead body of Mr Zabchekov and a photograph of the jacket which he was wearing before his death. The photographs were taken by journalists on 30 January 1996 at the applicant's home, after the autopsy and the return of the body for burial. 93. Two of the photographs are of Mr Zabchekov's face. The hair covers half of the forehead. Above and over the left eyebrow can be seen a bluish-purple bruise. The left eyelid is of a bluish colour. A bruise can also be seen on the lips, on the left side of the mouth. 94. On the other two photographs a purple bruise colour can be seen on Mr Zabchekov's chest, on its right side, partly under the right armpit. Wounds are visible on Mr Zabchekov's right wrist. 95. On an unspecified date the applicant, acting through the European Roma Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Budapest, solicited the opinion of Professor Jorgen Thomsen, State Pathologist, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, a member of the United Nations Standing Team of Forensic Experts. Professor Thomsen gave a written opinion dated 4 February 1999. Professor Thomsen had at his disposal, inter alia, the description of what had allegedly happened in the case and extracts from the autopsy report and the reports of the forensic experts. Professor Thomsen stated, inter alia: “An epidural haematoma is usually caused by a fall against a hard surface or a strong blow with a blunt object. It is well known that a fall against a hard surface will often leave so-called contre-coup lesions. It is regrettable that the presence or absence of such lesions have not been mentioned. It has been mentioned that the deceased had a thin skull. In my opinion that is not an apologising factor in cases of interpersonal violence, as it is usually not known if a skull is thick or thin and it is inherent in the possible effects of violence that a person may have a thin skull. Together with the epidural haematoma there is usually a fracture (fissure) in the temporal bone and a rupture of the middle meningeal artery. The haemorrhage is thus arterial. It is in the beginning limited by the attachment of the dura to the inside of the bone. There is thus often a lucid interval that may last several hours, but often the interval is not longer than a couple of hours. If the traumatic lesion involves the brain with a concussion or contusions there is usually not a lucid interval. I agree with the two forensic reports that the cause of death was the epidural haematoma and that it was caused by one of the types of traumas mentioned. It may well have happened before the victim was arrested, but it can in no way be excluded that he sustained the fatal lesion during his stay in the police centre. I do not agree with the statement that there was a lapse of ten hours from the trauma until death. It was based on the appearance of the blood clot. It is known that the blood after death can take various forms and even after death there is enzymatic biochemical activity that may change the blood in an unpredictable way and in various ways in different locations. With reference to the other lesions these are not likely to have been sustained from the same trauma as the epidural haematoma. They are the result of blunt violence such as beating, kicking and/or falls, and may have been sustained during the stay in police detention. The marks on the wrists are characteristically the results of handcuffing. Handcuffs will usually not leave marks, but may if they are too tight, if the person is struggling, or if he is dragged by the handcuffs. In summary, it cannot be determined if the epidural haematoma was caused by a fall or other types of blunt violence. It may well have been sustained just before or during the stay in police detention. An epidural haematoma is curable if an operation with evacuation of the haematoma is performed soon enough. If admitted to hospital sooner, Mr Zabchekov might have been saved.” 96. The Government submitted that Mr Zabchekov had a record at the Juvenile Offenders Pedagogic Centre (Детска педагогическа стая) and at the police in Razgrad on account of numerous alleged thefts. 97. A note dated 3 July 1995, issued by the Juvenile Centre and addressed to the police in Razgrad, stated that Mr Zabchekov, who at that time was 16 years old, had a speech defect and was mentally retarded. Another note, dated 18 November 1995, reiterated those findings. The Government explained that on 7 November 1995 the applicant had been heard by an investigator in Razgrad in connection with a criminal investigation into thefts allegedly committed by her son, Mr Zabchekov. She had stated, inter alia, that her son had always had a stammer. He had been ill since the age of 3. In particular, he had had moments when he could not breathe and his skin became bluish. His eyes had often been swollen and he had fainted during moments of sudden fear. Mr Zabchekov had seen doctors who had stated that he had problems with his spine. The applicant had mentioned the name of a Dr Miceva who had all the documents concerning the medical examinations carried out in respect of her son. 98. On 14 December 1995 Mr Zabchekov had been questioned in connection with criminal proceedings concerning thefts. Asked about his health, he had stated that he had been prone to fainting and pain in his head and eyes. On 4 January 1996 an investigator from the District Investigation Service in Razgrad had opened criminal proceedings against Mr Zabchekov and other persons on charges of theft. On 15 January 1996 Mr Zabchekov had been questioned and had stated, inter alia, that he had been treated by Dr Miceva, a psychiatrist, and that he had been taking medication. Mr Zabchekov's lawyer had requested a psychiatric examination, which had been scheduled for 30 January 1996.

4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala. He is a former partner in a limited partnership company, which was wound-up in 1993. 5. On 4 February 1994 the company's estate reported an offence against the applicant. The applicant was first interrogated by the police on 4 July 1995 on suspicion of, inter alia, offences of debtor's fraud, dishonesty and bookkeeping. In June 1997 he was charged on twenty-one counts. 6. The Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held the first hearing on 30 September 1997. In the following 14 hearings it heard 21 witnesses named by the prosecutor and 5 witnesses named by the applicant. 7. At the 16th hearing on 4 March 1999 the District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of, inter alia, two aggravated debtor's frauds, two offences of debtor's dishonesty and five bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the company's estate some 723,400 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to 122,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses. 8. He appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting an oral hearing. On 16 February 2001 he asked the court to speed up the proceedings and to dismiss the charges because of the length of the proceedings. 9. On 25 March 2002, without having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment with some minor amendments. His conviction was reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment. It rejected the applicant's further claims with the reasoning that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time. 10. On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

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

4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Saint Petersburg. 5. On 12 August 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg against the Governor of St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg committee for housing policy (Комитет по жилищной политике г. Санкт-Петербург), seeking to obtain a flat under a city-funded programme. A copy of the applicant’s statement of claim bears a signature of the registry indicating that the statement was received on 12 August 1998. 6. Of the three hearings fixed between 24 February and 21 October 1999, two hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear and one hearing was postponed upon the defendant’s request to join another party to the proceedings. 7. The next hearing, fixed for 16 March 2000, was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims. 8. Of the four hearings listed between 5 April 2000 and 28 February 2001, three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings. 9. On 15 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg held a hearing. A representative of the Governor of St. Petersburg requested to adjourn the proceedings in order to enable the Governor to amend the existing regulation which affected the applicant’s housing rights. The request was granted. 10. Between 22 May 2001 and 28 March 2002 the district court fixed four hearings. Three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims. 11. On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed the amended claims. 12. The hearing of 19 December 2002 was postponed until 1 April 2003 because the defendants did not attend. The Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg sent a written warning to the defendants, informing them that they would be fined if they failed to attend the next hearing. 13. Three hearings fixed between 1 April and 17 June 2003 were adjourned because the defendants had not attended. 14. The hearing of 14 October 2003 was rescheduled because the presiding judge had been dismissed from her office. 15. The hearing fixed for 5 May 2004 was adjourned because the defendants did not appear. 16. The hearing of 5 July 2004 was adjourned because the applicant was ill. 17. On 29 September 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg gave the judgment. 18. On 8 December 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2004. 19. On 21 December 2002, 5 January and 9 November 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court and the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation about delays. 20. On 30 December 2002 and 10 February 2003 a deputy President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg and on 25 March 2004 a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court informed the applicant that the excessive length of the proceedings in his case had been caused by a large number of pending civil cases.

5. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Moscow. Her son, Mr Vasiliy Yuriyeivich Keller (V.K.), was born on 30 August 1977 and as of 1998 resided in the city of Ivanovo, in the Ivanovo Region. 6. On 13 September 2000 the applicant’s son was arrested and escorted to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior in Ivanovo (Октябрьский районный отдел внутренних дел города Иванова – “the ROVD”). 7. An arrest record was drawn up at 5.30 p.m. by investigator A., following which the applicant’s son was questioned as a suspect in the theft of two bicycles. 8. The interrogation record drawn up on that day at 6.30 p.m. noted that the applicant’s son was a drug addict infected with HIV, that he had been caught red-handed riding a stolen bicycle and that during the police interview he had confessed to that theft. 9. After the interview the applicant’s son was detained in the Regional Department of the Interior’s custody room (ИВС Управления внутренних дел Ивановской области). 10. On 16 September 2000 V.K. was brought from the custody room to office no. 315, situated on the third floor of the ROVD station. 11. Acting in the presence of duty lawyer D., investigator Ya. charged V.K. with theft. The applicant’s son denied the charges. The interview ended around 1.45 p.m., at which time D. apparently left the office. Investigator Ya. asked her office mate, trainee investigator K., to keep an eye on V.K. while she was away meeting with a prosecutor. 12. At around 3 p.m. that day V.K. was found dead in the internal courtyard of the ROVD station. 13. Immediately following the incident an emergency medical team arrived and its doctors confirmed V.K.’s death. 14. The authorities drew up a scene record and sent the corpse for a forensic medical examination to establish the cause of death. 15. On the same date investigator K. wrote a report about the incident. He stated as follows: “... At 2.30 p.m. Ya. left the office, having warned me that she was going to see the prosecutor about the arrest of V.K. At that time V.K. was sitting on a chair two metres away from me and two metres away from the door. At 2.35 p.m. I was minding my own business, when V.K. quickly stood up and ran out of the office. I ran after him and saw that he was running to the other wing of the building. I ran after him and saw him running into the toilet. There was no one in the corridor. I ran into [the toilet] and saw that the window was half open and V.K. was not there. I looked out of the window and saw that V.K. was lying on the ground and not moving...” 16. On 17 September 2000 the applicant asked the prosecutor for the Ivanovo Region to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the death of her son, blaming the police officers in charge of the investigation and escorting V.K. for it. 17. On 19 September 2000 the head of the Ivanovo City civil registry office issued death certificate I-FO no. 524264 in respect of V.K. The certificate stated that his death had taken place on 16 September 2000 in the city of Ivanovo and that the cause of death was “traumatic shock and multiple trauma to the head, chest and torso”. 18. On 20 September 2000 the Ivanovo City Department of the Interior issued order no. 125, admitting the absence of the escorting officers on the spot at the relevant time and the fact that the interview had taken place in the investigator’s office rather than appropriate designated premises. The order stated that this was in breach of Order of the Ministry of the Interiorno. 41-96 and also admitted that some of the relevant officials had been unaware of the requirements of Order no. 41-96. A number of the officials involved, including the ROVD’s officer on duty, escorting officer M. and the head of the ROVD were reprimanded in relation to this episode. 19. On 2 October 2000 the senior management of the Regional Department of the Interior discussed the incident leading to the death of V.K. The officials admitted the violation of domestic law, but, having regard to the fact that investigators Ya. and K. had been “inexperienced”, decided to give them a warning. 20. On 7 October 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office, having examined the materials collected as a result of the inquiry into the events of 16 September 2000, decided not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with V.K.’s death. The decision was reasoned as follows: “... in the course of the check it was established that on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime set out in ... part 2 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of Russia, and under Article 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR was detained in the Ivanovo Regional Department of the Interior’s custody room, where he was held between 13 and 16 September 2000. On 16 September 2000 [Ya.] in view of the considerable amount of investigative actions [to be performed] in this case took a decision to carry them out in her office, which is why [V.K.] was escorted from the custody room to [Ya.’s] office situated on the third floor of the ROVD building. After carrying out the investigative actions [Ya.] ... left the office to see the district prosecutor [in order] to decide on the measure of restraint in respect of [V.K.], trainee investigator [K.] remained [in the office] along with [V.K.]. Suddenly [V.K.] ran out of the office and threw himself out of the window of the ROVD building. [K.], questioned during the check, stated that on 16 September 2000 he was in the office with [V.K.], whilst [Ya.] was away to see the prosecutor. Suddenly [V.K.] ran out of the office, down the corridor and entered the toilet. Having entered the toilet in the footsteps of [V.K.], [K.] saw the toilet window, which was partly opened. He looked out of the window and saw that [V.K.] was lying on the ground [three floors below] without moving. [K.] told the officer on duty and the prosecutor what had happened. It was 2.40 p.m. During the examination of the scene of the incident it was established that the corpse of [V.K.] was located in the courtyard of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD [station] situated at 39 Lenin Avenue, Ivanovo. The corpse of [V.K.] was 2.5 metres away from the wall of the ROVD building, parallel to that wall. The corpse was lying on its back face up, with the head [facing] towards the garages and the legs pointing towards Lenin Avenue. The face was turned to the right side. The external examination revealed yellowish and greenish-yellow bruises on the face and chest area. Just above the location of the body on the third floor of the ROVD [building] in the male toilet there was a window with two blinds left open towards the inside. The check revealed that at the time of admission to the custody room [V.K.] did not make any complaints about his state of health, having made a hand-written statement in the search record: ‘generally fit’. On 14 September 2000 at9.25 a.m. the emergency medical team was called upon to see him and the doctor who examined [V.K.] made the following diagnosis: ‘myositis of the left side of the chest. He may be held in the custody room.’ Subsequently, at the time of his detention in the custody room [V.K.] did not complain about his health. According to the record concerning the circumstances of the infliction of the bodily injuries, [V.K.] himself explained that the bruises near his left eye and on the right shoulder [had occurred] on 13 September 2000 [when] he had bumped into a door. [V.K.] wrote by his own hand in that record that he had had no complaints against the police officers in this connection. Thus, basing itself on the results of the check, the investigation considers the arguments made by [the applicant and blaming the officials for the death of her son] in her application unjustified. ... The investigation is of the view that there is no indication of any crime as defined by the Criminal Code of Russia in the actions of the police officers or other persons.” 21. On 24 October 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office for the Ivanovo Region reviewed the decision dated 7 October 2000 and quashed it as unlawful and unjustified. It was noted that: “... the incident became possible through serious breaches by the officers of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD of the relevant requirements concerning the detention, protection and escort of suspects and accused. The breaches of the rules of escort committed in respect of [V.K.] ... manifested themselves in the non-execution or untimely execution of their duties by officials of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD which resulted in the accidental death of a man.” 22. By the same decision it was decided to institute criminal proceedings into the circumstances of V.K.’s death and transfer the case to the Ivanovo City Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) for investigation. 23. On 13 November 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office interviewed investigator K., who essentially confirmed his statement of 16 September 2000. 24. On 24 December 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office summarised the findings made as a result of the criminal investigation and decided to discontinue it, citing the lack of any indication of a crime. 25. As a result of the investigation, some additional written statements had been collected from the witnesses in the case, including the applicant, police officer M. – who had escorted V.K. on 16 September 2000 to office 315, investigator K. and officer on duty A.M. It appears that the latter three essentially confirmed the version of the events set out in the decision of 7 October 2000. The investigator again examined the male toilet’s window on the third floor of the ROVD building and obtained an additional forensic examination of the corpse of V.K. dated 23 November 2000. From that forensic examination it was established that apart from the injuries related to V.K.’s fall there were also the following unrelated injuries: three bruises on the face, and six bruises on the chest dating approximately 3 to 7 days before the date of death. The decision was reasoned as follows: “Having analysed the materials of the criminal case, the investigation has come to the conclusion that ... there is no indication of any crime set out in Part 2 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code [criminal negligence] in the actions of the ROVD officers ... [V.K.] took steps himself – ran out of the office of the investigator, tried to escape, jumped out of the window of the toilet situated on the third floor of the building ... There was no physical or psychological pressure [exerted] on [V.K.] by the police officers. The investigation is of the view that one could speak of disciplinary liability of the ROVD officers ... who committed serious breaches in the area of treatment of detainees escorted from the custody room ... and indeed they were found disciplinary liable by Order no. 125 of 20 September 2000. However, there is no indication of any crime in their actions or inaction ...” 26. On 2 March 2001 the decision of 24 December 2000 was quashed by the City Prosecutor’s Office as unfounded. 27. On 6 March 2001 the investigation resumed. 28. On 14 March 2001 an investigator interviewed V., who at the relevant time had acted as the head of the ROVD’s investigation department. She stated that she had witnessed the incident on 16 September 2000: “... When I entered the office [of Ya. and K.], I saw investigator K. and an unknown woman talking to each other about something. Ya. should have been in that office, since [Ya. and K.] worked together... I asked K. about the whereabouts of Ya., to which he responded that Ya. had probably gone to see the prosecutor about the measure of restraint [to be applied in respect of] V.K. I went out of the office and went to the office of prosecutor L. He was alone in the office. I asked him about the whereabouts of Ya., to which he responded that she was not there... [having then visited a duty area of the ROVD building and failed to locate Ya., I went back to the office of Ya. and K.] Here I met K. again. The woman was not there anymore. I started to question him in an insistent manner regarding the whereabouts of Ya. Right after I spoke K. got up and silently ran from the office, which surprised me very much. I went to the corridor where I met an officer from the duty area who asked me about the whereabouts of V.K. I told him that I did not know. At this moment, K. approached us from where the toilets were. He was pale and scared, all disturbed. From their conversation I understood that Ya. had brought V.K. to her office. Then I asked K. about whereabouts of V.K., to which he did not respond, but said at the same time that he had looked everywhere and could not find him. After this conversation I realised that V.K. had been in [their] office and had then somehow managed to escape. We then decided to search the toilet [on the third floor]. I was the first to enter it. There was a window on left side. It was neither shut nor open. I opened one of the windows, stood up and leaned with my knee on a window sill and looked out. Down on the paved area I saw a man lying. I had no doubts whatsoever that it was V.K. ...” 29. On 6 April 2001 the District Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the investigation for essentially the same reasons as stated in the decision of 24 December 2000. 30. On the same date the decision to discontinue the investigation was again quashed and the investigation resumed. 31. On 17 April 2001 an investigator interviewed investigator K., who now changed his submissions. He admitted that V.K.’s escape had initially gone unnoticed by him until the arrival of V., following which they had seen V.K.’s body on the ground beneath the toilet window. K. was also questioned about V.K.’s injuries, to which he responded that V.K. “may have had a bruise or two” but that he “could not remember exactly”. 32. On 20 April 2001 an investigator questioned V.K.’s lawyer D., who stated in relation to the events of 16 September 2000 that V.K. had had a bruise in the area of his left eye as a result of ill-treatment by the police during his arrest but that he had made no further complaints. 33. On 29 June 2001 the District Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the proceedings. This time the investigator collected statements from a wider range of witnesses, such the applicant’s other son and other members of the family, senior ROVD officers, the District Prosecutor, all escorting officers who had been on shift on the relevant date, the investigating officers, two private individuals, Da. and Ko., who were apparently the victims of the crime V.K. had been accused of and who had taken part in his arrest, and Za., a detainee who had seen V.K. on 16 September 2000. The investigator also collected statements from Zh. and S., two police officers who had brought V.K. to the police station on 13 September 2000. 34. On the basis of the evidence in the case file, the investigator essentially upheld the previous factual conclusions but for one element. It was now argued that at 1.45 p.m. V.K. had ceased to be a suspect in the case, as he had become an accused. Since no measure of restraint had yet been chosen, the investigator argued that V.K. had no longer been in custody, had been free to leave and that the police officers had had no duty to take care of him. It was also confirmed that there had been no evidence confirming physical coercion by the police. The latter conclusion was made on the basis of the following pieces of evidence: “...Da. and Ko., interviewed as witnesses, gave corroborating statements that on 13 September 2000 they arrived at their place of work in the drug rehabilitation centre ... by bicycle. Having noted that the bicycles had gone missing, they started to search for them. They managed to apprehend [V.K.], who tried to escape on Da.’s bicycle. They did not beat him while they were apprehending him. After that they called the police... Za., interviewed as a witness, stated that on 16 September 2000 he was brought from the custody room to the ROVD building along with [V.K.] and that he saw a bruise on the latter’s face. He knew nothing about the circumstances in which it had been inflicted... The case file contains a report concerning [V.K.’s] injuries drawn up on 13 September 2000 in the custody room, according to which [V.K.] had bruises in the area of his left eye and on his right shoulder. In the report there is a statement that these injuries were received by [V.K.] at [his home] on 13 September 2000 [when he]: “bumped into a door”. [V.K.] wrote by his own hand in that record that he had had no complaints against the police officers in this connection. The case file contains a certificate from the custody room [to the effect] that during [V.K.]’s admission on 13 September 2000 he made a hand-written statement ... [that he was] “fit”... On 14 September 2000 an emergency medical team was called to [V.K.], which authorised his continued detention from the medical point of view. [V.K.] did not make any further complaints about his health during his detention. The case file contains copies of medical records [drawn up by] the emergency medical team... During his [examination by them] no bodily injuries were identified and he was diagnosed with “Acute respiratory disease. Myositis of the chest on the left side”... [The post-mortem medical examination of [V.K.] established the following injuries:] three bruises on the face and six bruises on the chest, which had formed as a result of no less than nine blows from blunt and hard objects on the aforementioned areas three to seven days prior to death, and are unrelated to the cause of death... Therefore, considering the evidence collected in the course of the criminal investigation, the investigation finds that: 1. Three bruises on the face, six bruises on the chest dating from three to seven days before death, which, according to the expert examinations were unrelated to the cause of death ... were inflicted on [V.K.] during his apprehension [by the victims of the theft] on 13 September 2000. This conclusion is confirmed in part by the ... medical examinations, in part by [a member of [V.K.]’s family who saw him on 13 September 2000 prior to the events], investigator Ya., investigator K. and ... by the other pieces of evidence. At the same time, the investigation concludes that the aforementioned injuries were inflicted on [V.K.] ... by Da. and Ko., whose statements the investigation finds not to be credible. At around 11 a.m. on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] left his home [with no injuries, as confirmed by one of his family members], whilst police officers Zh. and S. who arrived at around 3 p.m. at the rehabilitation centre ... were [able to attest that they had seen] the presence of injuries. There was no need for them to apply force [by then], because [V.K.] had already been apprehended [by Da. and Ko.] and was unable to escape. The investigation is critical of [the information contained in the statement of witness D.] that, according to [V.K.], one of the bruises on [V.K.’s] face had been received by him through ill-treatment by the police officers, as [V.K.] did not make any complaints in this connection, even though he could have done so. This conclusion is confirmed by the hand-written statement of [V.K.] in the [relevant report made in the custody room] to the effect that he had no complaints about the police officers. The investigation does not exclude that the injuries could partly have been received on 13 September 2000, when he “bumped into a door”, but did not become fully apparent [until later], which is why [his family member] failed to notice them...” 35. On 10 October 2001 the above decision was essentially confirmed by the same official and repeated, in order to comply with changes in applicable legislation. 36. On 28 June 2002 the General Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 10 October 2001 and sent the case for additional investigation to the District Prosecutor’s Office. Among the reasons for the decision, the reviewing body cited the lack of any in-depth inquiry into the personality of V.K. and, in particular, him having been infected with HIV. 37. On 31 July 2002 the case was accepted for examination by the District Prosecutor’s Office. 38. On 15 August 2002 the authorities took yet another decision to discontinue the investigation and essentially repeated their earlier reasoning. 39. On 22 October 2002 the decision of 15 August 2002 was quashed by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which took the view that “the relevant police officers had acted with manifest negligence”. 40. On 17 November 2003 the investigation was again discontinued by the District Prosecutor’s Office. This time, the investigation obtained a new forensic examination of the corpse, studied and presented a new theory of the possible reasons for V.K. to have committed suicide, which it was considered was supported by the fact that he had already had a criminal record and, as a drug addict, feared pre-trial detention because of the difficulty of obtaining drugs in a detention centre. Overall, it was concluded that the officers involved had committed a disciplinary offence which did not contain any elements of a crime. The investigation concluded that the V.K.’s attempt to escape was in itself a crime. As regards V.K.’s injuries, the decision stated: “... According to a [fresh] expert examination ..., there were the following injuries on the body of [V.K.]: 1. On the face: around the left eye [there was] a bruise, purple in the centre area and blue-greenish on the periphery, sized 6 to 9 cm; in the area of the nose and lips on the right side of the [danger] triangle area a similarly-sized bruise and a similarly-sized bruise in the area of the lower jaw around the third and fourth teeth, sized 2 to 3 cm; 2. On the front surface of the chest: on the right and left sides of the collarbone and front armpit lines [there are] similarly sized bruises (as on the face), numbering six and sized from 2 to 4 and 4 to 6 cm ... The blue-greenish colouring on the periphery of the bruises on the face and front chest confirms that [these] bruises dated from three or more days before the date of death, were inflicted by blows from blunt and hard objects... and were not causally connected with the cause of death...” 41. As regards V.K.’s motives, the investigation concluded as follows: “On the basis of the combined collected evidence in the case, of both a subjective and an objective character, the investigation concludes that the death of [V.K.] took place as a result of an unsuccessful attempted escape from the detention. Fearing that a measure of restraint would be adopted in respect of him, which for him as a drug addict constituted a real challenge in view of the inability to obtain drugs in the remand prison where he would be held for a long time and using the fact that K. was looking away, [V.K.] exited the investigator’s office... proceeded to the male toilet on the third floor and jumped out of the window. Given, however, that he had no prior experience of jumping from such a height, he misjudged his actions and died upon landing...” 42. On 24 December 2003 the Ivanovo Oktyabriskiy District Court (“the District Court”) examined the applicant’s complaint in respect of the decision of 17 November 2003 and quashed the said decision as unlawful and unjustified. The court ruled that many relevant circumstances, such as the exact location of the police officers at the moment of the V.K.’s fall, who the first officer to start looking for V.K. was, and the exact lapse of time between the fall and the discovery of the body were still unclear and had to be examined. 43. On 15 January 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court essentially upheld the decision of 24 December 2003. 44. On 19 February 2004 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the case as it had failed to establish any causal link between the death and the violation of the security rules by the police officers. The investigation concluded that it was unclear exactly how V.K. had gotten to the toilet, but it was clear that it had not happened through or because of any violence. It was concluded with reference to the way he had jumped and landed that he had done so by himself and that there had been no coercion by the police officers in this connection. 45. On 20 April 2004 the District Court quashed the decision of 19 February 2004, ruling that the investigation should have arranged for a confrontation between all witnesses with divergent statements in the case. 46. The decision of 20 April 2004 was upheld by the Regional Court on appeal on 25 May 2004. 47. On 24 May 2004 the District Prosecutor’s Officer took a new decision to discontinue the investigation in the case. Having complied with the instructions of the courts, the investigation was of the view that a confrontation would not serve any purpose, as too much time had elapsed from the time of the incident and the witnesses could not recall the event in the necessary detail. The investigators decided that in any event the previous conclusions of the decision dated 19 February 2003 still held true, irrespective of the outcome of any possible confrontation, and accordingly decided to discontinue the case. 48. On 8 June 2004 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 24 May 2004 so as to comply with the appeal decision of 25 May 2004 (see paragraphs 45-46 above). 49. On 6 July 2004 the case was again discontinued for essentially the same reasons as stated previously. 50. On 10 September 2004 this decision was again quashed by the higher level of the Prosecutor’s Office. It was decided that not all the circumstances of the case were clear, in particular whether the window was open or closed after V.K. fell out of it and whether the corpse was moved after the fall. 51. By a new decision dated 13 October 2004 the investigators decided to discontinue the proceedings, having reiterated the conclusions from all of their previous decisions and concluding that V.K. had unsuccessfully attempted to escape. The decision reads as follows: “The instant proceedings were instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office for the Ivanovo Region on 24 October 2000 under Article 293 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Russia in connection with the alleged negligence of [policemen] resulting in [V.K.’s] death... The investigation in the present case established that on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] was arrested on suspicion of having committed theft under Article 158 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code of Russia and taken to the custody room of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD station in the city of Ivanovo. On 16 September 2000 [V.K.] was escorted to [the police station]. He was taken to the office of investigator Ya. – a room on the third floor of the police station. The escorting officers left him in that office [with two investigators, Ya. and K.]. On 16 September 2000 at 1.45 p.m. Ya. in the presence of [V.K.]’s lawyer D., officially charged [V.K.] on suspicion of theft and questioned him. Subsequently, Ya. went out of the office to make a decision about the measure of restraint [to be applied] in respect of [V.K.], leaving him with K. 52. On 18 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 13 October 2004. The decision was reasoned as follows: “In accordance with Article 7 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of Russia, a decision of an investigator should be lawful and reasoned. The court concludes that the impugned decision of the investigator satisfies these requirements. It contains a description of the circumstances of the case [and makes] reference to the evidence. First of all, the investigating authority examined the expert reports issued by the expert of the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, by the expert panel of the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, by the expert panel of the Ministry of Health’s National Centre of Forensic Medical Examination and the expert examination of the body performed by the expert from the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination. The aforementioned expert examinations proved that [V.K.]’s death and his injuries were caused by his fall. The experts found that [V.K.] had landed on his feet, i.e. [V.K.] had controlled his motions. [V.K.] suffered all of the injuries in a short time interval, almost simultaneously. He died immediately after the fall. The alleged contradictions in the experts’ findings given in connection with the injuries on [V.K.]’s face and the time of his death were resolved. The expert from the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination explained why there had been certain differences in the description of the facial injuries. He stated that the differences had been insignificant and could not have affected the overall conclusions about the nature of these injuries, their seriousness and the alleged time of their infliction. He explained that the conclusions of the experts had not been contradictory. These results had supplemented each other. The conclusions about the origin of the injuries also lacked contradictions, they were reasoned and valid. No additional expert examination of the exhumed body was required. In the court’s view the experts’ reports are sufficiently consistent. They are based on the case file materials, including the record of examination of the scene of the incident. The experts who carried out the examinations were competent. They were informed of [the potential] criminal liability for deliberately false reporting. There are no reasons why the court should depart from their conclusions. The circumstances of the death were examined by the court in its decision of 24 December 2003, which has entered into legal force. The [applicant’s] arguments were declared unfounded. The investigator’s refusal to order an examination of the exhumed body of 6 November 2003 was upheld by the courts. The investigator did not examine the expert opinion [which had been submitted by the applicant] because it essentially repeated the previous conclusions of the experts. The investigator took certain steps towards the reconciliation of certain differences in the statements of the witnesses by ordering cross-examinations between them. During these cross-examinations he established the circumstances [of V.K.’s death]. The description of the events presented by the investigator is sufficiently detailed. Only several insignificant details remained unclear owing to the lapse of time. However, this could not affect the general assessment of the circumstances of [V.K.’s death] and the overall findings of the investigating authorities. The statements of the witnesses were examined and compared with the expert reports and other pieces of evidence. The court agrees with the investigator’s conclusion that [V.K.] was not ill-treated and was not forced to commit suicide. The investigator responded to [the applicant’s allegation] that the crime had not occurred in the place where the body had been found. Referring to the expert examination reports the investigator explained why [V.K.] had been found lying on his back. The investigator took into account the mechanism of [V.K.’s] injuries. There is no evidence which could prove that [V.K.]’s body had been moved. The investigator established all the circumstances of [V.K.]’s death. He gave an assessment of the actions of the policemen in light of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Russia, including its Article 293 § 2. He concluded that the police officers had breached certain rules of legislation; however there had been no causal link between their [unlawful] actions and [V.K.’s] death. The court has no reason to call the investigator’s conclusions into question. All required investigative actions aimed at gathering of additional evidence and settling the contradictions were carried out. There is no reason to order additional expert examinations. The court concludes that the decision of 13 October 2004 issued by the [investigative authorities] in connection with [V.K.]’s death is reasoned and lawful.” 53. On 15 April 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal, reiterating its reasoning and conclusions.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vilnius. 6. The applicant owned a 0.53 hectare plot of land in the village of Tarailiai (Tauragė region). In 2005 he submitted a request to the local authorities to change the classification of the land from agricultural to residential use. In accordance with the domestic law, such a request had first to be granted by the municipal council and then approved by the county administration. 7. Tauragė District Municipal Council granted the applicant’s request and prepared a detailed area plan (detalusis planas) (hereinafter “the plan”). The plan was subsequently submitted for approval to the Tauragė County Administration (hereinafter “the TCA”). However, on 25 November 2005 the TCA refused to approve the plan on the ground that it had not been prepared in accordance with the domestic laws governing the planning process. 8. The applicant submitted a complaint to the State Inspectorate for Planning and Construction (hereinafter “the Inspectorate”), which was the competent institution for out-of-court settlement of disputes arising from the planning process. On 10 August 2006 the Inspectorate held that the TCA’s refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded. 9. After the Inspectorate’s decision, Tauragė District Municipal Council re-submitted the plan to the TCA. However, on 13 November 2006 the TCA informed the council and the applicant that it would not review its previous decision to refuse approval. 10. On 22 December 2006 the Inspectorate notified the TCA that its refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded and urged it to review that decision. It appears that the TCA did not take any action in that respect. 11. In January 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court. He asked the court to order the TCA to approve the plan. Following the court’s suggestion, in April 2007 the applicant added a request to annul the TCA’s decision of 25 November 2005. 12. On 4 May 2007 the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court held that county administration’s decisions on approval of detailed area plans were valid for one year after their adoption. If the plan had not been adopted within that time, the decision became invalid and the plan had to be re-submitted for approval. Therefore, the court found that the TCA’s decision of 25 November 2005 was no longer valid and could not have any effect on the applicant’s situation. The court stated that it had no competence to examine the lawfulness of an invalid act and dismissed the claim. It also held that, as a result, there was no need to examine the applicant’s remaining claims. 13. The applicant appealed against that judgment. He complained, inter alia, that the first instance court had not examined his original request – to order the TCA to approve the plan. 14. On 15 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and returned the case for re-examination by the first‑instance court. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that when a county administration refused to approve a detailed area plan, that plan could be re-submitted only after the errors indicated in the refusal had been corrected. However, if the author of the plan disagreed with the indicated errors, he or she would effectively be denied access to court if the proceedings lasted longer than a year. The court also noted that the applicant’s original request had been to order the TCA to approve the plan and that the first-instance court had not made any findings in that respect. 15. On 16 October 2008 the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, after re-examining the case, again decided to dismiss the applicant’s claims. The court held that decisions of the Inspectorate, taken during the out-of-court settlement procedure, were mandatory for county administrations (see paragraph 20 below). Accordingly, the Inspectorate’s decisions of 10 August 2006 and 22 December 2006 had repealed the TCA’s decision of 25 November 2005. As a result, the TCA’s refusal to approve the plan was no longer valid and the court had no competence to examine its lawfulness. The court also held that, as a result, there was no need to examine the applicant’s remaining claims. 16. The applicant appealed against that judgment, again complaining that the first-instance court had not examined his request to order the TCA to approve the plan, and that it had not followed the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 15 February 2008 (see paragraph 14 above). 17. On 12 December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It upheld the lower court’s findings that the TCA’s decision had been repealed by the Inspectorate and that courts had no competence to examine invalid acts. The Supreme Administrative Court then held that the applicant’s request to order the TCA to approve the plan was “derived” (išvestinis) from the request to annul the TCA’s decision; having dismissed the latter, there was therefore no need to examine the former request either. Lastly the court noted that the applicant had not requested that the court order the TCA to comply with the Inspectorate’s decisions, so it would make no findings in that respect. 18. In 2010, following a national administrative reform, all county administrations were abolished and their planning powers were transferred to the Inspectorate. The applicant then submitted a new request to change the classification of his land and it was approved by all the relevant authorities. The classification of the land was changed to residential use in February 2012.

7. The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. On 9 January 2003 the applicant died and his wife, Ms Ashat Ayubova, expressed her intention to pursue the application before the Court on the applicant’s behalf in letters of 31 January and 26 December 2005. 8. The applicant and his wife, Ms Ashat Ayubova, are the parents of Mr Adam Ayubov, born in 1959. They lived in Grozny in their privately owned house at 17 Narvskaya Street with other family members. In the winter of 1999-00 the applicant and other members of his family left Grozny because of the hostilities. Adam Ayubov remained in Grozny to guard the house and property. He was married and had two children. Before the unrest in Chechnya he had served in the elite troops of the Ministry of the Interior and had held the highest sport title of the USSR. 9. On 19 January 2000, during daylight hours, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at Narvskaya Street in a Ural military truck. The applicant, who did not witness his son’s detention, referred to eyewitness statements of his neighbours to the effect that they were federal servicemen. According to the Government, they were “unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms”. 10. The men checked the residents’ documents and ordered three men – Adam Ayubov, Mr Sh. and a man named Oleg or Vladimir – to get into the truck. The neighbours who were present in the street tried to intervene, and for about 20 minutes obstructed the vehicle, asking the men in camouflage uniforms to release the three men and saying that they had not been involved in anything illegal. Despite their efforts the applicant’s son and the two other men were taken away. 11. The applicant submitted with reference to his neighbours’ statements that about an hour later the same Ural truck with the same armed men in camouflage uniforms had returned and destroyed the house at 17 Narvskaya Street and two cars in the courtyard with a flame-thrower. The applicant produced photographs of his destroyed house and burnt cars and a list of his destroyed possessions (see paragraphs 40 and 41 below). 12. Mr Sh. and the man named Oleg or Vladimir were released later that day. They stated that they had been detained by a detachment of the police special force from Novosibirsk. 13. The applicant and his family have had no news of Adam Ayubov since that date. 14. The applicant’s wife corroborated the above account of the events with two eyewitness statements made by Mr G. and Ms Kh. They both confirmed that on 19 January 2000 they had seen Adam Ayubov being detained by servicemen and taken away in a military Ural truck, and that the servicemen had returned later on 19 January and then on 20 January 2000 and had taken property from the Ayubovs’ house and burned a Volga car and a Niva car in the courtyard of the house. The applicant’s wife also submitted a written statement of one of her representatives to the effect that he had on several occasions approached Mr Sh. with a request to give a written statement concerning the events of 19 January 2000. Mr Sh. had confirmed the circumstances of that incident orally, but had refused to make any written statements out of fear for his security, stating that he had been warned by law-enforcement officials to refrain from describing that incident to any human rights organisations. 15. According to Adam Ayubov’s sister, Ms Liza Azimova, on 19 January 2000 the Russian TV channel NTV showed an interview with Russian servicemen concerning the military actions in Grozny, which was recorded in the vicinity of the Ayubov family domicile. One of the servicemen mentioned the capture of a Chechen sniper, “a master of sports in shooting”, briefly showed a passport with that man’s photograph and stated that the sniper’s name was Arsanov [rather than Ayubov]. Ms Azimova insisted that she had recognised her brother’s photograph in the passport and that he had been the only master of sports in shooting in the Northern Caucasus, and that therefore the servicemen had been describing the arrest of Adam Ayubov. A copy of the aforementioned interview has been submitted to the Court. 16. As soon as the applicant learned of his son’s detention, he and other members of the family started searching for him. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, they applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the administrative authorities in Chechnya. He also personally visited military commander’s offices and pre-trial detention centres in Chechnya and further afield in the region. In the letters addressed to the authorities the applicant stated the facts of Adam Ayubov’s detention and asked for assistance and details on the investigation. 17. The applicant was given no substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into his son’s disappearance. On several occasions he received copies of letters stating that his requests had been forwarded to the different prosecutors’ services. 18. According to the applicant, he had first applied to a prosecutor’s office in April 2000. 19. In letters of 10 and 16 June 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (прокуратура Чеченской Республики – “the republican prosecutor’s office”) forwarded the applicant’s complaints to the Grozny prosecutor’s office (прокуратура г. Грозного). 20. On 3 July 2000 the Memorial Human Rights Centre wrote on the applicant’s behalf to the republican prosecutor’s office. They stated the facts of Adam Ayubov’s detention, listed the neighbours who had witnessed it and asked for information about his whereabouts. 21. On 8 August 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the temporary district office of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny. The letter instructed the district office to “conduct a full and thorough verification of the applicant’s complaint, in accordance with Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” which obliged investigative bodies to verify facts stated in a complaint and to decide within three days whether a criminal investigation should be opened. 22. On 10 August 2000 the republican prosecutor’s office forwarded one of the applicant’s letters to the Chechen Department of the Interior for “organisation of a search for a missing person” and another to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. 23. On 18 January 2001 the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ingushetia, in reply to a request of Adam Ayubov’s brother concerning the whereabouts of Adam Ayubov who had been detained by servicemen on 19 January 2000, stated that they had requested the Ministry of Justice to check whether Adam Ayubov was being kept in any detention centre. 24. On 28 March 2001 the applicant’s family submitted to the Zavodskoy District Administration of Grozny a request to investigate his son’s disappearance, co-signed by eight of his neighbours. The neighbours described Adam Ayubov as a good-natured man who had no links with any illegal groups and who had on many occasions risked his own life to help his neighbours during the hostilities in the winter of 1999-00. 25. On the same day the Zavodskoy District Administration wrote to the Memorial Human Rights Centre, asking them to help the applicant to find his son, “who had been taken from his home on 19 January 2000 by the servicemen of the Novosibirsk OMON during a “sweeping” operation 26. On 6 April 2001 the Memorial Human Rights Centre wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office on the applicant’s behalf. Referring to their letter of 3 July 2000, they stated the known facts of Adam Ayubov’s detention and summarised the correspondence maintained by the applicant. They enquired whether a criminal investigation had been opened into Adam Ayubov’s disappearance, and requested an update on the proceedings. It does not appear that any answer was received to that letter. 27. Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government submitted that on 14 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s son as well as misappropriation and intentional infliction of damage by setting fire to the property of the Ayubov family. The case file was assigned the number 12275. 28. It also appears that at some point the case was transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the Zavodskoy District (Заводская районная прокуратура – “district prosecutor’s office”). 29. According to the Government, in the context of those proceedings on 21 November 2000 an investigator of the prosecutor’s office had inspected the house of the Ayubov family. The applicant had been granted the status of victim of a crime and questioned on 24 November 2000. Following the applicant’s death in 2003, his wife, Adam Ayubov’s mother, had been declared a victim and questioned on 3 January 2005. The investigating authorities had also questioned Adam Ayubov’s brother on 6 and 10 January 2005, granted him the status of a victim on 10 January 2005 and declared him a civil claimant in the criminal case on 11 January 2005. The latter had produced photographs of the burnt property which had been included in the file of criminal case no. 12275. 30. In their observations on the admissibility of the present application the Government stated that the investigating authorities had also questioned nine witnesses, the applicant’s neighbours and relatives, who “[had] confirmed the circumstances of Adam Ayubov’s abduction and stated that they had no information concerning his whereabouts”. According to the Government, it was not possible to identify other witnesses in the case. 31. After the present application had been declared admissible, the Government refused to provide transcripts of any witness interviews despite the Court’s specific request to that end, stating that they had reproduced the contents of those interviews in their observations on the merits of the present case. They submitted in particular that Mr Sh. had stated in his witness interview of 12 January 2001 that on 19 January 2000 armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had taken him, his neighbour Adam Ayubov and a man named Vladimir away and delivered them in a truck to the location of an unknown military unit, and that the next day he, Vladimir and a man named Akhmed had been taken to the village of Alkhan-Kala and released there. According to the Government, during that interview Mr Sh. also stated that there had been no identifying signs on the truck in which he, Vladimir and the applicant’s son had been taken away; however during his subsequent interviews he submitted that the truck had borne the inscription “Novosibirsk”. 32. Mr Z. stated during a witness interview of 26 November 2001 that on 19 January 2000 servicemen had taken away three men, namely Sh., Adam Ayubov and the latter’s acquaintance, for an identity check and that later Mr Sh.’s mother had told him that Mr Sh. had been released. 33. Ms Kh. who was questioned as a witness on 2 January 2005 submitted that on 19 January 2000 Adam Ayubov, his acquaintance and Sh. had been taken away by servicemen. She also described in detail the appearance of a man who, in her opinion, had been in command of that operation and indicated his insignia. Ms Kh. further stated that the registration plates of a Ural truck in which the three men had been taken away had been black with white letters and figures on them, including figures “2” and “6” and a letter “G”, and that she did not remember whether there had been any identification signs on the truck. 34. During witness interviews on 7 January 2005 Mr Sh.’s mother gave oral evidence similar to that of Mr Sh., and Ms Z. stated that she did not remember the events of 19 January 2000. 35. The Government also stated that the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various State bodies on 1 May, 30 August and 26 November 2000, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 January and 20 April 2005 and undertaken other investigative measures, but did not specify what those measures had been. 36. Finally, the Government submitted that the investigation had been suspended and resumed on several occasion, but had failed to identify those responsible so far. 37. Among other documents, the applicant’s wife submitted several documents relating to the claims concerning the destruction of property. 38. A certificate of right to inherit dated 21 May 2004 confirms that the applicant’s property after his death in 2003 was inherited by his son, and that that property consists of a destroyed house situated on a plot of land measuring 469 square metres, which was held by the applicant under a contract of a building lease. 39. A handwritten plan of the household at 17 Narvskaya Street represents a courtyard with the gates, two car boxes adjacent to a house, a summer kitchen and awning, and the house consisting of a lobby, a corridor, a kitchen, a boiler room, a bathroom, two living rooms and two bedrooms. There is no indication of any dimensions or general surface of the house or of any of premises depicted in the plan. 40. A handwritten document dated 10 June 2005 and signed by the applicant’s wife lists articles of property destroyed on 19 and 20 January 2000 and indicates their value in United States dollars (USD). These are a VAZ Niva car (USD 5,000), a Volga car (USD 4,000), living room furniture (USD 6,000), bedroom furniture (USD 4,000), kitchen furniture (USD 2,000), twenty carpets (USD 3,500), two refrigerators (USD 1,500), video equipment and TV set (USD 800), chandeliers (USD 500), crockery (USD 3,000), lobby furniture (USD 1,000), a boiler (USD 400), sanitary equipment (USD 500), two gas cookers (USD 700), car spare parts and tools (USD 1,000), two air-conditioners (USD 600), current generator (USD 1,000), jewels (USD 10,000), clothes for all family members (USD 10,000), and household appliances (USD 2,000). 41. Four photographs represent two burnt cars and a burnt house at 17 Narvskaya Street. According to the applicant’s wife, she was unable to submit documents for the cars, as they had been kept in the house and burnt there. 42. The applicant’s wife also submitted a DVD with records of various family events in 1995 and 1996, showing the cars and some furnishings inside the house. 43. In November 2004, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in a criminal case opened into the abduction of the applicant’s son. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government replied that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file or transmit it to others”. In April 2005 the Court reiterated its request and suggested that Rule 33 § 3 of the Rules of Court be applied. In reply, the Government again refused to produce any documents from the file for the aforementioned reasons. 44. In their additional memorial of 30 January 2007, however, the Government submitted copies of several documents which included: (a) procedural decisions of 20 May 2005, 28 September and 4 November 2006 and 19 January 2007 suspending and reopening the investigation in case no. 12275; (b) investigators’ decisions of 4 October 2006 and 19 January 2007 to take up case no. 12275; (c) letters issued in 2005-07 informing the applicant’s wife and her other son, Adam Ayubov’s brother, of the suspension and reopening of the investigation in criminal case no. 12275. 45. On 5 July 2007 the application was declared admissible. At that stage the Court once again invited the Government to submit the investigation file and to provide information concerning the progress of the investigation after January 2007. It also put a number of factual questions to the Government. The Court enquired, in particular, which units of the federal armed forces and/or security agencies had been stationed in the vicinity of the Ayubov family’s domicile at the period described in the statement of facts; whether the federal armed forces and/or security agencies had carried out any special operations in the vicinity of the Ayubov family’s domicile in January 2000, and, in particular, on 19 January 2000, and whether the possible involvement of the personnel of the Novosibirsk OMON in Adam Ayubov’s removal had been verified during the investigation in criminal case no. 12275. The Government were also furnished with a copy of the video material submitted by the applicant’s wife, and were requested to comment on it, in particular, to indicate whether the passport shown in that material belonged to Adam Ayubov (see paragraph 15 above). 46. In reply, the Government refused to submit any documents from the case file other than those produced earlier and remained silent as regards the Court’s question relating to the progress in the investigation. They further stated that “there was no information concerning units of the federal armed forces and/or security agencies stationed in the vicinity of the Ayubov family’s domicile at the relevant period” and that, “according to the replies from competent State bodies, no special operation had been carried out by the federal armed forces and/or security agencies in the vicinity of the Ayubov family’s domicile in January 2000”. The Government also stated that the version concerning the possible involvement of the Novosibirsk OMON in Adam Ayubov’s apprehension had been checked, and that no such involvement had been established. In particular, according to a letter of the acting head of the Main Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region dated 26 May 2005 in reply to a query by an investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Zavodskoy District, “there [had been] no personnel of the Novosibirsk OMON in the territory of the Chechen Republic on 19 January 2000”. The Government did not produce a copy of this letter. As regards the Court’s question concerning the video material, the Government stated that neither Ms Liza Azimova nor Ms Ayshat Ayubova had informed the investigating authorities of the existence of any video record of the interview of 19 January 2000 referred to by Ms Azimova, and that therefore that piece of evidence had not been examined and included in the investigation file in proper time. According to the Government at present the prosecutor of the Zavodskoy District had been instructed “to take measures aiming at identification of persons possessing that material and its seizure”. They remained silent as to the Court’s question whether the passport shown in that material belonged to Adam Ayubov. (b) Letters from domestic courts 47. The Government also enclosed a number of letters from various higher courts in Russia, stating that the applicant had never made complaints regarding his son’s detention, the destruction of his property or the authorities’ inactivity with the respective courts or sought compensation of the damaged inflicted on his property.

5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lived until his arrest in Vladimir. 6. On 23 October 2004 an investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape. 7. The applicant was arrested at approximately 10 p.m. on 25 October 2004. The record did not indicate the grounds for the arrest, save for a reference to Article 91 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been informed of his constitutional rights as an accused, including the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel. He also made a handwritten statement refusing legal assistance “at the time of the arrest”. It appears that the investigator made a handwritten note in the arrest record, stating that the applicant had not been searched. 8. On the following day the investigator began questioning the applicant in the presence of his counsel, Mr Ovchinnikov. A record shows that the questioning started at 12 noon. The record bears the applicant’s signature after the paragraph stating that he was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, in particular, that he was suspected of having participated in a gang rape on 23 October 2004. The applicant made a handwritten entry in the record, noting that he had decided to make use of his constitutional rights and would remain silent. (a) Authorisation of the pre-trial detention: detention order of 27 October 2004 9. On 27 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows: “[The applicant] is employed [and] has a permanent place of residence. However, he has a previous conviction for a criminal offence against an individual, and his criminal record has not expired by virtue of a court order. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities; [he] might also hinder the investigation, in particular as regards the uncovering of evidence in the case – a mobile phone which had been stolen from the victim. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence against an individual; [the offence] is punishable by imprisonment. The victim identified [the applicant] as a perpetrator of the criminal offence against her. It follows that, if released, Mr ... [the name of the applicant’s co-defendant was crossed out and the applicant’s last name written by hand] might influence the victim during the pre-trial and judicial investigation; therefore, the victim, at her request, took part in the identification parade in conditions whereby [the applicant] was prevented from seeing [her]. Consequently, the court considers that a measure of restraint in the form of pre-trial detention is lawful and well-founded and [it] accepts the motion of the senior investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office ... to place [the applicant] in custody.” 10. Several days later the applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the applicant had not been properly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his detention was unlawful. He requested the applicant’s release on bail or the application of an alternative, more lenient, measure of restraint. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer urged the Regional Court to take into account the appalling conditions of detention to which the applicant would be subjected. 11. On 9 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention order, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. It noted, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his previous conviction. As regards the lawyer’s argument concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court noted that it was not the courts’ task to deal with the matter in that set of proceedings. (b) Extension of the detention: order of 22 December 2004 12. On 22 December 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 11 January 2005 inclusive, noting the applicant’s “personality”, the gravity of the charges against him and the likelihood that he would abscond, re-offend and pervert the course of justice. 13. The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the detention was unlawful and excessively long. The lawyer also reiterated the arguments that he had put forward in his statement of appeal against the detention order of 27 October 2004. 14. On 1 February 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 December 2004, holding as follows: “Having examined the materials presented in the appeal statements, the court decides as follows. While examining whether it was necessary to extend [the applicant’s] detention, the judge correctly took into account the gravity of the charges [and] the information on the accused’s character. It follows from the materials presented that [the applicant] was held liable for criminal offences, including a particularly serious offence; and that in 2004 [he] was held administratively liable. The judge’s conclusion that [the applicant] is likely to abscond from the pre-trial investigation and judicial proceedings, to continue his criminal activities and to pervert the course of justice is corroborated by the record of an interrogation of the victim, from which it appears that the victim has been receiving insulting phone calls which frighten her and which she considers a way of applying mental pressure on her for having instituted the criminal proceedings. The extension of [the applicant’s] detention is also connected to the necessity of carrying out investigative measures with a view to closing the pre-trial investigation. The judge examined the possibility of applying another, more lenient, measure of restraint to [the applicant], as reflected in the decision, which states that applying a different measure of restraint to the accused cannot be justified. ... By virtue of the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, when a judge examines an extension of detention issue, [he] does not have to take into account the conditions of [the applicant’s] detention, as raised by the lawyer in his appeal statement.” (c) Request for release: decision of 15 February 2005 15. On 9 December 2004 the applicant’s counsel, Mr Ovchinnikiov, submitted a request for the applicant’s release to the Leninskiy District Court, arguing that his arrest and subsequent detention had been unlawful. 16. According to the Government, three hearings scheduled for 13, 20 and 28 January 2005 were postponed owing to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. 17. On 15 February 2005 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the request for release on the grounds that the applicant had been committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court and that the trial judge had exclusive jurisdiction over the detention issue. 18. On 31 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 February 2005 and discontinued the proceedings, reasoning as follows: “The merits of the lawyer’s ... complaint concerning [the applicant’s] allegedly unlawful detention was examined by the judge by virtue of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the criminal case against [the applicant] on charges of aggravated rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery and death threats had already been sent for examination to the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir; thus [the Leninskiy District Court] violated the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the Criminal Code, according to which the court has competence to examine such a complaint only in the proceedings before the [applicant was committed to stand] trial.” (d) Detention from 12 January to 13 October 2005 i. Decision of 25 January 2005 19. In the meantime, on 12 January 2005 the period of the applicant’s detention authorised by the decision of 22 December 2004 expired. On the following day the applicant, having been served with the final version of the bill of indictment for charges of aggravated robbery, sexual assault and death threats in addition to aggravated rape, was committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court. The court received the case file on 17 January 2005. 20. At the preliminary hearing on 25 January 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court, having noted that the applicant and his co-defendant were charged with a serious criminal offence, that the applicant had been held administratively and criminally liable and that there were reasons to believe that, if released, he and his co-defendant would abscond, threaten the victim and pervert the course of justice, concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. 21. On 16 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 January 2005, finding that the lawyers’ arguments that the defendants had permanent places of work and residence in Vladimir and that they had no intention of absconding did not suffice to conclude that the District Court’s decision had been incorrect. The Regional Court also noted that there were no grounds for releasing the defendants after 11 January 2005 because they were considered to be detained “pending judicial proceedings”. In the Regional Court’s opinion, after the District Court had received the criminal case file, it had six months to examine the issue of the applicant’s detention. 22. In April 2005 a lawyer for the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr G., asked the Frunzenskiy District Court to remit the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation because the investigators had committed various procedural violations and had breached the applicant’s defence rights. At the same time, the applicant’s counsel sought his release. 23. On 27 April 2005 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation and noted that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant and his co-defendant “should remain unchanged”, as the circumstances which had served as the grounds for their arrest were still present and there were no reasons to authorise a change. 24. On 28 June 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, noting that it was well-founded. The Regional Court also found that the co-defendants’ detention was within the six-month period authorised by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (e) Extension of the detention until 13 October 2005: order of 7 July 2005 25. On 7 July 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention for an additional three months, until 13 October 2005. The District Court stated that the authorised period of the applicant’s detention would expire on 13 July 2005 because the District Court had received the case file on 13 January 2005. It concluded that the defendants had been charged with serous criminal offences and were likely to abscond, pervert the course of justice and threaten the victim. 26. On 11 August 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, reasoning as follows: “Having discussed the arguments put forward in the appeal statement, the court considers that the decision [of 7 July 2005] is lawful and well-founded. When the [District] court was taking the decision, [it] took into account the gravity of the three criminal offences which are punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment and which are considered serious, posing a particular danger to society. The arguments laid down in the appeal statement were examined by the court and the respective findings were made. [It] was found that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. The above-mentioned findings are reasoned and the reasoning should be considered convincing. The courts of the first and second instances examined the complaints that the arrest on 25 October 2004 had been unlawful and that after 11 January 2005 [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been detained unlawfully, and found them to be unsubstantiated.” (f) Extension of the detention until 13 January 2006: order of 13 October 2005 27. On 13 October 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 January 2006. The wording of the decision was identical to that issued on 7 July 2005. 28. On 23 November 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. (g) Extension of the detention until 13 April 2006: order of 11 January 2006 29. On 11 January 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court, in a decision identical to the ones issued on 7 July and 13 October 2005, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 April 2006. 30. On 7 March 2006 the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, concluding that the District Court’s findings were lawful and well-reasoned. 31. On 10 April 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 32. On 2 November 2004 the applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir. During the entire period of his detention, until August 2006, he was kept in eight different cells: nos. 33, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60, 63 and 66. The parties did not indicate the dates on which the applicant had been detained in each cell. 33. Relying on certificates issued by the head of the detention facility in May 2009 and barely legible extracts from prison population logs for four days in 2004 and eight days in 2005, the Government submitted that the three smallest cells – nos. 60, 63 and 66 – measured approximately 14 square metres and housed between two and four inmates. Cell no. 55 measured 51.48 square metres and accommodated from eight to sixteen persons. Two cells – nos. 51 and 52 – measured 32.5 and 39.5 square metres and held from six to eight and from six to ten inmates, respectively. Cell no. 33 measured approximately 26 square metres and housed between four and six persons. The largest cell, no. 50, measured slightly over 77 square metres and housed between ten and twenty-two detainees. To the extent that it was possible for the Court to decipher the extracts from the prison population logs, the number of detainees housed in the cells on the relevant days corresponded to the highest number indicated by the Government for each cell. The Government also submitted that the applicant had always had an individual sleeping place. According to a certificate issued by the head of the detention facility, neither of the cells where the applicant had been detained had contained three-tier bunks. 34. The Government further maintained that the smaller cells had one window and the bigger ones had two windows. Each window measured approximately one square metre. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the cell was lit by one or two 80 watt bulbs. At night a 40 watt bulb lit the cell. Each cell had a properly functioning air conditioning system and a heater installed below the window. In addition, inmates were allowed to open a casing in the windows to give them access to fresh air. According to the Government, each cell was equipped with a tap and a lavatory pan, which were installed in a corner, more than 3 metres from a table. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a 1.9 metre-high partition. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once every seven days, for which they were afforded between fifteen and thirty minutes. The facility’s shower room was equipped with twelve shower heads. The Government supported their submission with a copy of the “shower days” schedules for certain cells of the facility on 5 October and 7 December 2005, 15 February, 15 March, 18 April, 3 May and 6 June 2006. The schedules showed that the entire cell population, save for the largest cells, had been afforded no more than 20 minutes to take a shower. The majority of the schedules provided by the Government contained no information about the eight cells where the applicant had been detained. One schedule showed that on 5 October 2005 six inmates from cell no. 33, twenty-eight from cell no. 50, twenty-three from cell no. 51 and ten from cell no. 52 had taken a shower. On 7 December 2005 six inmates from cell no. 33, twenty-six from cell no. 50, seven from cell no. 51, ten from cell no. 52 and twenty-five from cell no. 55 had been allowed to take a shower. On 15 March 2006 four inmates from cell no. 33, thirty-five from cell no. 50, eleven from cell no. 51 and fourteen from cell no. 52 had been allowed to take a shower. 35. Lastly, the Government stated that the sanitary conditions in the facility had complied with the existing legal requirements. The applicant had received an adequate quantity of food of proper quality. Medical assistance had been provided to him whenever necessary and free of charge. 36. Having provided different measurements of certain cells, the applicant mainly disputed the number of inmates which the cells had accommodated. In particular, he argued that cell no. 55 had thirty sleeping places and usually housed forty to sixty detainees. The same number of inmates usually stayed in cell no. 50. Cell no. 52 was equipped with twenty sleeping places and accommodated between twenty-five and thirty inmates. Cells nos. 60 and 66 had four and six sleeping bunks, and housed four to nine and five to eleven inmates, respectively. Four to five persons had to share four sleeping places in cell no. 60. Cell no. 51 equipped with twenty bunks accommodated twenty-five to thirty inmates. Cell no. 33, which had eight sleeping places, housed between eight and twelve detainees. The applicant insisted that owing to severe overcrowding, he had not had an individual bunk. Inmates had had to take turns to sleep. He further pointed out that detainees had been kept in extremely cramped conditions. Part of the cell floor space was taken up by metal bunks serving as beds for the occupants. The rest of the space was taken up by a wooden table, a bench, shelves, a tap and a lavatory pan. That arrangement left inmates with literally no free space where they could move. There was a lavatory pan in the corner of the cell, just a few metres away from the wooden table and bunk beds, separated from the living area by a partition no more than 90 cm-high. A curtain which inmates hung to obtain some privacy was always removed by the wardens. Furthermore, the facility administration did not provide inmates with cleaning fluids. The lavatory pan was always dirty and it did not have a lid, allowing unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. 37. The applicant further stated that the cells had not had an air conditioning system. They had been damp, stuffy and dark inside. Inmates had been allowed to smoke in the cells, which had been unbearable for the applicant, who did not smoke. Detainees had also had washed their clothes in the cells, creating excessive humidity. The cell windows had been too small and had not allowed sufficient light to enter the cells as they had been covered by metal netting. The fluorescent lighting had been constantly on. The cells had been infected with bed-bugs, lice and cockroaches, but the administration had not provided any insecticides. Inmates had not been provided with toiletries. They had been allowed to take a shower once every seven days. Fifteen minutes had been afforded to fifteen to twenty inmates, while only four to five shower heads had worked. Food had been very scarce and of low quality. Inmates had been allowed to have an outdoor walk for an hour a day in the facility courtyards. The largest courtyard had measured 60 square metres and the smallest one 18 square metres. Eight to forty inmates had been placed in a courtyard at the same time. The courtyards had been covered by metal roofs, with merely a metre of empty space between the walls and the roof. 38. The applicant supported his submissions with statements by two inmates: Mr Y. and Mr V. Between 30 January 2004 and 1 July 2005, Mr Y. had been detained together with the applicant in cells nos. 55 and 66. Although Mr V., the applicant’s co-defendant, had never shared a cell with the applicant, he had been housed in the facility at the same time as the applicant. Mr V. had also been kept in cells nos. 50 and 52. Both detainees’ descriptions of the detention conditions were very similar to that given by the applicant. 39. The applicant also submitted four colour photographs of cell no. 52, which his co-defendant, Mr V., had taken. The photographs showed from eight to ten inmates in a very small and sombre room with a row of three-tier bunks installed along a wall. A long table with two benches was placed between the bunks and another wall. The remaining floor space of the cell not taken up by the furniture was only sufficient to allow the entire cell population to stand shoulder to shoulder. The bunks were not separated from each other. The inmates had hung linen and clothes on the bunks to get some privacy. There was dirty and worn-out bedding on the bunks, which were installed in such a way that they blocked the window. The window was covered with two rows of metal bars. The photographs also showed a heavily scratched floor and walls with peeling paint. The furniture was in a very dilapidated state. The bunks were rusty, and clothes had been hung on a rope below the ceiling. 40. In addition, the applicant provided the Court with a copy of order no. 7 issued on 31 January 2005 by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. The order dealt with the renovation programme of temporary detention facilities in Russia for 2006. It contained a list of temporary detention facilities and the conditions of detention therein, which raised particularly serious concerns. Detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir was among them. The order indicated that, with 1,009 detainees, the facility was housing twice its maximum capacity (507 places). It also indicated that inmates in that facility had less than 2.5 square metres of personal space. 41. Lastly, the applicant presented copies of letters to the Vladimir regional prosecutor from the same head of facility no. IZ-33/1 on whose certificates the Government had relied in their submission to the Court. The letters concerned an inmate, Mr N., who had been detained in the facility from 13 April 2004 to 27 June 2006. Mr N. had also stayed in cells nos. 50 and 51. In his letters to the prosecutor, the head of the facility indicated that cell no. 50 measured 47.35 square metres, had thirty-three bunks and housed twenty-four to thirty-three inmates. Although he indicated the same size of cell no. 51 as in the certificate that he submitted to the Government, the head of the facility noted that that cell had twenty-four sleeping places and sixteen to twenty-three persons had been detained there together with Mr N. 42. The applicant lodged a number of complaints before various domestic authorities, including the courts, alleging that he had been detained in appalling conditions. The complaints were to no avail.

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius, Lithuania. 6. The applicant, a retired serviceman, considered himself eligible to receive child allowance payable by the Russian Federation to parents with minor children. 7. On 15 January 2003 he applied for the allowance to the social security division of the embassy of the Russian Federation in Vilnius, Lithuania. 8. On 20 January 2003 the social security division refused his request. They noted that the applicant, being a permanent resident of Lithuania, was not eligible to receive the allowance. 9. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the social security division. He lodged a complaint before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. 10. On 29 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint without consideration on the merits. In particular, the court ruled as follows: “This statement of claim cannot be admitted for consideration by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow given that it was submitted in contradiction of the rules of procedure on jurisdiction ... Pursuant to the applicable legislation ..., the claims are to be submitted to the court with jurisdiction over the region where the claimant resides or where the State authority ... whose action is challenged is located. Pursuant to the [applicant’s] statement, the respondent authority in the case is the social security division of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Lithuanian Republic whose registered address is in [Vilnius, Lithuania], that is, a region outside the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. The applicant resides in [Vilnius, Lithuania], which is also not within the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. Having regard to the fact that [the applicant] has no ground to introduce his statement of claim before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow and in compliance with Articles 24-27 and 254 § 2 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, the court hereby RULES that the statement of the claims be returned to [the applicant] and he be advised to lodge it before the relevant court in Vilnius, Republic of Lithuania.” 11. On 30 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 29 April 2003 on appeal reiterating the reasoning of the District Court.

5. In 1991 part of the production facilities of the cooperative “Maritza” were spun off and the cooperative “Rodina” (“the cooperative”) was established. The applicant was appointed to be its executive officer. 6. On unspecified dates, a tax audit was performed of the activities of the cooperative for the period from June 1991 to June 1992, which established that certain funds were missing. 7. On 15 February 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for embezzlement and failure to exercise supervision over the activities of subordinates responsible for managing and accounting of funds, which resulted in the cooperative suffering losses in the amount of 14,587 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 918 German marks on that date). 8. On 16 January, 9 April and 8 August 1994 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office sent reminders to the investigator in charge of the case to conclude the investigation as quickly as possible because the period for its completion had long since expired. 9. On 21 May 1997 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office requested the case file from the investigator, which it obtained on an unspecified date. It established that, in spite of the express instructions to that effect, absolutely no investigative procedures had been conducted in the case. The Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office remitted the case on 1 July 1997. 10. Five witnesses were questioned on 22 and 23 February 2000. 11. On 2 March 2000 the applicant was questioned and charged with embezzlement and failure to exercise supervision over the activities of subordinates responsible for managing and accounting of funds, which resulted in the cooperative suffering losses in the amount of 14,587 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 7 euros on that date). A restriction was also imposed on her not to leave her place of residence without the authorisation of the Prosecutor's Office. 12. Another ten witnesses were questioned between 6 March and 16 April 2000, an accounting expert's report was commissioned on 22 May 2000 and the applicant was further questioned on 20 and 26 June 2000. 13. The case file was then forwarded to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office, which on 3 November 2000 remitted the case with instructions for further investigative procedures to be conducted. 14. Another witness was questioned on 12 December 2000 and a supplementary accounting expert's report was commissioned on the 27th. 15. On 12 April 2001 the charges against the applicant were amended and she was again questioned. 16. On 19 February 2002 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office requested the case file from the investigator, which it obtained on an unspecified date 17. On 27 March 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office again remitted the case with further instructions for concluding the investigation. 18. On 16 April 2002 the cooperative joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil claimant. 19. The findings of the investigation were presented to the applicant on 29 April 2002, which were then forwarded to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office on an unspecified date. 20. In a decision of 11 May 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to lack of sufficient evidence of an offence.

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Sverdlovsk Region. 6. The applicant was arrested on 20 January 1998. He was charged with a number of criminal offences, including conspiracy to commit murder. 7. On 11 May 1998 the applicant was taken to remand centre no. 77/1, also known as “Matrosskaya Tishina”. 8. In July 1998 the deputy Prosecutor General extended his detention until 18 January 1999. On 2 October 1998 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow upheld this extension order. 9. In September 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was listed for trial. On 29 September 2000 the Moscow City Court held that the measure of restraint in respect of defendants, including the applicant, had been lawful and should remain unchanged. 10. The City Court subsequently issued further extension orders on 3 July, 30 September, 18 December 2002, 24 March, 30 June and 30 September 2003, referring to the fact that the applicant and his co-defendants had been charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected appeals against these remand orders, endorsing the City Court’s reasoning. 11. On 30 December 2003 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention on remand until 1 April 2004, noting the gravity of the charges against them and the possibility that they might abscond or obstruct justice. 12. On 30 March 2004 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention on remand until 1 July 2004, indicating that: “...[the defendants] have been charged with several counts of serious and particularly serious criminal offences committed by an organised gang in conspiracy with unidentified persons, against whom separate criminal proceedings are pending, and with another person, against whom criminal proceedings were disjoined because his whereabouts are not known; if released, [they] may abscond or obstruct justice”. 13. On 1 July 2004 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention, reproducing verbatim the reasoning of its earlier decision. 14. On 22 July 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 30 March 2004 and endorsed the City Court’s reasoning. 15. On 19 July 1999 the Moscow city prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was submitted for trial to the City Court. The applicant was charged with multiple counts including conspiracy to commit murder. Similar charges were brought against fifteen other co-defendants. 16. On 5 August 1999 the City Court noted that the majority of the defendants had opted to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by jury. However, as there were no juries in the City Court, it decided to send an inquiry to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as to where the case should be tried. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Moscow Regional Court, where juries were available. 17. On an unspecified date a judge of the Regional Court sent a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, inviting it to rule on the compatibility with the Russian Constitution of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the jurisdictional rules. On 17 February 2000 she suspended the proceedings pending a decision by the Constitutional Court. She also held that the defendants were to remain in custody because they had been charged with criminal offences of high public danger, classified as serious or particularly serious. 18. On 13 April 2000 the Constitutional Court held that the decision on the change of venue had been incompatible with the Russian Constitution. 19. In compliance with that ruling, on 14 June 2000 the Regional Court returned the case file to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided on 6 September 2000 that the City Court was competent to try the case. 20. On 29 September 2000 the City Court scheduled the first hearing for 13 October 2000 before a panel consisting of a professional judge and two lay judges, but on that date the hearing was adjourned because the presiding judge was sitting in another case. 21. In 2001 and 2002 the presiding judge was replaced by other judges of the City Court. Lay judges were replaced several times. 22. Numerous hearings were scheduled between 2001 and early 2003. All of them were adjourned on various grounds, mainly because the prosecutor, the interpreter and some of the defendants’ lawyers had defaulted, and also owing to the presiding judge’s involvement in other proceedings in May and October 2001, and then in May, September and October 2002. 23. It appears that consideration of the merits began in March 2003. The absence of several lawyers, including the applicant’s counsel, was one of the reasons for adjourning the hearings listed for 4 March and 29 April 2003. 24. The illness of the applicant’s counsel was one of the reasons for adjourning the hearings scheduled for 26 January and 2 February 2004. On 10 March 2004 the trial judge ordered the bailiffs to bring the defaulting witnesses and victims to a hearing on 16 March 2004, which was not done in respect of certain witnesses and victims. On a number of occasions between March and July 2004 the judge reiterated his request. 25. On 12 August 2004 the trial court closed the trial and started deliberations. 26. On 27 October 2004 the City Court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts including conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On 10 November 2004 the judgment was pronounced in public. 27. The applicant and the other defendants lodged an appeal. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. 28. According to the applicant, from 2 October 2004 to 5 June 2005 and from 11 June to 26 June 2005 he shared a cell with a Mr K. On an unspecified date, the latter tested HIV positive. He was informed so six months later and had another blood test, which was also positive. According to the applicant, on 11 June 2005 Mr K. told him that he had tested HIV positive. 29. It appears from a report of 20 March 2006, submitted by the Government, that HIV-positive detainees were not segregated from the other detainees in remand centre no. 77/1; the applicant “was informed of the rules for detention of HIV-positive detainees”, including a prohibition of such segregation. 30. The applicant submitted the following description of the relevant circumstances of his transport and confinement. Between 2001 and 2004 the applicant had been transported to the Moscow City Court and back to the remand centre no. 77/1 on no less than one hundred days (normally, three days per week). He had been taken out of his cell at 6 a.m. and placed alone in a cell measuring 70 by 70 centimetres, awaiting departure at 9 or 10 a.m. On the day of a court hearing he had not been given any food before departure; nor had he received any meal at the courthouse or in the remand centre upon his return. Since early 2004 the authorities had started to supply a dry ration for the day which he, however, could not consume because no hot water had been provided at the convoy premises in the City Court. The applicant had been transported in overcrowded vans; the journey from the remand centre to the City Court had normally taken one to three hours. At the City Court premises the applicant had been held together with several other detainees in a cell measuring 1.2 by 2 metres. After the hearing he had been taken back to that cell where he had waited until 6 to 8 p.m. without any food or drink or access to a toilet. On the way back the prison van had never gone directly to remand centre no. 77/1, it made a detour to bring detainees to another remand centre where it sometimes stayed for four or five hours. Thus, the return journey had normally taken two to three hours. Upon arrival at facility no. 77/1, the applicant had had to wait for one more hour before being taken to his cell at about midnight. 31. The Government contested the applicant’s description of his conditions of confinement and transport. According to them, the applicant was taken out of his cell at 6 a.m. and provided with hot breakfast. He was then kept at the assembly section which had eight cells measuring between 12.7 and 17.9 square metres. Each cell had a bench, sanitary facilities, artificial lighting and a window. The applicant remained there for about one hour and a half awaiting departure for the courthouse. He was given a dry ration consisting of two courses for the remainder of the day. Between 2001 and 2003 the applicant was transported in vans GAZ-2207(3309) and ZIL-4331. The detainees’ section of the GAZ van measured 3.8 m (length) by 2.35 m (width) by 1.6 m (height). Such a van had one individual compartment and two compartments for twelve persons each. The detainees’ section of the ZIL van measured 4.7 m by 2.4 m by 1.64 m and had two individual compartments and two compartments for seventeen persons each. Both types of vans also had three or four seats for convoy officers. Vans were equipped with fixed benches so that each detainee was provided with individual seating. Van walls had insulating lining. Van heaters and lights were powered by the van engine so that the heating and lighting systems were operational when the engine was running. Vans were naturally ventilated through the emergency hatch and additional hatches with controlled airflow. Given the security considerations, from December 2003 onwards the applicant and his co-defendants were carried by direct transfer between the remand centre and the courthouse. At the City Court the applicant was kept at the convoy premises which had three compartments with seventeen cells each and a toilet, which detainees could access upon request. Each cell measured 1 m by 1.95 m by 3.1 m. Each cell had seating and was equipped with systems of ventilation, heating and artificial lighting. At the courthouse he was provided with hot water with which to consume the dry ration. He was also allowed to bring food purchased in the prison shop or received from his relatives. 32. In 2003 the applicant complained about unsatisfactory conditions of transport and confinement at the courthouse. 33. It appears from the report of the Moscow Department of the Interior dated 16 December 2003, submitted by the Government, that the applicant was taken to court for criminal proceedings which “were dragging on”. Between July and October 2003 he was transported eight times in the prison van ZIL-4331 together with, at times, fifteen to twenty-seven other detainees; the direct transfer from the courthouse did not normally exceed thirty minutes and ended no later than 8 p.m., except on 30 September 2003. From December 2003 onwards the applicant and his co-defendants were taken by direct transfer on account of security considerations. Convoy premises at courthouses were not equipped for catering purposes and “the detainees ate their dry rations when they returned to the remand centre from the courthouse”. 34. By a letter of 17 December 2003 the Moscow Department of the Interior stated that the time taken for transportation had been “objectively justified”.

5. The applicant company is a private-law radio and television broadcasting corporation based in Zurich. 6. On 12 August 2004 it applied for authorisation to enter Hindelbank Prison (Canton of Bern) in order to film a sort of portrait (“eine Art Portrait”) of A., a female prisoner serving a sentence for murder. The idea was to broadcast the film of the interview in the “Rundschau” programme, in a feature about the trial of another person accused in the same murder case. It argued that the interview with A., who had consented to it, was a subject of public interest given that, even after her conviction, her case continued to attract a great deal of media attention. “Rundschau” is a weekly Swiss television programme covering political and economic questions. Created in 1968, it is one of the longest-running programmes on Swiss television, and is currently aired on Wednesday evenings. 7. By a decision of 31 August 2004, the prison refused to authorise the filming, for reasons of peace, order and security in the prison, and equal treatment of prisoners. 8. On 27 September 2004 the applicant company lodged an appeal against that decision, explaining that the intention was “to film general shots of A. inside the prison and an interview with her” (“allgemeine Aufnahmen der Insassin im Gefängnis sowie ein Interview mit ihr”). 9. The appeal was rejected by the Bern Canton Department of Police and Military Affairs on 16 February 2005. 10. On 21 March 2005 the applicant company challenged that decision. It argued that there was no danger of disturbing peace and order or threatening security in the prison as it had no intention of filming the technical installations on the site or inside the different buildings. Nor was the presence of a single cameraman and a female journalist likely to disturb the smooth functioning of the establishment or represent a security risk, especially as the filming should not last more than two or three hours and could take place at a time when the other prisoners were working. In any event the precise practical arrangements for the filming had yet to be finalised. 11. By a decision of 1 July 2005 the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern rejected the appeal. Like the lower court, without denying the considerable media interest generated by A.’s case in Switzerland, it rejected the appeal on the basis of section 5 of the order relating to the Criminal Code and section 48 of the law of the Canton of Bern on the execution of penalties and measures (see paragraph 18 below). It indicated that Article 16 § 3 of the Federal Constitution (paragraph 16 below) authorised access only to generally accessible sources. It considered that while representatives of the media were ordinarily allowed to visit prisons, the organisational and supervisory effort required for a television film crew was well beyond what might reasonably be expected of the prison authorities. It also considered that there was nothing to stop the applicant company from broadcasting a programme about A.’s case using just an audio recording or a simple interview. It reasoned that for the purposes of a news programme on this particular theme (“Sachinformation”), pictures of the prisoner were not necessary. 12. The applicant company lodged a public-law appeal and an administrative-law appeal with the Federal Court, for violation of its freedom of expression and information. It submitted that there was considerable public interest in the murder trial in Switzerland. Considering that the use of modern, light equipment would have limited any disruption of the smooth functioning of the prison, it argued that the court below had given insufficient reasons for the technical and security grounds on which its request to film in the prison had been refused. The filming could have taken place in the room set aside for prison visits, which could have been closed to the other prisoners. It also alleged that the principle of equal treatment had been breached, in so far as it had been placed at a disadvantage compared with other media. 13. In a judgment of 29 November 2005 the Federal Court rejected the administrative-law appeal. It accepted that prison visits were important because contact with their families helped detainees to prepare and facilitate their social rehabilitation, but that did not give rise to any entitlement to film inside a prison. 14. In a judgment of 6 February 2006, served on the applicant company on 16 February 2006, the Federal Court also rejected the public-law appeal. It upheld the decision of the lower court according to which Article 16 § 3 of the Federal Constitution guaranteed access only to information that was generally accessible. It considered that the same must apply to Article 10 of the Convention. It added that giving the applicant company access to the prison might infringe the other prisoners’ personality rights. As to the applicant company’s argument that giving some media access to the prison but not television crews amounted to discriminatory treatment, it held that the principle of equal treatment did not apply to the present case, as television productions bore no comparison with audio recordings or simple interviews. 15. It appears from the Government’s observations that when A., who has always protested her innocence, was convicted it caused quite a public stir. The “Appel-Au-Peuple” organisation, for example, which takes various kinds of action in connection with alleged miscarriages of justice, allegedly made threats against the federal judges in charge of the case, which exceptionally led to their replacement for the revision proceedings initiated by A. The leader of the movement even staged a sixty-day hunger strike for A. He apparently spent whole days outside the Federal Court and allegedly took sympathisers along with him to the home of a federal judge, outside which he camped all night in a deckchair.

7. The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Zagreb. 8. On 6 September 1991 his summer house in Starigrad, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators. 9. On 7 September 1994 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property. 10. On 16 November 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment partly allowing the applicant’s claim. 11. On an uncertain date the defendant appealed against the first instance judgment. 12. Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 3 September 1997. 13. On 31 July 2003 the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija) entered into force. It provides that proceedings which were stayed pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 will resume. However, it is uncertain if and when the applicant’s proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court have resumed.

4. The first two applicants, a married couple, were born in 1935 and 1944 respectively and live in Klippan. The third applicant was a limited liability company wholly owned by the first two applicants. 5. On 28 October 1992 the company concluded a contract with a municipal energy company, Drefviken Energi AB, concerning deliveries of wood-powder fuel. 6. On 3 December 1992 a bank, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, and two other investors granted the company loans to construct a plant for the production of wood-powder fuel. The bank's loan, amounting to 5.8 million Swedish kronor (SEK), was to be paid in instalments. In December 1992 and January 1993, 3.8 million SEK of the loan was paid to the company. 7. In March 1993, at a first testing of the completed plant, it was discovered that certain modifications had to be made. In March and April, the company therefore requested the bank to pay the remaining 2 million SEK of the loan. However, the bank refused to do so. 8. In April 1993, Drefviken Energy AB cancelled the fuel delivery contract, apparently due to the fact that the company had not concluded the construction of the plant and it was therefore very doubtful whether it would be able to deliver the agreed amounts of fuel for the 1993/94 season. 9. Subsequently, the company tried to find other customers and reiterated its request to the bank to receive the remainder of the loan. It was paid to the company on 28 June 1993. 10. The bank's payment, together with an additional loan from another investor, enabled the company to uphold a limited production capacity for a time. However, on 7 September 1994 it was declared bankrupt. 11. The bank instituted proceedings against the first and second applicants, claiming their joint liability for 1.1 million SEK of the company's loan in accordance with the personal guarantees they had signed. On 24 February 1995, in a different action, the applicants and a company named Boket Konsult AB (hereinafter “Boket”) claimed compensation from the bank in the amount of 37 million SEK for the damage allegedly caused by the bank's initial refusal to pay the last instalment of the loan. They claimed that that refusal had violated the terms of the loan contract and, in any event, that the bank had incurred liability for damages due to negligence, since the project in question had depended on the loan being paid out on demand. 12. On 3 October 1995 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) ordered that the proceedings should be examined jointly by the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm. 13. Throughout the subsequent proceedings, the parties lodged several supplementary arguments and procedural requests and submitted documentary evidence to the court. The parties asked for and were granted extensions of the time-limits set by the court on several occasions. It further appears that the judge in charge of the proceedings was replaced on several occasions. 14. An oral preparation with the parties was held by the District Court on 18 September 1995. By a decision of 10 June 1996, the court rejected the bank's request for the applicant company's and Boket's action to be dismissed due to lack of standing. A further oral preparation, scheduled for 16 December 1996, was cancelled due to the illness of the applicants' and Boket's counsel. In February 1997, the applicants and Boket asked the court to rule on the alleged breach of contract in a partial judgment. An oral preparation was held on 7 April 1998. On 29 September 1998 the court sent a summary of the cases to the parties and, by a decision of 30 September 1998, it rejected the request for a partial judgment. On 14 December 1998 the applicants and Boket requested that the court order the bank to produce the files concerning the loan. On 29 June 1999 the court granted this request, and on 23 July 1999 the bank produced the loan files. On 17 January 2000 Boket's action was struck out of the court's list. On 5 July 2000 the court delivered another summary of the cases and gave the parties the opportunity to make comments, which they did in September 2000. On 26 and 27 March and 2 April 2001 an oral hearing was held. 15. By a judgment of 27 April 2001, the District Court found in favour of the bank. It noted that 2 million SEK of the bank loan had been pledged by the company at the time when the loan contract had been concluded through the deposit of that amount on a blocked bank account. It found that, in the absence of any other clauses or agreements with regard to the bank loan or the pledge, this measure showed that the amount, like any other pledge, was only available for withdrawal if so approved by the bank. Consequently, the bank had not breached the loan contract by its initial refusal to pay the amount in question. Moreover, on account of the difficulties related to the company's fuel production, the bank had had good reasons to be cautious and not make available the disputed amount earlier than July 1993, the date originally projected. The bank could not therefore be held liable for negligence towards the company. 16. The applicants appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt). On 5 February 2002, following a hearing, the appellate court agreed with the District Court's reasoning and upheld its judgment. On 29 November 2002, after the applicants had been granted several respites to complete their submissions, the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.

5. The applicants were born in 1939 and 1944 respectively and live in Dubna, the Moscow Region. 6. The applicants are a married couple. They are the parents of Mr Shchiborshch, who was an economist and the author of a number of publications. At the time of the events he was thirty-seven years old and suffering from a psychiatric disorder which required in-patient treatment. 7. On 7 July 2006 the first applicant, having obtained a referral from Moscow’s Psychoneurological Dispensary no. 10 recommending in-patient treatment for Mr Shchiborshch, contacted the Nagatinskiy Zaton department of the interior (“the OVD”) and asked the police to assist with placing his son in a psychiatric hospital. He explained that Mr Shchiborshch was in a delirious state and was not letting anyone except the first applicant into his flat as he was afraid of burglars. 8. Between 11.20 a.m. and 12.40 p.m. on 7 July 2006 the head of the OVD ordered police officer G. to forcibly place Mr Shchiborshch in a hospital. Subsequently police officers G., L. and D. arrived at the residence of the applicants’ son. When Mr Shchiborshch opened the lobby door and saw the police officers, he immediately ran back to his flat and tried to close the door. He refused their orders to go to the OVD for transfer to a hospital. First, the police officers tried to remove his hand from the door knob so that he could not close the door. Mr Shchiborshch threatened the police officers with a kitchen knife and wounded G. The police officers, who were wearing bullet-proof vests, hit him with rubber truncheons and other objects. Mr Shchiborshch eventually ran to the kitchen and barricaded the door from the inside. The officers called the special police unit (“the OMSN”) for support. 9. While in the kitchen, Mr Shchiborshch called an ambulance and said that he needed help because he had been wounded. He also called the police, asking for help because he was being “attacked by burglars”. In the meantime, the OMSN arrived. After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate with him, they decided to “storm” the kitchen. Mr Shchiborshch ran to the balcony and cried for help while the police officers continued trying to apprehend him. When he fell on the balcony floor, they handcuffed him and put him on the kitchen floor. The first applicant, who had been ordered to stay in the lobby while the police forced an entry to the kitchen, was then allowed into the kitchen. He saw his son handcuffed and lying on the floor in a pool of blood. 10. Mr Shchiborshch was taken to hospital no. 7 with multiple wounds and in a coma. He died without regaining consciousness, having sustained craniocerebral trauma, brain oedema, concussion, and slash wounds to the head, body and extremities, several fractured ribs and a ruptured jugular vein. 11. On 7 July 2006 the case file concerning the death of Mr Shchiborshch was transmitted to the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. 12. On the same date the investigating authorities ordered a forensic examination of Mr Shchiborshch’s body. 13. On 10 July 2006 forensic report no. 1262 was issued. The experts made the following findings: (1) The following injuries were found on Mr Shchiborshch’s body: - open non-penetrating craniocerebral trauma: depressed fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones, fracture of the sphenoid and parietal bones, and the orbital part of the frontal bone; sub-arachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the convex surface of the left frontal lobe and the surface of the right frontal lobe, haemorrhaging of the soft tissue and bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region; bruising of the frontal region, bruising and abrasions of the right frontal region, and the top of the right eye socket; haemorrhaging of the soft tissue of the parietal-temporal region on the right; - closed fractures of the sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh ribs; - bruising of the right cheekbone; - bruising of the right and left shoulder joints, and the left shoulder, the surface of the right hip, the inside of the right knee joint, the front of the right and left shin, the front of the left hip; bruising and abrasions of the left cheekbone and periotic-masticatory region, abrasions of the chin, intra-cutaneous haemorrhages of the chest, bruising and abrasions on the right forearm, right hand, and left arm; - a 3 cm-long punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck; - multiple surface slash wounds on the right earlobe, left cheekbone and periotic-masticatory region, the lower jaw, chest, shoulders and hands. (2) All the injuries were caused while Mr Shchiborshch was alive, shortly before his admittance to hospital: - the craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects; - the rib fractures and the bruising of the right cheekbone, head, body and extremities were caused by blows, and the abrasions by scraping against a hard blunt object (or objects); - the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck was caused by a sharp cutting object inflicted upwards from the front to the back and from left to right, assuming that Mr Shchiborshch was in a vertical position; - the multiple surface slash wounds were caused by a cutting object or objects; - forensic and spectral research of the soft tissue of the wounds to the head, neck and right hand did not reveal any micro splinters of glass or other foreign bodies. Emission spectral analysis showed an increased content of aluminium, lead and manganese in the skin of the head, which could have been caused by soiling. Other specimens of skin and soft tissue did not reveal an increased metal content; - after the injuries had been caused, Mr Shchiborshch was taken to hospital in a coma, incapable of any independent actions, including movement. The injuries could not have been caused as a result of falling from his height to a horizontal surface. In order to establish the possible location of the victim and the aggressor at the time when the injuries were caused, it was necessary to have access to the materials of the file. (3) The open craniocerebral trauma and the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck which damaged a blood vessel combined to form a life-threatening trauma classified as grave health damage. The rib fractures were classified as health damage of medium gravity. As the bruises and abrasions were not accompanied by heavy bleeding and no blood vessels were damaged, they were not considered to constitute health damage. (4) Mr Shchiborshch’s death at 4.15 p.m. on 7 July 2006 was caused by the combined trauma, complicated by cerebral oedema and blood loss. (5) There was a direct causal link between the craniocerebral trauma, the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck with a damaged blood vessel, and his death. There was no direct link between his death and the other injuries. 14. Forensic report no. 1262 was supplemented by a chemical and histological analysis of his blood and soft tissue conducted on 13 and 24 July 2006 respectively. 15. On 17 July 2006 the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute a criminal investigation. It found that the police officers’ actions disclosed no indication of an offence, since they had acted in an appropriate manner in a life-threatening situation. 16. On 24 July 2006 the deputy of the Simonovskiy inter-district prosecutor set aside the decision and remitted the case file for further investigation. He held that the decision was unfounded since not all the circumstances of the case had been established. In particular, it was necessary to obtain the results of the forensic examination of the body and to question the doctor from Psychoneurological Dispensary no. 10 who had recommended in-patient treatment. 17. On 3 August 2006 the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office instituted a criminal investigation under Article 108 § 2 (murder committed in excess of necessary self-defence or in excess of measures required to arrest a person who has committed an offence) and Article 286 § 3 (abuse of official powers) of the Criminal Code. The decision stated that, by storming the flat and using rubber truncheons, which led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death, the police officers had clearly exceeded their authority. The case file was assigned no. 363484. 18. On 10 August 2006 police officer D. was questioned. According to his submissions, at approximately 12.40 p.m. on 7 July 2006 he and police officers G. and L. had been ordered to deliver a mentally-ill person to a hospital. They went to that person’s place of residence together with the latter’s father, the first applicant, who had given them oral permission to enter the flat. On arrival, they put on bullet-proof vests, and the first applicant rang at the lobby door. Mr Shchiborshch walked to the door and asked who was there. The first applicant replied that it was him. Mr Shchiborshch said that he would open the door and after a while began to open it. G. was standing at the door; L. was behind him and D. was standing to one side. When the door was opened, G. tried to enter but then shouted: “Knife!” Mr Shchiborshch ran to the door of his flat wielding a knife. He tried to close the door to his flat, but L. stopped him. Mr Shchiborshch then went to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside. D. reported the events to the OVD and called an ambulance, which arrived in approximately twenty minutes; G. was given first aid and taken to hospital. L. blocked the door so that Mr Shchiborshch could not leave the flat and harm anyone else, awaiting the arrival of the special police unit. When the special unit arrived, the regular police officers were asked to leave the lobby. D. could not identify the officers of the special police unit as they were all wearing uniforms and their faces were covered with masks. D. did not see what happened in the flat. He was ordered to return to the OVD. 19. On 13 August 2006 police officer Kh. of the special unit was questioned. He stated that on 7 July 2006 he had been on duty. At 1.50 p.m. he received information that a mentally-ill person had wounded a police officer, barricaded himself in his kitchen and resisted involuntary placement in a hospital. Together with special unit police officers B., D-n. and S., he arrived at the address indicated at approximately 2.35 p.m. He stayed in the car while the head of the team, D-n., went to find out what the situation was. Fifteen or twenty minutes later they were ordered to go up to the sixth floor, where D-n. told them that Mr Shchiborshch had been threatening to kill them, saying that the kitchen door was electrified. Kh. heard Mr Shchiborshch say that he had already knocked down one man and the same would happen to the others. Kh. then understood that Mr Shchiborshch had realised that there were police officers in the flat. The four of them were in the lobby discussing further actions when they heard a crash from the kitchen. The stained glass in the kitchen door had been broken and they were showered with shards of glass. Since the police officers were wearing bullet-proof vests, no one was hurt. Through the kitchen door Kh. saw a bare-chested fair-haired man, approximately thirty-five years old of medium build. His face and chest were covered with blood and he was holding 20-30 cm long kitchen knives. The blades were covered with a brown substance that looked like blood. Kh. noticed that the man had “mad eyes” and was behaving strangely. The police officers of the special unit introduced themselves and asked Mr Shchiborshch to put down the knives and step out of the kitchen. Mr Shchiborshch, who was very excited, refused and lunged at B. The officers were separated from the kitchen by a door, which had been blocked by furniture on the other side. B. tried to force open the door with his shield. Mr Shchiborshch continued lunging at B. and at a certain point Kh. heard that a wound had been inflicted. He then covered B. with his shield and started to move forward. Kh. was then stabbed in the right shoulder and started to bleed. Mr Shchiborshch then moved to the balcony and Kh. went to the stairwell to receive first aid. He stayed there until the end of the operation. Five or ten minutes later he saw from the lobby Mr Shchiborshch, who was covered with blood and wearing handcuffs, being led from the kitchen to the living room. A doctor entered the room and apparently gave Mr Shchiborshch a sedative injection and dressed his wounds. Kh. then went to the kitchen, took his shield and left the flat. 20. On 15 August 2006 police officer B. of the special unit was questioned. He made a statement similar to that of Kh. concerning the events that had taken place before the latter had been wounded. As regards the subsequent events, B. stated that he and police officers D-n. and S. had forced open the kitchen door and begun to clear up the barricade of furniture in the kitchen. Mr Shchiborshch had run to the balcony. As they approached the balcony, he broke the glass in the balcony door and windows, and started throwing various objects at them, such as an iron and cans. He was also hitting his head and back against the balcony windows and screaming that they were going to kill him. He broke all the glass in the balcony door and lunged at them with knives. B. covered D-n. and S. with his shield. Through the balcony window D-n. hit Mr Shchiborshch several times with a rubber truncheon on the left hand in which he was holding a knife. The knife fell to the floor. Mr Shchiborshch then lunged at B. and S. with the knife he was holding in his right hand but S. caught his hand. Mr Shchiborshch pulled S. towards him and they both fell on the balcony floor, which was covered in glass. The other police officers then approached Mr Shchiborshch, handcuffed him and took him to the kitchen. He stopped resisting. Since there were cuts on his body, the police officers called for a doctor, who began dressing the wounds and gave him an injection. Other police officers then entered the kitchen, whereas the officers of the special police unit, having completed their task, left. In answer to the investigator’s question about the whereabouts of the first applicant during the events, B. stated that he had been in the lobby all the time; he had neither entered the flat nor witnessed the events. 21. On 17 August 2006 police officer D-n. of the special unit was questioned. He made a statement consistent with those of Kh. and B., and added certain details. In particular, when he arrived at the sixth floor the stairwell floor was covered with blood, which appeared to belong to police officer G. He heard Mr Shchiborshch swearing at his father, saying that the latter wanted to get his flat. Mr Shchiborshch also asked the police officers to leave and seemed to be sure that he had killed a policeman. D-n. tried to calm him down, and asked him to open the door and step out. However, the negotiations, which lasted ten or fifteen minutes, proved futile and D-n. called for his unit. The first applicant, who remained in the lobby all the time, explained that his son was mentally ill and behaved inadequately; he had threatened to kill everybody. The first applicant emphasised that Mr Shchiborshch was a danger to himself and others. He said that his son had threatened him with a knife before and had beaten him up the previous day. The first applicant seemed very frightened and confused. D-n. added that throughout the operation the police officers had kept telling Mr Shchiborshch to drop the weapons, but he had not reacted. He further submitted that in such a situation, according to the law, the police were allowed to use rubber truncheons, handcuffs and tear gas. They did not use the latter because the ventilation system was shared with other flats, and it could have been dangerous for other residents. D-n. also explained that, apart from the police officers, no one else had witnessed the events. 22. On 21 August 2006 police officer L. was questioned. According to his statement, at approximately 12.40 p.m. on 7 July 2006 he had been instructed to go with police officers G. and D. to a certain address to take a mentally-ill person to hospital. When they arrived, they put on bullet-proof vests and went upstairs with the first applicant, who gave them oral permission to enter the flat. When the first applicant rang at the lobby door, G. was standing beside him; L. was standing behind G., and D. was standing to one side. L. could not immediately see who had opened the door, but then G. shouted that the person who had opened the door had a knife. Mr Shchiborshch ran back to the door of his flat wielding the knife in his hand. Having opened the door with his free hand, he stood in the doorway shouting that he would kill everyone. L. then saw that G. was bleeding. The police officers then tried to calm Mr Shchiborshch down, but had no success. He tried to attack G. and then tried to close the door to the flat, but L. prevented him. Then Mr Shchiborshch ran to a room and barricaded himself inside. While L. blocked the door, an ambulance was called for G. The officers also reported on the situation to the OVD. The ambulance took G. to hospital. After the arrival of the special police unit, L. moved to the stairwell. He could not identify the special unit officers because their faces were covered with masks. He did not see what happened in the flat either. He was then ordered to return to the OVD. 23. On the same date, the first applicant was questioned. He stated that his son, Mr Shchiborshch, had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. He did not know precisely what his son’s condition was because the doctors had never told the parents the exact diagnosis. Mr Shchiborshch had been undergoing treatment since 2001. His condition always worsened in the spring: recently he had been in a state of delirium. He thought that his parents were not his real parents and that they were trying to kill him. When they visited him, he would swear at them, threaten to kill them, lock himself in his flat and not let them in. On a number of occasions he had been forcibly placed in hospital. He had never agreed to be placed in the hospital voluntarily, and during the forced placement had always resisted the police officers who had apprehended him, so they had sometimes had to use rubber truncheons or tear gas. Since October 2005 Mr Shchiborshch had stopped taking his medication, having declared that he was healthy. Since then, his condition had gradually worsened. The threatening phone calls to his parents had become more frequent. The applicants had started to worry for his life, fearing that he might pose a danger to himself. On 31 May 2006 the first applicant had asked Mr Shchiborshch’s doctor for a referral recommending in-patient treatment and to issue instructions for involuntary placement in a hospital. He then submitted the referral to the Alekseyev Psychiatric Hospital no. 1 and the instructions to the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD. At 11.20 a.m. on 7 July 2006 he left together with police officers G., L. and D. for Mr Shchiborshch’s place of residence. When they reached the sixth floor, the police officers hid and the first applicant rang at the door. Mr Shchiborshch opened the door. He had a knife in his hand, which he began to wield, trying to force them out. The police officers started to explain that they wanted to take him to a hospital. Mr Shchiborshch mistook them for burglars and shouted at them to go away. He did not recognise the first applicant. After approximately ten minutes of negotiations, the police officers tried to take the knife from Mr Shchiborshch, but he stabbed G. in the chest with it and also cut his finger. There was blood all over the stairwell floor. Then one of the police officers went outside to fetch shields and rubber truncheons. Mr Shchiborshch continued behaving inadequately. The police officers tried to apprehend him by knocking the knife from his hand with the rubber truncheons. He continued to brandish the knife and then ran to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside, blocking the kitchen door with a table. Through the door the first applicant heard him calling an ambulance and the police. At the same time G. called R., the Head of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD, who arrived at the scene twenty minutes later, and the special police unit, who arrived an hour and a half later. One of the special unit police officers talked to Mr Shchiborshch through the kitchen door, trying to persuade him to open it. As Mr Shchiborshch did not react to the requests, the special unit prepared to “storm” the kitchen. At that time the first applicant was standing near the lift. He could not see what was happening but heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked inside the flat and saw his son on the balcony screaming: “Help, they are killing me!” At that time the police officers were taking a broken table and a door to the stairwell. They then returned to the flat and went towards the balcony. After a while the first applicant again looked into the flat and saw his son lying face down on the kitchen floor. He had been handcuffed and there was blood around him. The police officers asked whether there was anything they could put him in. They put him in a blanket and carried him to the ambulance, which took him to City Hospital no. 7. Later the first applicant learnt that his son had died. 24. On 22 August 2006 officer F. of the special police unit was questioned. He stated that for technical reasons he had been unable to get into the same police car as officers B., D-n., Kh. and S. and had arrived later in his own car. He observed most of the operation while standing behind the police officers who had arrived earlier. His account of the events was consistent with those of the other police officers. He also added that the first applicant had told him that recently Mr Shchiborshch had stopped taking his usual medication and had instead switched to light alcoholic drinks, which had aggravated his condition. The latter had also refused to be placed in a hospital voluntarily and had threatened the first applicant with a knife. 25. On 25 August 2006 officer S. of the special police unit was questioned. His account of the events was consistent with that of the other police officers. He emphasised that they had not used firearms while apprehending Mr Shchiborshch. 26. On the same date police officer G. was questioned. According to his submissions, on 7 July 2006 he had been ordered, together with police officers D. and L., to carry out the involuntary placement in hospital of Mr Shchiborshch, who was suffering from a psychiatric disorder. They went to his home address with his father, the first applicant, who explained that at the sight of the police his son would lock himself in his flat, so the police officers would have to get between him and the door. However, the first applicant did not warn the police that his son might be armed, even though it later transpired that his son had already resisted his previous placements in hospital with the use of arms. When they arrived, the first applicant rang the lobby door bell. They heard Mr Shchiborshch leave the flat, walk to the door and ask who was there. The first applicant replied: “Kirill, it’s me”. Mr Shchiborshch said: “I will open now”. G. heard him walk back to the flat and return. When Mr Shchiborshch started opening the door, G. pushed him into the lobby. D. and L. followed him into the lobby. G. felt a blow to his chest and, having pushed Mr Shchiborshch away, saw a knife in his hand. He shouted to the other officers that Mr Shchiborshch had a knife, and then received another stab in his chest. Mr Shchiborshch ran to his flat and began to shut the door behind him. However, L. caught the door and opened it, preventing Mr Shchiborshch from locking himself inside the flat. All that time, the first applicant had remained near the lift, too afraid to come closer. Mr Shchiborshch started shouting: “Don’t come closer, or I’ll kill you”, brandishing the knife in his hand. L. took a baby pram that was near the door and, on G.’s order, passed it to him. G. used the baby pram to defend himself from Mr Shchiborshch. At a certain point he managed to take out his gun and warned Mr Shchiborshch that he would use it if he continued threatening with the knife. However, Mr Shchiborshch did not react to the warning. L. had a submachine gun which had not been loaded. According to G., the three police officers tried together to persuade Mr Shchiborshch to calm down and drop the knife. The latter shouted to his father to bring a woman, as he would only talk to a woman. The first applicant refused. The talks lasted for ten or fifteen minutes, during which Mr Shchiborshch swore constantly. At a certain point he lowered his trousers and underpants, rubbed his anus with his left hand and made a gesture as if throwing something in the direction of the police officers, saying: “This is shit!” The police officers moved back slightly. D. went outside and came back with two rubber truncheons. He gave one of them to G., who put his gun back in the holster and took the rubber truncheon. Mr Shchiborshch put his underpants and trousers back on and, with his right hand, in which he was holding the knife, reached for the door knob. G. and D. inflicted several blows on his right hand, following which Mr Shchiborshch lunged at them brandishing the knife and saying: “I’ll kill you”. The police officers moved back towards the lobby door. At that moment Mr Shchiborshch cut the fourth finger of G.’s left hand with the knife, then ran to his kitchen and barricaded himself inside. Then G. ordered L. to load his submachine gun and shoot to kill if Mr Shchiborshch tried to leave. The first applicant then entered the flat and looked into the living room. G. asked him for permission to use the telephone and called the OVD. He asked them to call an ambulance and the special police unit. In approximately 15 or 20 minutes the ambulance arrived and took G. to hospital. He did not know what had happened afterwards. Answering the investigator’s question whether the police officers had been specifically trained for detaining psychiatrically disturbed persons and whether there existed special techniques for apprehending such persons, G. stated that no such training had been provided and that there existed only general rules on apprehending armed offenders in various situations. If the police had information that the person was armed (irrespective of his psychiatric condition), they could use arms in accordance with section 15(2) of the Law on the Police. 27. On an unspecified date – apparently in August 2006 – a person whose name is not clear from the documents but who appears to be R., the Head of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD, was questioned. He stated that a year earlier he had taken part in the operation to forcibly place Mr Shchiborshch in hospital. The latter resisted the police officers with weapons and threw acetic acid in the face of one of them. On 6 July 2006 the first applicant called him and asked if the police would assist him in placing his son in hospital on 7 July 2006. On that day police officers G., D. and L. were sent on the operation. Later he received information that G. had been wounded and he himself went to Mr Shchiborshch’s flat. Finding the latter in a dangerous condition, he reported to the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD and called for emergency psychiatric assistance. He was later informed that a special police unit had been called to the scene. Approximately thirty minutes later two high-ranking police officers, K. and Dub., arrived. After a while, the special police unit also arrived. While they were preparing to storm the kitchen, R. went outside to ensure that no one entered the building, since they could have been hurt by Mr Shchiborshch. The latter was screaming from the balcony to attract attention. He was shouting that he would jump from the window and throwing objects towards the kitchen. Then he broke the balcony windows and started throwing the broken glass down from the balcony. R. thought that he had seen a shard pierce Mr Shchiborshch’s neck. Then R. saw Mr Shchiborshch resisting the police with sharp objects in his hands and falling on the balcony floor with one of the officers. Realising that Mr Shchiborshch had been apprehended, R. went up to the sixth floor. On entering the flat, he saw Mr Shchiborshch lying handcuffed on the kitchen floor. The latter was taken to a room where he was given first aid by an ambulance doctor. As Mr Shchiborshch was bleeding profusely from his neck, it was decided to take him urgently to a hospital. He was carried on a blanket to the ambulance and transported to City Hospital no. 7. R. then called for an investigative unit to inspect the scene. It was established that Mr Shchiborshch had wounded four police officers. R. returned to the OVD and was later informed that Mr Shchiborshch had died. In his view, it had been the result of a tragic concurrence of circumstances, since in his presence nobody had either beaten or hit Mr Shchiborshch. Judging from his conduct, the first applicant had supported the actions of the police throughout the operation. G., L. and D. had acted strictly in accordance with the law. 28. On 4 September 2006 the investigating authorities seized Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file kept at psycho-neurological dispensary no. 10. 29. On 7 September 2006 the investigating authorities seized Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file kept at psychiatric hospital no. 13. 30. On 5 September 2006 K., the acting head of psycho-neurological dispensary no. 10, was questioned. She submitted that Mr Shchiborshch had been under medical supervision since 2002. He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with delirium syndromes. He had been forcibly placed for in-patient treatment a number of times as he had never agreed to it voluntarily. His condition had gradually worsened in the past four years: anxiety had been exacerbated, delirious ideas had accumulated and he had been losing contact with the people around him. He considered everybody his enemy and persecutor. His condition had worsened considerably since he had stopped taking regular medication. The investigator asked K. whether Mr Shchiborshch, who would have been suffering from fatigue in the absence of the necessary medication, could have actively resisted his placement in hospital. K. answered that in a delirious period he could be aggressive and reveal great physical force, because he perceived everyone as a persecutor. K. also submitted that Mr Shchiborshch had resisted the previous placements in hospital but she did not know whether he had used weapons. The investigator further asked about Mr Shchiborshch’s relationship with his parents. K. replied that when his condition had worsened and he had beaten them, they had applied for his in-patient treatment. 31. On 7 September 2006 Ch., a doctor of psychiatric hospital no. 13, was questioned. She submitted that she had been Mr Shchiborshch’s doctor since 2002. He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was subjected to involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital for the first time in 2004 because his condition had suddenly worsened and he had been delivered to the hospital with self-inflicted burns on his body. Since that time he had begun to display aggression and his delirium had worsened. In such a condition he was dangerous to himself and others. He had had a negative attitude towards the treatment but had agreed to take small doses of medication. Following an improvement in his condition, he had been discharged from the hospital. Answering the investigator’s question whether Mr Shchiborshch could inflict self-harm, Ch. submitted that he could do so while in an agitated state; this was corroborated by the self-inflicted burns. 32. On 8 September 2006 the second applicant was questioned. She gave details of the development of Mr Shchiborshch’s illness. His condition had worsened in October 2006 after he had stopped taking his medication. In particular, she had seen him talking to an imaginary person. She and the first applicant were very concerned about his condition and decided to arrange for him to be placed in a psychiatric hospital. 33. The second applicant was questioned again on 13 September 2006. First, she gave some additional details concerning medical documents the applicants had obtained to ensure Mr Shchiborshch’s in-patient treatment. She then stated that on 7 July 2006 the first applicant had telephoned Mr Shchiborshch and said that he would visit him soon. Mr Shchiborshch talked to him in a normal manner and called him “father”, which made the fact that he then met the first applicant and the police with a knife all the more inexplicable. At approximately 12.30 p.m. she called the first applicant, who said that the police had been unable to restrain Mr Shchiborshch, he had cut a police officer’s finger and the police had called for an investigator. She called the first applicant regularly so as to follow the events. The first applicant was agitated and told her that they were waiting for the special police unit to arrive. When she called him again at approximately 3 p.m., the first applicant said that the special police unit had apprehended Mr Shchiborshch, and an ambulance doctor had said: “Hurry, we may not make it, he might not survive.” She asked her husband to go to the hospital with Mr Shchiborshch, but he said that the police would not let him go because they wanted to question him. During another telephone conversation at approximately 7 p.m. the first applicant told her that Mr Shchiborshch had died and turned off his mobile phone. The next day the second applicant telephoned Mr Shchiborshch’s neighbour, Ts., who said that the previous day she had shouted to the police: “Don’t kill him!” She had also tried to open the door to her flat, but the police officers would not let her. Ts. also said that she had seen the police beating Mr Shchiborshch. Later, two unidentified men approached Ts. in the yard of the block of flats and told her that if she had witnessed the events of 7 July 2006, she should forget them. 34. On 18 September 2006 N., the head of the investigative unit of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD, was questioned. She submitted that at approximately 3.20 p.m. on 7 July 2006 she had been informed that a police officer of the OVD had sustained a knife wound and she had gone to the address indicated. When she arrived approximately twenty minutes later the first applicant and R., the Head of the OVD, were there. R. explained to her what had happened. She then inspected the flat. The kitchen was crammed with a variety of objects. There were cans, numerous shards of glass and some other objects on the floor. A refrigerator was lying across the kitchen. There were spots of blood on the refrigerator and the floor. On the right-hand wall there was a kitchen unit; on the table there was a kettle, a sugar bowl and two knives, one of which had a long blade and a wooden handle, the other a shorter blade and a plastic handle. Both knives were covered with blood. There was no glass in the kitchen window facing the balcony, but some shards of glass were stuck in the frame. The balcony windows had also been broken. The balcony floor was covered with shards of various sizes. The glass that remained in the frames bore traces of blood. There was also blood on the balcony floor, the door frame and the window frame facing the balcony. 35. On 20 September 2006 the investigating authorities seized certain documents pertaining to Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file kept at the Alekseyev Psychiatric Hospital no. 1. 36. On 21 September 2006 the investigating authorities seized from Botkin City Hospital no. 2 documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer G. for the wound caused by Mr Shchiborshch on 7 July 2006. 37. On 22 September 2006 G-v., the ambulance doctor, was questioned. He stated that on 7 July 2006 he had been informed that a man had called an ambulance claiming that he had sustained a knife wound to his neck. G-v. went in an ambulance with K-n. to the address indicated. There he found several police officers, who explained that the person in the flat was mentally ill. They had been trying to restrain him in order to place him in hospital, but he had resisted them with the use of arms. G-v. provided medical assistance to a police officer who had sustained a knife wound to his shoulder. From the stairwell he witnessed the special unit police officers trying for quite a long time to persuade the person to leave the flat. They then decided to storm the flat but G-v. did not see them do that. At a certain point one of the police officers went out to the stairwell. His hand had been cut. G-v. dressed the wound. A few minutes later he and K-n. were asked into the flat in order to provide medical attention. They saw a handcuffed man lying face down on the floor. He was conscious and in a state of psychomotor agitation. His neck was bleeding. They gave him a sedative injection and conducted a detailed examination. Then, with the help of the police officers, they carried the man to the ambulance and transported him to City Hospital no. 7. 38. On 26 September 2006 the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officers B., D-n. and Kh. for the wounds caused by Mr Shchiborshch on 7 July 2006. The documents were seized on 12 October 2006 from polyclinic no. 17. 39. On 29 September 2006 Ts., Mr Shchiborshch’s neighbour, was questioned. She submitted that on 7 July 2006 she had looked through the peephole in her front door on several occasions and had seen some of the events. Initially she heard Mr Shchiborshch swearing and two police officers speaking, and then saw the former standing in the doorway. In a while she heard a tinkling sound in the lobby and saw the police officers defending themselves from Mr Shchiborshch with her baby pram. She told them through the door to put it back, which they did. Then she heard Mr Shchiborshch crying: “Neighbour, save me”. She tried to open the door but one of the police officers told her to close it. Then she heard somebody shout: “Call an ambulance!” She went to the balcony and saw an ambulance parked near a police officer whose chest had been bandaged. Then she saw through the peephole that Mr Shchiborshch had locked himself in his kitchen. The police had not entered the flat, and somebody said: “Call the special police unit”. After a while she heard some noise and saw a special unit police officer near the kitchen trying to persuade Mr Shchiborshch to open the door. He talked to him for quite a long time. Then he left the flat and ordered another officer to switch off the electricity. She understood that they were going to storm the flat. Soon everything was over. When she went out of her flat she saw that the lobby and the stairwell were covered with blood. Mr Shchiborshch’s kitchen door without the stained glass and a broken kitchen table, also covered in blood, were in the lobby. In Mr Shchiborshch’s flat she saw a pool of blood on the floor and the two knives which he had been holding earlier covered with blood. After the events the second applicant repeatedly telephoned Ts. trying to talk her into testifying against the police officers, alleging that they had killed her son. Those telephone calls were very disturbing. They stopped after Ts.’s husband had talked to the second applicant. 40. On the same date the investigating authorities inspected Mr Shchiborshch’s flat, the adjacent lobby and the stairwell. They established, in particular, that there was no door at the entrance to the kitchen. There was a crack in the glass of the balcony door and the door had reddish-brown spots on it. Two glass planes were missing from the window next to the balcony door and there were reddish-brown traces on the frames. The doors of a cupboard on the balcony also had reddish-brown spots on them; the balcony floor and the window frame to the right of the entrance to the balcony were covered with dried reddish-brown stains. The left side of the white linen curtain at the kitchen window was torn. There was a 3 cm reddish-brown stain on the curtain and surrounding it traces of a reddish-brown substance. The balcony was glazed and had three windows. The glass panes were missing in the two windows closest to the balcony entrance. 41. On 3 October 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in case no. 363484. On the same date he was questioned and confirmed his earlier statements. 42. On 30 October 2006 the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer B. for the wound caused by Mr Shchiborshch on 7 July 2006. On 8 November 2006 the documents were seized from Kupavna Hospital. 43. On 3 November 2006 an examination was conducted of the knife with a wooden handle seized from Mr Shchiborshch’s flat on 7 July 2006. According to report no. 2813, the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr Shchiborshch or police officer Kh. 44. On the same date an examination was conducted of the knife with a plastic handle seized from Mr Shchiborshch’s flat on 7 July 2006. According to report no. 2814, the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr Shchiborshch or police officer Kh. 45. On 9 November 2006 forensic examinations were carried out with regard to the injuries caused to the special unit police officers on 7 July 2006. The results showed that D-n. had sustained bruises and abrasions on his upper body that could have been caused by being hit and scraped against hard blunt objects, possibly on 7 July 2006, which could not be considered as health damage. Kh. had sustained slash wounds to the right shoulder and the right hand that could have been caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object, possibly on 7 July 2006; these could be classified as light health damage. B. had sustained a puncture wound on the right hand. The text concerning the gravity of the injury is illegible. 46. On 10 November 2006 D-k., a former colleague of Mr Shchiborshch, was questioned. The latter had worked in the same audit company as D-k. in 2004. D-k. submitted that although Mr Shchiborshch had not been aggressive, he had not been communicative and his behaviour had been rather weird. He had talked to himself or an imaginary person; in a café he might buy four cups of tea, place them on the table and talk to them. After Mr Shchiborshch’s superior had asked him to finish an overdue assignment, he simply stopped coming to work. His colleagues searched for him and called his parents, but his mother told them that she did not know where her son was. 47. On 14 November 2006 a forensic psychological-psychiatric report, ordered on 5 October 2006, was completed. It was based on Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file and the materials of the criminal case. The experts stated that at the time of the events of 7 July 2006 Mr Shchiborshch had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. His conduct on that date had been due to a psychotic disorder with delirium symptoms, causing feelings of persecution, negativity and aggression towards his parents and the police officers. The psychotic disorder at that time was at such a stage that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them, which is why he posed a danger to others. 48. On 24-25 November 2006 a forensic examination of the injuries caused to police officer G. on 7 July 2006 was conducted. According to the results, he had sustained a shallow puncture wound to the chest and a slash wound to the fourth finger of the left hand caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object, possibly on 7 July 2006, which constituted light health damage. 49. On 11 December 2006 the investigating authorities seized from the second applicant a sports jacket that Mr Shchiborshch had been wearing on 7 July 2006. The jacket had remained in the kitchen for a few days before being taken away by the first applicant. 50. On 27 December 2006 Dub., the Head of the Police Inspectorate of the Moscow South District department of the interior (“the UVD”), was questioned. According to his statement, on 7 July 2006 he had been informed by K-k., the Deputy Head of the South District UVD, that Mr Shchiborshch had wounded a police officer. Dub. went to the scene of the events and found three police officers, R. and the first applicant in the sixth-floor stairwell. K-k. arrived at the same time. Dub. witnessed the subsequent events from the stairwell. His account was consistent with that of the other police officers. He emphasised that the first applicant had cooperated with the police and had explained that his son had already been subjected to involuntary placement in hospital a number of times, and was dangerous in his current condition since he was strong and aggressive. Dub. recalled that when he had worked in the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD a few years earlier the applicant had frequently applied for assistance to place his son in hospital, since the latter had beaten the applicants and they were afraid of him. During one such operation Mr Shchiborshch had thrown acid at a police officer. 51. On 10 January 2007 police officer B. of the special unit was questioned again. He confirmed some details of his earlier statement. 52. On 11 January 2007 the Moscow forensic bureau completed the forensic examination started on 9 November 2006 and issued report no. 628. The experts studied the materials of criminal case no. 363484, medical file no. 39485 kept at City Hospital no. 7, samples of Mr Shchiborshch’s hair, nails and skin from his neck wound and the two knives that he had held on 7 July 2006. The experts found as follows: (a) The wound to the neck could not have been caused by either of the knives that Mr Shchiborshch held on 7 July 2006. However, it is possible that it was caused by contact with a long fixed protruding glass shard. (b) The craniocerebral trauma was caused by numerous blows with a hard blunt object with a wide limited surface to the left side of the frontal parietal-temporal region and the face. From the materials available it was impossible to establish with certainty the nature of the object with which the injuries (four contused wounds and a depressed fracture of the scull) were caused. This was because the edges of the injuries, the relation of the soft tissue to the bone tissue, and the density of the skull bones in the area of the fracture were not examined and the photograph of the area had no plotting scale. (c) The rib fractures were caused by numerous blows with hard blunt objects with a limited surface to the right side and the left back side of the chest. (d) The subcutaneous wounds were caused by sharp objects, probably glass shards. The wounds on the palmar surface of the fingers could have been caused when gripping knife blades. (e) The subcutaneous hemorrhages on the chest, shoulders, forearms, hips, shins and knee were caused by blows and the sliding impact of hard blunt objects, some of which were elongated in shape (for example a rubber truncheon). According to the report, the injuries had been caused shortly before Mr Shchiborshch had been admitted to hospital. That fact as well as the number of injuries made it impossible to establish their sequence. His death was caused by the stab/slash wound to the neck, which affected the left external jugular vein. Other injuries, such as the craniocerebral trauma, complicated Mr Shchiborshch’s condition but did not directly cause his death. With the wound to the neck and the craniocerebral trauma, Mr Shchiborshch was able to act and move independently for a short time (tens of minutes). However, this ability was reduced by the time of his examination by the ambulance doctors and completely lost by the time he was admitted to hospital. It was possible that the stab/slash wound to the neck was caused in the circumstances described in the materials of the case, namely he might have leaned against the balcony door which had shards of broken glass in it, or hit his head against the window frame, which also had broken glass in it. 53. On 15 January 2007 the investigator, in the presence of attesting witnesses, listened to an audio recording of Mr Shchiborshch’s telephone calls to the police on 7 July 2006 between 1.14 p.m. and 1.39 p.m. According to the transcript, Mr Shchiborshch had called the police several times. Each time he said that burglars had broken into his flat and were trying to kill him. In particular, he said that the burglars wearing police uniforms had already shot at him. He asked the police to urgently send a squad to help him. During one of the calls the tape had also recorded a conversation between the police officer who answered the call and another police officer at the station. When the first police officer told the other one about the call, he replied that it was “the same fool calling”, that their unit had already gone there and that the special unit was on its way and preparing to storm the flat. He told the first officer that she need not answer any subsequent calls, since in any event Mr Shchiborshch would soon be apprehended by the special unit. 54. On 19 January 2007 K-k., the Deputy Head of the South District UVD, was questioned. He said that he had arrived at the scene at approximately the same time as Dub. (see paragraph 50 above), and his account of the events was consistent with those of Dub. and the other police officers. 55. On 20 January 2007 police officer F. of the special unit was questioned. Answering the investigator’s questions concerning police training in any martial arts, he submitted that D-n. and Kh. were snipers, whereas B. and S. had no special qualifications. He further stated that tear gas, light-sound distraction tools or devices for demolishing barriers were not used while apprehending Mr Shchiborshch. 56. On 23 January 2007 police officer D-n. of the special unit was questioned again. He confirmed some details of his earlier statement (see paragraph 21 above). 57. On 26 January 2007 police officer S. of the special unit was questioned again. He confirmed some details of his earlier statement (see paragraph 25 above). 58. On 30 January 2007 Sch., a forensic expert, was questioned. In his opinion, Mr Shchiborshch’s craniocerebral trauma could not have been caused by falling from a standing position (from his own height). The number of injuries and their location showed that they were caused by multiple blows, possibly combined with numerous falls and hitting of his head against the surrounding objects. It was unlikely that the trauma had been the result of merely falling down. Some of the cuts, subcutaneous wounds, bruises and abrasions might have been caused by falling on glass shards and hitting some surrounding objects. 59. On the same date A., a forensic expert and psychiatrist, was questioned. She stated that Mr Shchiborshch’s conduct on 7 July 2006 had been caused by the psychotic disorder from which he had been suffering. At the time of the events, his condition was so serious that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them. In particular, he could not understand that the police had come to apprehend him. He resisted them with weapons in an attempt to protect himself from “burglars” because he was in a delirious and aggressive state. 60. On 3 February 2007 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the person to be charged with the offence. 61. On 15 February 2007 the decision was quashed and the case was remitted for further investigation. 62. On 5 March 2007 B-ch., the deputy head of the special police unit, was questioned. According to his statement, at approximately 1.45 p.m. on 7 July 2006 he received information that a police officer had been wounded and was given the address of the perpetrator. He sent three police officers headed by D-n. and later also sent police officer F. Subsequently he was informed that the person had been apprehended and that three police officers had sustained injuries. 63. On 9 March 2007 police officer K-y. of the special unit was questioned. He submitted that at approximately 1.40 p.m. on 7 July 2006 he had received information that a police officer had been wounded and had been given the address of the perpetrator. He forwarded the information to the deputy head of the special unit and then handed out equipment to the officers instructed to go to the address indicated. 64. On 11 March 2007 the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office closed the criminal case on the grounds that the actions of the police officers disclosed no indication of offences under Articles 108 § 2 and 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The decision stated, in particular, that as a result of the worsening of Mr Shchiborshch’s mental state, he had been capable of committing an offence endangering the health and life of other people. The police officers’ actions aimed at preventing his unlawful actions had therefore been lawful and appropriate. 65. On 14 March 2007 the applicants’ counsel obtained report no. 4/07 by experts B., L. and R. from the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations of the Federal Agency for Healthcare and Social Development concerning the injuries and the cause of death of Mr Shchiborshch. According to the report, he had sustained multiple contusions, haemorrhages and bruises on his face and head; fractures of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone; subarachnoid haemorrhages under the soft membranes of the convex surface of the forehead; a slash wound to the neck across the jugular vein; numerous subcutaneous haemorrhages of the chest; fractures of the sixth rib on the right side and of the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh ribs on the left side; bruises, abrasions and slash wounds to the shoulders, arms and hands, and bruises on the hips and legs. The bruises, abrasions and fractures of the ribs were caused by blows with hard blunt objects. The multiple slash wounds and the wound on the neck were caused by sharp objects. The head injuries constituted grave craniocerebral multitrauma caused by strong blows with hard blunt objects, such as heavy boots, which constituted a grave injury. Taking into account the character of the head injuries, they could not have been caused by inertial trauma as a result of falling down. The craniocerebral trauma had led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death. The other injuries had not directly led to his death but had complicated his condition. 66. On 16 April 2007 the applicants asked the prosecutor’s office of the Moscow South Administrative District to resume the investigation and conduct another forensic examination. 67. On 26 April 2007 the deputy prosecutor of the South Administrative District granted the request and ordered a number of investigative measures. 68. On 22 May 2007 the first applicant was again questioned (see paragraph 23 above). In addition to his initial statement he submitted that when Mr Shchiborshch had opened the lobby door he had not known that he and the police had come to place him in hospital, otherwise he simply would not have opened the door. On that day he had mistaken the first applicant for a burglar and had been holding a knife. The first applicant warned the police that when Mr Shchiborshch saw them he might try to lock himself in the flat. That is why when Mr Shchiborshch opened the door, the first applicant asked one of the police officers to hold it open. Mr Shchiborshch was wielding a knife and would not let anyone near him. Police officer G. then aimed his gun at Mr Shchiborshch and told him to drop the knife. Mr Shchiborshch did not react and shouted back at G. to take away the gun. G. eventually put the gun away but Mr Shchiborshch would not drop the knife. G. then made a movement towards him, probably intending to seize the knife, and Mr Shchiborshch, while wielding the knife, wounded G. in the chest. The latter moved aside. One of the police officers took a baby pram that had been placed nearby and tried to knock the knife out of Mr Shchiborshch’s hand with it. Another officer hit his other hand with the butt of a submachine gun trying to remove it from the door handle so as to stop him closing the door. After Mr Shchiborshch had wounded G., another police officer brought rubber truncheons and two of the officers started using them against Mr Shchiborshch, trying to knock the knife out of his hand and to knock him off his feet in order to apprehend him. Not all their blows hit him on the hand, as he was constantly wielding the knife. Some of the blows hit him on the body and the head. When G. left to call for support, he ordered the other officers to shoot to kill should Mr Shchiborshch attack them. Through the glass the first applicant heard Mr Shchiborshch telephoning the police and the ambulance and saying that he had been wounded, there was blood, and that burglars had been trying to kill him. After Mr Shchiborshch had been apprehended, D. said that they should take him to hospital quickly as he might not make it. When the first applicant entered the kitchen he saw blood on Mr Shchiborshch’s neck. The bleeding was heavy and the kitchen floor was covered with blood. 69. In response to questions put in the course of that interview, the first applicant submitted that he did not believe that on 7 July 2006 Mr Shchiborshch had posed a real danger either to him or to the police. However, the assistance of the police was required in order to place Mr Shchiborshch in hospital, as the first applicant could not have done it on his own. He believed that the police officers had had to apprehend Mr Shchiborshch because his psychiatric condition at that time had been very serious. In the first applicant’s view, at the time of the police officers’ arrival Mr Shchiborshch had been incapable of perceiving the situation and would not have voluntarily surrendered to anybody. The police officers were wearing bullet-proof vests and helmets, and used shields and, after Mr Shchiborshch had wounded one of them with a knife, rubber truncheons. Immediately after Mr Shchiborshch had been apprehended, the first applicant had entered the kitchen. The refrigerator was lying across the kitchen floor. Also on the floor there were glass shards, pieces of paper and Mr Shchiborshch’s laptop. The kitchen table had been removed by the police while they were apprehending Mr Shchiborshch. When the first applicant was cleaning Mr Shchiborshch’s flat about ten days after the events, he noticed that most of the broken glass from the kitchen door was scattered on the kitchen floor, which meant that the door had been broken from the entrance hall. The kitchen window had also been broken and there was a crack in the glass of the door to the balcony. Most of the broken glass was scattered on the balcony floor, but some of it was also on the kitchen floor. There were also spots of blood on the balcony floor and another spot of blood on the window frame on the side of the balcony, approximately at the level of Mr Shchiborshch’s head. 70. On 28 May 2007 the first applicant was questioned once more. In addition to his earlier statements he submitted that Mr Shchiborshch had mistaken the doctors and police officers for burglars only when his condition had worsened and he had been in a state of delirium. The first applicant also specified that G. had told L. to load his submachine gun and open fire should Mr Shchiborshch leave the kitchen. When the first applicant entered the kitchen after Mr Shchiborshch had been apprehended, he saw him lying on the floor; the left side of his head and neck were covered in blood. He was lying face down and handcuffed. The first applicant further stated that on 7 July 2006 Mr Shchiborshch had not posed a real danger either to the first applicant or to the police as he had been trying to protect himself. His actions were not provoked by either the first applicant or the police since, when he opened the door holding a knife, he did not know that the police were there. The first applicant stated that he did not know why Mr Shchiborshch had been holding a knife – perhaps he had been cooking something in the kitchen. 71. On 8 June 2007 the first applicant was confronted with police officer L. (see paragraph 22 above). The first applicant’s account of the events of 7 July 2006 was in line with his previous statements. L. stated that he partially confirmed the first applicant’s account. He further submitted that in front of Mr Shchiborshch’s flat there was a lobby with a wooden door. When they arrived, the man who had accompanied them [the first applicant] rang at the door while police officer G. was standing beside him. L. stood behind G. Then a man, who appeared to be Mr Shchiborshch, came to the door and, before opening it, asked who was there. The first applicant called him by his name and said that he had brought him money. Mr Shchiborshch told him to wait, and when he opened the door, G. shouted that he had a knife and started crouching. As it appeared, Mr Shchiborshch had stabbed G. in the chest and then immediately ran inside his flat. L. removed the submachine gun from his shoulder, but G. told him not to shoot and ran after Mr Shchiborshch. The applicant told them not to let Mr Shchiborshch close the door as he might lock himself in the flat and it would then be impossible to get him out. 72. In response to questions from the first applicant and his counsel, L. stated that he had seen two knives in Mr Shchiborshch’s hands when the latter had run into his living room. However, he returned from the living room with just one knife and a telephone receiver. He had been trying to call an ambulance, asking somebody for help and demanding to speak to a woman. L. also stated that the police officers had been wearing bullet-proof vests on that occasion and that they had hit Mr Shchiborshch with rubber truncheons and a submachine gun. At first L. was holding his rubber truncheon, but when Mr Shchiborshch stabbed G. and ran into the flat, L. dropped the truncheon, removed the submachine gun from his shoulder and ran after him with it. The rubber truncheon remained in the lobby. L. further submitted that when the police officers had been standing at the door to the flat, Mr Shchiborshch had started throwing faeces at them, apparently trying to make them let go of the door. 73. On 10 June 2007 B., the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office, again closed the investigation. 74. On 11 June 2007 the Simonovskiy inter-district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision to close the investigation on the ground that not all the investigative measures ordered in the decision of 26 April 2007 had been carried out (see paragraph 67 above). 75. On 22 June 2007 the first applicant was confronted with police officer D. (see paragraph 18 above), whose account of the events of 7 July 2006 was consistent with that of L. He added that when Mr Shchiborshch had been standing at the entrance to his flat while L. had been holding the door, Mr Shchiborshch had been brandishing a knife and shouting at them not to approach him, otherwise he would stab them. D. then had to go to the lobby to use his radio transmitter as there was no reception in the flat. He reported on the events to the officer on duty and called an ambulance. Then he took the rubber truncheon left by L. in the lobby and handed it over to him. D. and police officer G. also had rubber truncheons and the three of them were wearing bullet-proof vests. They tried again to persuade Mr Shchiborshch to drop the knife. However, he continued to wield it and threaten them with it. They tried to knock it out of his hand with the rubber truncheons. At a certain point G. happened to be near Mr Shchiborshch and the latter stabbed his hand. However, none of the police officers used their weapons. 76. In response to the investigator’s questions, D. stated that police officer L. had not hit Mr Shchiborshch with the butt of the submachine gun; that the police had used rubber truncheons trying to knock the knife out of his hand but had not inflicted targeted blows; and that several times Mr Shchiborshch had thrown his faeces at them using his free hand. In response to the first applicant’s questions, D. submitted that initially Mr Shchiborshch had been holding one knife, at a certain point he had seen him holding two knives, but then he had put the second knife down somewhere. When the police entered the lobby, D. and G. were armed with rubber truncheons. When D. returned to the lobby to report on the situation, he noticed L.’s rubber truncheon – he must have dropped it there. D. confirmed that he had not inflicted targeted blows on Mr Shchiborshch but had wanted to knock the knife out of his hand with the rubber truncheon. However, since D. was standing to the side of the door, he could not have done that unless Mr Shchiborshch had stuck his hand out of the door, which he did not do. Hence, D. did not hit him with the rubber truncheon at all. Furthermore, he did not hear G. ordering L. to shoot to kill should Mr Shchiborshch leave the kitchen. 77. The first applicant partially confirmed D.’s account. He pointed out, however, that Mr Shchiborshch had stabbed G. not when he had opened the door to the lobby but later, when G. had been standing in front of the flat persuading him to drop the knife. Mr Shchiborshch had then shouted: “Don’t come near me, or I’ll kill you. Leave!”. After a while G. took out a handgun and ordered Mr Shchiborshch to drop the knife. D. also tried to knock the knife out of Mr Shchiborshch’s hand with a baby pram. 78. Still on 22 June 2007 the first applicant was confronted with police officer G. (see paragraph 26 above), who stated that on 7 July 2006, following the police officers’ arrival at the scene of the events, the first applicant had explained to them that as soon as Mr Shchiborshch opened the door they should prevent him from returning to the flat as he might then lock himself inside. The first applicant then rang at the door and G. heard a man enter the lobby behind the door. The man asked who was there and the first applicant replied that he had brought him money. G. was standing in front of the door, the first applicant was standing to his right and police officers L. and D. were slightly behind them. When Mr Shchiborshch started opening the door, G. tried to push him back into the lobby and felt two blows to his chest. After the second blow G. noticed that Mr Shchiborshch was holding a knife. Mr Shchiborshch then rushed towards his flat and G. felt his right side itching. He put his hand underneath his bullet-proof vest and felt something moist; when he took it out he saw blood and realised that Mr Shchiborshch had wounded him with the knife. G. remained by the stairwell, and Mr Shchiborshch tried to close the door to the flat. L. then ran towards him, pulled the door from him and propped it open with his foot. Mr Shchiborshch was brandishing the knife and shouting: “Don’t come closer, or I’ll kill you”. G. stood facing the door to the flat with D. to his right and L., who was holding the door, to his left. The first applicant remained in the stairwell as D. had prevented him from entering the lobby. According to G., the three police officers had been wearing bullet-proof vests since the beginning of the operation and L. had been armed with a submachine gun. They tried for some time to persuade Mr Shchiborshch to drop the knife. When D. left the lobby to call the officer on duty on his radio, G. and L. placed a baby pram they had found in the lobby in front of them as a shield. Mr Shchiborshch threw faeces at the police while continuing to brandish the knife. After a while, in an attempt to close the door, Mr Shchiborshch pushed the baby pram back with his foot. In so doing, he came out of the flat and moved towards G. and D. G. then hit him on his hand three times with a rubber truncheon, trying to knock the knife to the ground. That is when Mr Shchiborshch cut G.’s left hand. Then Mr Shchiborshch stepped back into the flat and shouted at the officers to call a woman he could talk to. G. asked the first applicant to call the neighbour and ask whether there was a woman who could talk to Mr Shchiborshch. A woman then appeared in the lobby from another flat on the same floor. However, she was afraid to talk to Mr Shchiborshch and returned to her flat. After that, the police officers continued trying to persuade Mr Shchiborshch to drop the knife, but he kept shouting that they were burglars and that he would kill them, and kept wielding the knife so that no one could get near him. Then he barricaded himself in the kitchen, and G. heard him moving furniture. G. then left L. to guard Mr Shchiborshch and authorised him to use his weapon should Mr Shchiborshch come out and attack him. 79. In response to the investigator’s questions, G. stated that he could not tell exactly whether L. had hit Mr Shchiborshch with the submachine gun butt. He said that L. had used the submachine gun to try to knock the knife out of Mr Shchiborshch’s hand, but had not inflicted targeted blows. G. hit Mr Shchiborshch several times with a rubber truncheon, also trying to knock the knife from his hand. D. did not use his rubber truncheon as he was standing between G. and the first applicant. Most of the time L. was holding the submachine gun, which he used to parry Mr Shchiborshch’s attacks with the knife. During all that time, the first applicant was standing in the stairwell unable to enter the lobby because D. was blocking the entrance. 80. Responding to questions from the first applicant and his counsel, G. submitted that initially Mr Shchiborshch had been holding one knife. G. noticed him holding a second knife, which he must have taken from a cupboard, when he regained the flat. However, when he started throwing faeces at the police he had put the second knife down. At the beginning of the operation, after Mr Shchiborshch had wounded him with a knife, G. had taken his handgun out. However, when G. was standing in front of the flat having placed the baby pram between himself and Mr Shchiborshch, he had put the handgun away. 81. The first applicant submitted that he believed that Mr Shchiborshch had wounded G. for the first time in the lobby while L. had been holding open the door to the flat. However, he did not actually see the wound being inflicted. He did not see Mr Shchiborshch wound G. before that, but it was possible that the events had unfolded as recounted by G. The first applicant specified that after Mr Shchiborshch had cut G.’s finger, L. and D. had started hitting Mr. Shchiborshch with rubber truncheons. 82. On 3 July 2007 the applicants’ counsel asked the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office to provide copies of procedural decisions taken in the case and reports on investigative measures carried out with the first applicant’s participation. 83. On 5 July 2007 the request was refused. 84. On 6 July 2007 the applicants complained to the South Administrative District Prosecutor’s Office about the investigating authorities’ failure to take measures ordered in the decision of 26 April 2007 and to provide them with copies of procedural documents. 85. On 11 July 2007 the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office closed the investigation again, holding that Mr Shchiborshch had inflicted on himself the numerous injuries listed in the forensic reports as a result of his imprudent behaviour due to his mental illness. 86. On 12 July 2007 the applicants complained to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office about a number of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation. On the same date they met with officer K., who allegedly assured them that a check would be carried out following their complaint. 87. On 17 July 2007 the investigation was resumed. 88. On 2 August 2007 the applicants complained to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office that their complaint of 12 July 2007 had merely been forwarded to the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. 89. On the same date the investigative authorities conducted two re-enactments of the events of 7 July 2006 with police officers L. and G. respectively. 90. On 3 August 2007 Kh. of the special police unit was questioned again. His submissions were consistent with those made in the course of questioning on 13 August 2006 (see paragraph 19 above). He specified that after the support unit had arrived at the scene of the events, the actual operation to apprehend Mr Shchiborshch had started after he had thrown a heavy object at the police, breaking the glass door to the kitchen. As he continued lunging at the police with the knife and shouting that he had “already knocked one cop down”, it became clear to them that he had realised that they were police officers and that he would continue resisting them. The four police officers from the support unit were equipped with bullet-proof vests, shields and helmets, and two of them were wearing gloves with kevlar inserts. After Kh. had been stabbed in the shoulder, he discontinued participation in the operation. 91. On 6 August 2007 S. of the special police unit was questioned again (see paragraphs 25 and 57 above). He submitted that initially there had been no question of storming the flat. The unit arrived following receipt of information that a police officer had been wounded and the initial task had been to solve the situation through negotiations. However, the negotiations with Mr Shchiborshch did not lead to any results. Furthermore, the latter threw a heavy object through the glass door of the kitchen and shards of broken glass fell on the police officers; and he kept lunging at them with a knife. Given how small that part of the flat was, those actions were really dangerous for the police, so it was decided to apprehend him. During the operation the police were equipped with bullet-proof vests, shields and helmets. The leather gloves with kevlar inserts that S. was wearing had no metal inserts. Through the broken glass in the kitchen door the police could see that Mr Shchiborshch had barricaded the door with furniture and a refrigerator. The four police officers tried to open it. B. had a big shield which he pushed against the kitchen door with the help of S. and Kh. When they managed to slightly open the door, B. leaned with his hand against the door stud and Mr Shchiborshch wounded him in the palm of his right hand. Then B. moved back and Kh. took his place. The police continued opening the door and Kh. managed to squeeze through the opening but Mr Shchiborshch immediately stabbed him in the right shoulder. Kh. then retreated and D-n. accompanied him to the doctor [in the lobby]. Kh. took no further part in the operation. 92. On 10 August 2007 the applicants asked the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office to take measures to ensure the completion of the delayed investigation. 93. On 11 August 2007 D-n. of the special police unit was questioned again. His submissions were consistent with those that S. made on 6 August 2007. He specified that he had tried to negotiate with Mr Shchiborshch, but that that had proved futile. He also specified that when Mr Shchiborshch was on the balcony, D-n. had seen a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator and had picked it up and used it to knock the knives out of Mr Shchiborshch’s hands. 94. On 17 August 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on the next day. 95. On 18 September 2007 B., the investigator from the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office, again suspended the investigation and ordered a search for persons to be charged with the offence. On the same day that decision was quashed by the head of the investigative department on the ground that it was premature. 96. On 18 October 2007 B. suspended the investigation again on account of the failure to identify the perpetrator. 97. On 14 November 2007 the head of the investigative department quashed the decision of 18 October 2007 and resumed the investigation. 98. On 15 November, and 7 and 12 December 2007 the applicants complained to the Moscow Investigative Committee of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation and asked it to apply administrative sanctions to the head of the investigative department of the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. Their complaints were forwarded to the head of the investigative department they had complained about. 99. On 14 December 2007 R., the investigator from the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office, suspended the investigation and then resumed it on the same date. It was subsequently suspended and resumed on the same date on a number of occasions, in particular on 14 January, 14 February, 14 March, 14 April and 14 May 2008. 100. On 25 December 2007 the second applicant was questioned again. She confirmed her earlier statements (see paragraphs 32-33 above) and added some information. In particular, she stated that two days after the events she had called Ms Ts., Mr Shchiborshch’s neighbour, to ask what had happened. Ms Ts. said that she had seen Mr Shchiborshch being brutally beaten and hit with a submachine gun. She also said that her baby pram had been broken and covered with blood. She heard Mr Shchiborshch screaming first: “Neighbour, save me” and then, after the arrival of the police special unit: “People, save me, they are killing me”. Ms Ts. said that the previous day Mr Shchiborshch had behaved normally and had helped her to wash the floor in the lobby. The second applicant asked Ms Ts. whether she would confirm that statement before the authorities. First she agreed but after a while refused, saying that two men had threatened her and she was afraid to testify against the police. 101. On 15 February 2008 the investigative authorities conducted three re-enactments of the events of 7 July 2006 with officers G., S. and D-n. of the special police unit. Overall, the police officers’ statements were consistent with the submissions they made during their earlier questioning. However, as the re-enactments were conducted in the presence of the applicants, their counsel and a forensic expert, Zh., the police officers had to answer their specific questions. 102. In response to questions from the investigator and Zh., G. submitted that he had hit Mr Shchiborshch twice on his hand and had then pushed him twice with the baby pram. He said that the police had not left any rubber truncheons in the flat; they had taken all the truncheons with them. 103. In response to questions from the applicants and Zh., S. of the special police unit stated, in particular, that he could not remember exactly how long the operation had lasted. He neither heard Mr Shchiborshch calling the police nor remembered exactly how the windows had been broken. S. could not remember exactly how he had fallen on the balcony floor with Mr Shchiborshch, but as they were falling he was gripping the latter’s hand holding the knife. On the balcony floor there were shards of glass and other objects – he could not remember exactly what. S. was equipped with a shield, a bullet-proof vest and a handgun. He did not use the weapon because D-n. had not given the order to do so and because they had been informed that the situation concerned a mentally disturbed person. S. had seen no particular injuries on Mr Shchiborshch but he had seen him bleeding profusely. The upper part of his body was covered with blood. S. did not see Mr Shchiborshch fall in the kitchen, but he heard him fall. Nobody hit him with anything in the kitchen; he was apprehended on the balcony. S. could not remember exactly how Mr Shchiborshch sustained his injuries. However, on the balcony the latter hit himself against various surfaces, although S. did not see exactly how, as his attention was concentrated on the knife. S. believed that Mr Shchiborshch had posed a real danger to his life, as he had threatened him with a knife and had a mad look in his eyes. 104. In response to questions from the applicants and Zh., D-n. of the special police unit stated, in particular, that he had been equipped with a bullet-proof vest, a helmet that he had not had time to put on, and a handgun. The special police unit did not have rubber truncheons. He further submitted that there had been no order to storm the flat as such, but their superior had instructed them to apprehend Mr Shchiborshch. D-n. did not know that at the time of the special unit’s arrival, emergency psychiatric assistance had been called for (see paragraph 27 above). He did not hear Mr Shchiborshch calling the police but he heard him scream: “People, help”. When D-n. first saw Mr Shchiborshch there was a lot of blood on his head, chest and arms, and abrasions on his forehead. D-n. did not know how the glass in the kitchen door had been broken and could not tell exactly how much time elapsed from the moment when Mr Shchiborshch broke the door to the time the special unit entered the kitchen. No one tried to apprehend Mr Shchiborshch in the kitchen, as the door was barricaded, and when the police managed to enter he was on the balcony. D-n. did not see Mr Shchiborshch fall in the kitchen, but he did see him disappear from view through the kitchen door opening, and heard the sound of him falling. On the kitchen floor there were various objects and shards of glass, all covered with blood. D-n. submitted that he had taken the rubber truncheon from the refrigerator in the kitchen and had hit Mr Shchiborshch with it to knock the knife from his hand no more than two or three times. Mr Shchiborshch had then pulled S. towards him while the latter was gripping the hand in which he was holding the knife. D-n. could not tell why they had fallen to the floor. He entered the balcony through the broken window. When the police were handcuffing Mr Shchiborshch he continued to resist them. Then D-n. and S. led him to the kitchen where he could walk by himself. They put him on the kitchen floor. He stopped resisting them and kept repeating something like “Don’t, don’t”. 105. B. of the special police unit refused to take part in the re-enactment, stating that he would only be willing to do so in the presence of his lawyer. 106. On 18 February 2008 the second applicant was questioned yet again (see paragraph 100 above). She confirmed her earlier statements and commented on the police officers’ submissions made in the course of the re-enactments conducted on 15 February 2008 and earlier questioning. The second applicant stated that the submissions of S. and D-n. of the special police unit were untenable and pointed out that in response to important questions they had answered that they either did not know or did not remember. In particular, they did not remember how they had broken the kitchen door and the kitchen table and thrown them into the lobby. Immediately after the events the first applicant found a broken table leg in the kitchen near the balcony window. The end of the table leg had blood on it. The first applicant put it on the balcony, where it remained to this day. Hence, D-n.’s statement that he had found a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator in the kitchen was untrue, as a rubber truncheon could not have been there. Not only had the regular police squad not entered the flat but by that time they had left, and the special unit officers were the first ones to enter the kitchen. The only baton that remained in the kitchen was the leg of the broken table, which D-n. must have used as he did not deny hitting Mr Shchiborshch with a baton. As the latter was standing to the left of D-n., the police officer must have hit him on the head with the table leg, which would be consistent with the medical report stating that Mr Shchiborshch had sustained injuries on the left side of his head. The second applicant also requested an expert examination of the table leg. 107. The second applicant further contended that S.’s submissions to the effect that while on the balcony Mr Shchiborshch kept moving around and hitting his head and shoulders against the glass remaining in the window frames was equally untenable. Should that have been the case, Mr Shchiborshch would have slashed his neck lengthwise. However, the wound to his neck measured 3 cm across and, in the second applicant’s view, must have been caused by falling down. Although the police officers of the special unit no longer remembered how Mr Shchiborshch had fallen on the floor with S., in her view it followed from the materials of the case that Mr Shchiborshch had fallen face down, and that was what had caused the wound. Furthermore, the officers failed to clarify how he had sustained multiple fractures of the ribs. 108. Furthermore, the second applicant alleged that a number of D-n.’s statements had been false. In particular, Mr Shchiborshch could not have thrown an iron at him, because the iron had been tied to the balcony door. When D-n. entered the kitchen, he could not have seen its floor covered in blood. Although the regular squad had hit Mr Shchiborshch with rubber truncheons, the blood on the floor appeared only after the special unit officers had apprehended Mr Shchiborshch and put him there. Nor could it be true that Mr Shchiborshch, having been handcuffed, walked to the kitchen from the balcony by himself, as in that case it was unclear why the police officers had had to put him on the floor. Moreover, D-n.’s submissions that he had entered the balcony through the broken window made no sense given that he could have used the door. Similarly, it was unlikely that he had not heard Mr Shchiborshch calling the police for help, as his first call, made at 2.10 p.m., had been heard even by those standing in the lobby. Therefore, it was untenable that D-n., standing next to the kitchen door, had not heard the call made at 2.39 p.m. 109. As regards the organisation of the operation, the second applicant noted that D-n. had had no authority to storm the flat, especially given that emergency psychiatric assistance had already been called for by R., the Head of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD. She pointed out that Mr Shchiborshch had not been holding hostages or otherwise posing a danger to other people. He had acted merely out of fear, trying to defend himself, which was corroborated by his calls to the police. Therefore, there were no grounds for such an urgent operation, which eventually led to her son’s death. 110. On 21 February 2008 the broken table leg was seized from Mr Shchiborshch’s flat. 111. On 26 February 2008 an examination of the broken table leg was conducted. According to the results of the examination, no blood was detected on the leg. Although epidermis cells were detected, there were too few to determine their type and gender. Six pieces of hair were also detected. One of them could have belonged to Mr Shchiborshch, another to D-n., and yet another to G. It appeared possible that five pieces of hair had been separated by a blunt object, such as a table leg. 112. On 22 March 2008 Zh., the forensic expert, was questioned. He submitted that the results of the forensic examination had showed that Mr Shchiborshch’s right wrist, which had been gripped by police officer S., had not been broken. He further stated that on the basis of forensic report no. 1262 it had been impossible to determine whether the craniocerebral trauma had been caused by the broken leg of the kitchen table. Zh. noted that he could have provided more detailed answers following an additional forensic examination. 113. On 22 April 2008 Ms I. was questioned. She submitted that she had had good relations with Mr Shchiborshch and used to visit him and his wife, whom he had divorced in 2003. According to her, his psychiatric condition had worsened after the divorce and he had been seen by a psychiatrist. He had no friends and sometimes fantasised that he was in the company of a woman. For example, when she took him meals she would ring at the door and he would reply that he could not open it because he was with a woman. However, through the keyhole she could see that he was alone in the kitchen. Ms I. stated that Mr Shchiborshch had believed that his parents were not his biological parents and that he had been adopted; he had been afraid that they would place him in a psychiatric hospital. 114. On the same date another inspection of the scene of the events – in particular the balcony – was carried out. In the course of the inspection two reddish-brown stains were found. One was on the inside of the doorway; it was 21 cm long and started 171 cm from the floor. The other one, next to it, was 18 cm long and started 190 cm from the floor. There were also reddish-brown spots. 115. Between 8 April and 7 May 2008 a forensic examination was conducted by L-o, A. and D., experts from the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations. Report no. 40/08 stated, in particular, that: (a) Mr Shchiborshch had sustained a stab/slash wound to the neck 3 cm long crossing the jugular vein and multiple slash wounds to the right ear, the left side of the face, the chest, the right shoulder and collarbone, the left shoulder, the back of the elbow and wrists, the back of the left hand, two fingers of the right hand, and four fingers of the left hand. The wounds were complicated by profuse bleeding and led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death. The wound on the neck was caused by an object with multiple sharp cutting edges, which could have been a piece of glass. The piece of glass must have been fixed somehow and stayed in its place quite firmly and motionlessly. Such an injury was often observed when wounds were caused by the breaking of an entire window pane or glass door, when the main part of the window fell out but sharp shards on the edges remained firmly fixed to the frame. The multiple slash wounds were caused by fragments of broken glass. Although it was not possible to determine the sequence of the injuries, they were sustained within a short period of time shortly before Mr Shchiborshch’s death. They were complicated by external bleeding leading to anaemia, which caused his death. (b) Mr Shchiborshch had an open craniocerebral trauma consisting of bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the top of the right eye; superficial bruising of the right cheekbone; bruises and abrasions of the forehead, eyelid and top of the right eye, the left eyelid, the right temporal region, the left jaw, cheek and chin; haemorrhages of the soft tissue of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the right parietal and temporal region; depressed fracture of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone; linear fractures of the left parietal bone and frontal bone; subarachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the cerebral cortex on the convex surface of the forehead. The craniocerebral trauma was defined as a grave injury. However, since there were no symptoms of dislocation or compression of the brain, the essential areas of cerebral tissue were not damaged and there was no inflammation, the craniocerebral trauma alone could not have led to the death of Mr Shchiborshch. The craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects, which probably had a wide surface. However, it was not possible to determine exactly how it had been caused. (c) Mr Shchiborshch had closed fractures of the sixth right rib and of the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh left ribs. They were caused by repeated blows with hard blunt objects. Such injuries could have been caused as a result of being punched, kicked with boots or as a result of falling on protruding objects. (d) Mr Shchiborshch also had subcutaneous haemorrhages on the chest, shoulder joints, the left shoulder, forearm, hip and shin, and on the right forearm, hip, knee joint and shin; and bruises and abrasions on the right forearm and hand which were caused by blows with hard blunt objects. Such bruises and subcutaneous haemorrhages were classified as light injuries. 116. According to the report, the injuries were caused shortly before Mr Shchiborshch was admitted to hospital. His death was caused by the stab/slash wound to his neck, which affected the jugular vein, and multiple slash wounds which were complicated by profuse bleeding. Other injuries, such as craniocerebral trauma, complicated Mr Shchiborshch’s condition but did not directly cause his death. The neck wound was definitely caused by a fixed piece of glass. However, it was impossible to establish at which precise moment during Mr Shchiborshch’s apprehension it had been caused. 117. As regards the first applicant’s question whether the injuries that led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death could have been caused as a result of his falling down, the forensic experts stated that, since the precise way in which the wound to the neck had been caused could not be established, they could not rule out such a possibility. Whereas the experts considered that at a certain moment a fixed shard of glass had been thrust against Mr Shchiborshch’s neck, the shard might have been either in the window or door frame, or on the floor clamped between other objects. However, the multiple slash wounds could not have been caused by his falling down. 118. On 19 May 2008 the applicants’ counsel questioned R., the expert who participated in the forensic examination completed on 14 March 2007 (see paragraph 65 above), with regard to the conclusions of report no. 40/08. R. noted that a neurosurgeon had not taken part in the examination completed on 7 May 2008, which affected the reliability of its conclusions. In particular, it was not clear why the craniocerebral trauma had not been given as the cause of death. It was likewise unclear which areas of cerebral tissue had been classed as “not essential”, whereas all such areas were essential. Furthermore, it was not sufficiently specified what was meant by “profuse bleeding”: acute bleeding or acute anaemia. At the same time the conclusion that the wound to the jugular vein had caused the death was not accurate, since the jugular vein was not a blood vessel and damage to it could not have caused blood loss. 119. On the same date the second applicant asked the investigating authorities to order a forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon. 120. On 30 May 2008 the investigation was closed on the ground that the actions of the police disclosed no indication of an offence. 121. On 17 June 2008 the decision of 30 May 2008 was quashed and the investigation was resumed. 122. On 31 June 2008 the investigator questioned A., an expert who had participated in the forensic examination carried out between 8 April and 7 May 2008. According to A., there had been no need for a neurosurgeon’s participation in the forensic examination, as the cause of Mr Shchiborshch’s death was acute anaemia and not craniocerebral trauma. 123. On 1 August 2008 the Simonovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the request of 19 May 2008. 124. On 4 August 2008 the second applicant asked the investigating authorities to question the head of the emergency ward of hospital no. 7 concerning the cause of Mr Shchiborshch’s death. 125. On 7 August 2008 the Simonovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the request. 126. On the same date the investigating authorities ordered the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations to conduct another forensic examination. 127. On 1 September 2008 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on the next day. 128. On 29 September 2008 the applicants’ counsel obtained report no. 169/08 of a forensic examination conducted by P. and Sh., experts from the State Centre for Forensic Expert Examinations of the Ministry of Defence. The description of the injuries sustained by Mr Shchiborshch corresponded to that of report no. 40/08 (see paragraph 115 above). However, the experts’ conclusions concerning the cause of death differed. According to report no. 169/08, his death had been caused by a complex trauma to the head, chest and extremities, together with the fractured skull, medullary contusion, haemorrhages under the pia, wound to the jugular vein and multiple fractures of the ribs. In the experts’ opinion, the jugular vein wound could not have been the only cause of death as it had not been accompanied by life-threatening symptoms such as acute massive blood loss, or an air or fat embolism. However, taken together with the other injuries, it had constituted a factor contributing to Mr Shchiborshch’s death. The same applied to the complex trauma to the head, chest and extremities, which was also a contributing factor, the combined effect of which led to the lethal outcome. In response to particular questions put to them, the experts stated, inter alia, that the craniocerebral trauma had probably caused the coma, whereas the other injures had aggravated its course. They also submitted that it was possible that after having sustained the craniocerebral trauma, Mr Shchiborshch had been able to move independently for a short period of time. In cases of similar craniocerebral trauma, there could be periods – ranging from several minutes to several hours – when the injured person was able to talk and consciously perform certain actions. The craniocerebral trauma was caused by a hard blunt object with a limited surface. It could not be ruled out that it was caused by kicking with boots. However, there were no signs leading to the conclusion that it was caused by a baton. The experts further stated that inflammatory complications in the brain could not have developed in the course of the forty minutes’ resuscitation efforts before Mr Shchiborshch’s death. Lastly, having regard to the entry in Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file to the effect that he had suffered from moderate blood loss, the experts stated that the results of the general blood test showed that blood loss had been light to moderate. They reiterated that Mr Shchiborshch’s death had been caused not by the blood loss alone but by a combination of factors. 129. On 1 December 2008 the investigation was suspended. 130. On 15 December 2008 the investigation was resumed. 131. On 12 January 2009 the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations issued report no. 122/08 on the results of the forensic examination ordered on 7 August 2008 (see paragraph 126 above). The conclusions were essentially the same as those of report no. 40/08 of 7 May 2008. 132. On the same date the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations issued report no. 81/09. It said that it was more likely that Mr Shchiborshch’s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by at least two blows, but that it could not be ruled out that the fractures of the skull had been sustained when he fell on a protruding object or hit his head against an object. 133. On 15 January 2009 the investigation was suspended. 134. On 25 February 2009 the investigation was resumed. 135. Between January and April 2009 the applicants asked the investigating authorities to conduct a number of investigative measures, such as questioning the forensic experts and conducting another forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon, and to enclose certain documents in the case file. The requests were refused. The applicants’ complaints about the refusals to higher prosecuting authorities were dismissed. 136. On an unspecified date the applicants wrote to the Federal Supervisory Service for Healthcare and Social Development with a request to review the accuracy of the forensic reports enclosed in the criminal case file. 137. On 16 April 2009 the Federal Supervisory Service for Healthcare and Social Development provided the second applicant with an opinion of T., a forensic expert, dated 26 March 2009 and a report of the commission that examined the request. According to T., the experts from the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations had not assessed certain factors related to the craniocerebral trauma. He pointed out that the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable. T. also stated that forensic report no. 122/08 had supported the conclusions of report no. 40/08 without proper scientific substantiation, which cast doubt on the objectivity of the conclusions and their scientific accuracy. According to the findings of the commission, forensic examination no. 122/08 had been conducted in breach of time-limits; the commission’s report had not corresponded to certain formal requirements; the experts who had conducted the examination had used traditional methods accepted in forensic activity; and, taking into account the nature of the trauma, the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable. 138. On 23 April 2009 the investigation was closed on the ground that the police officers’ actions disclosed no indication of an offence. 139. On 29 April 2009 the applicants complained about the decision to the Moscow Investigative Committee. It is not clear whether the complaint was examined. 140. On 28 May 2009 the investigation was resumed. 141. On 8 August 2009 the investigation was closed. 142. On 18 August 2009 the investigation was resumed. 143. On 26 August 2009 the investigator ordered an additional forensic examination. 144. On 18 September 2009 the investigation was suspended. 145. On 21 September 2009 the investigation was resumed. 146. Following an order by the investigator, between 15 March and 16 April 2010 another forensic examination on the basis of the case materials was conducted by five experts, F., B., I., S. and P., from the Russian Centre for Forensic Examinations. In report no. 232/09 the experts stated, in particular, that it was more likely that Mr Shchiborshch’s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by at least two blows to his head than by his falling down. More specific findings might be made following a detailed examination of the skull. In the experts’ opinion, there had been no symptoms of massive blood loss, and the craniocerebral trauma had been the only cause of Mr Shchiborshch’s death. The experts assessed the other injuries as contributing to Mr Shchiborshch’s condition but not affecting the lethal outcome. There was no evidence of any inflammatory complications of the brain either. 147. On 26 October 2009 the Moscow Investigative Committee upheld an earlier refusal of the applicants’ request to conduct DNA tests in respect of the broken table leg. According to the response, as no traces of blood had been found on the table leg in the course of the biological tests, there were no grounds for DNA tests. 148. On 17 April 2010 the investigation was closed. The findings of the investigation may be summarised as follows: on 7 July 2006 following the first applicant’s request on the basis of a referral from Moscow’s Psychoneurological Dispensary no. 10, police officers G., L. and D. accompanied by the first applicant, tried to escort Mr Shchiborshch to a hospital. However, he refused to accompany them and resisted the police officers with the use of arms, wounding one of them in the chest and finger. Given that Mr Shchiborshch committed a criminal offence by using violence against a police officer on duty and that he posed a danger to others, it was decided to ask a special police unit for support in order to apprehend him. After negotiations with Mr Shchiborshch had proved futile, the special unit officers stormed the flat. In the course of the operation they used rubber truncheons, handcuffs and means of defence. As a result of Mr Shchiborshch’s actions, four police officers sustained various injuries. As a result of the police operation, Mr Shchiborshch was apprehended and immediately transferred to hospital for medical assistance, as he had sustained injuries. He died on the same date. 149. The statements of the applicants and of the police officers who took part in the events, forensic reports nos. 1262, 628, 40/08, 122/08, 81/09 and 232/09, and a report of a forensic psychological-psychiatric examination of 14 November 2006 were cited in the decision to close the investigation. 150. It was also stated in the decision that the investigation had established that there had been lawful grounds for apprehending Mr Shchiborshch as he had posed a danger to himself and others. The police officers could not have left the flat without having apprehended him. Similarly, they were unable to use certain special tools as they would have endangered other residents. The police officers had valid reasons to call the special police unit for assistance, since Mr Shchiborshch had actively resisted them and had wounded one of them in the chest. The use of special tools in order to apprehend him was also justified as his mental state and the fact that he had wounded a police officer were reasons to believe that he posed a real danger to them and might commit unlawful acts in respect of others or hurt himself. In accordance with the Law on Police 1991, police officers may use physical force if other means employed in order to fulfil their duties prove futile. A police officer may use special tools to repel attacks against the police and other citizens. In the present circumstances, the fact that the police inflicted light injuries on Mr Shchiborshch was justified by the necessity to apprehend him. 151. As regards the grave injuries, the decision noted that the results of the forensic expert examinations were conflicting. Whereas according to some of them Mr Shchiborshch’s death had been caused by massive blood loss, others concluded that it had been caused by the craniocerebral trauma. Therefore, the investigation was unable to establish with certainty the cause of death and had to take into account all the injuries. In particular, all the experts agreed that the neck wound had probably been caused by a glass shard. As Mr Shchiborshch was resisting the police from behind the balcony door in which there was broken glass, he probably sustained that wound when some of the police officers pulled him by the hand and he cut himself on a protruding glass shard. The police thus had no intention of injuring Mr Shchiborshch and he sustained the injury also as a result of his own actions. Such an injury, regarded as grave and possibly the cause of Mr Shchiborshch’s death, could not have been foreseen. 152. The decision of 17 April 2010 further stated that the experts had not reached a unanimous conclusion concerning the cause of the craniocerebral trauma. Whereas some of the reports stated that it could have been caused as a result of Mr Shchiborshch hitting his head against something or falling down, other reports concluded that it had probably been caused as a result of blows to the head. A definitive conclusion might have been reached following an additional examination of Mr Shchiborshch’s skull, but his relatives did not give their consent to exhumation and the investigator’s request for exhumation was refused by the court. Therefore, there remained no further opportunities to clarify the cause of the injury, and the investigation still had certain doubts in that respect. Should the craniocerebral trauma have been caused as a result of Mr Shchiborshch’s falling onto protruding objects, no questions concerning the police officers’ responsibility would arise. Should it have been caused by blows to the head, the investigation took the view that the police had had no intention of harming Mr Shchiborshch. That was confirmed by the fact that immediately after the storming of the flat, a doctor had been asked to provide him with medical assistance. From the witness statements it followed that the police had used rubber truncheons to knock the knife out of Mr Shchiborshch’s hands. It could not be ruled out that some of the blows had accidentally hit Mr Shchiborshch on the head. However, that would not have been intentional. In any event, any conclusions in that respect were of a probabilistic nature and could not be regarded as established facts, as the investigation had unresolvable doubts concerning the cause of the injury. Taking this into account, there was insufficient evidence to show that the police officers had committed an offence, and the investigation should therefore be closed. 153. On 4 May 2010 the applicants complained to the investigating department of the Simonovskiy District of Moscow about the closure of the investigation. The outcome of the complaint is unclear. 154. On 31 July 2007 the second applicant lodged a complaint before the Lefortovskiy District Court concerning the inactivity of the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. She stated, in particular, that a number of investigative measures, including those ordered by a higher prosecutor’s office, had not been carried out and that she had not been granted victim status in the proceedings. 155. On 19 September 2007 the Lefortovskiy District Court partially granted the complaint. It held that the refusal to grant the second applicant victim status in the investigation was unfounded and dismissed the remainder of the complaint. The applicants appealed. 156. On 15 October 2007 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. 157. On an unspecified date the applicants complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the decision to suspend the investigation of 18 October 2007 and the failure to examine a number of their requests for additional investigative measures. 158. On 10 December 2007 the Lefortovskiy District Court partially granted the complaint. It found unlawful the failure to examine the applicants’ request, but dismissed the part of the complaint related to the suspension of the investigation. It is not clear whether the applicants appealed. 159. On 10 June 2008 the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the decision of 30 May 2008 to suspend the investigation, the failure to examine a number of her requests, the refusal to conduct certain additional investigative measures and the delays in the investigation. 160. On 18 June 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court partially granted the complaint. It noted that the investigation had been resumed on 17 June 2008. The court found unlawful the failure to examine the second applicant’s request for another forensic examination, the failure to provide her with decisions taken in respect of her other requests and the delays in the investigation. 161. On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the failure of the Simonovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office to comply with the court’s decision of 18 June 2008. She asked the court to find forensic report no. 40/08 unlawful and to declare it inadmissible as evidence. 162. On 30 July 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of 18 June 2008 and dismissed the remaining part. The second applicant appealed. 163. On 27 August 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 164. On 18 August 2008 the applicants complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the continued failure of the Simonovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office to comply with the court’s decision of 18 June 2008 and the failure to grant a number of their requests for additional investigative measures. 165. On 20 August 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of 18 June 2008 and dismissed the remaining part. The applicants appealed. 166. On 22 September 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 167. On 25 August 2008 the applicants complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about certain investigative measures related to another forensic examination. 168. On 30 September 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. The applicants appealed. 169. On 29 October 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 170. On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the failure to examine a number of her requests related to certain investigative measures. 171. On 6 October 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine her request for another forensic examination and dismissed the remaining part. 172. On an unspecified date the applicants again complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about certain investigative actions related to another forensic examination. 173. On 27 October 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. 174. On 26 February 2009 the applicants complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the investigating authorities’ refusal to let them study the case file, their refusal to include forensic report no. 169/08 in the case file, the failure to examine a number of the applicants’ requests in due time and the refusal of several requests for additional investigative measures. 175. On 4 March 2009 the Lefortovskiy District Court granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine a request submitted by the second applicant and the refusal to allow the applicants access to the case file. The remainder of the complaint was dismissed. 176. On 6 March 2009 the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the decision to suspend the investigation of 1 December 2008 and the investigating authorities’ failure to inform the applicants of the suspension. 177. On 12 March 2009 the Lefortovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. The second applicant appealed. 178. On 8 April 2009 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 179. On 16 April 2009 the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the refusal of her request to question the forensic experts. 180. On 22 April 2009 the Lefortovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. 181. On 10 August 2009 the second applicant complained to the Lefortovskiy District Court about the refusal of her request to declare report no. 122/08 inadmissible evidence, to conduct an additional forensic examination and to adduce certain evidence. 182. On 20 August 2009 the Lefortovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint. 183. On an unspecified date the second applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against K. and R., senior officers of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD. She argued that their decision to storm Mr Shchiborshch’s flat had been unlawful and taken in abuse of their official powers, as it had been in breach of the Law on Psychiatric Assistance. 184. On 12 January 2009 the institution of criminal proceedings was refused. The decision stated, in particular, that as Mr Shchiborshch had posed a danger to the police officers and other citizens, there had been grounds for storming the flat, and the use of rubber truncheons had been in accordance with the law.

5. The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Laç. 6. On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant lodged an application to have his status as a (national liberation) war veteran recognised. On 15 January 2003 the Central Commission on War Veterans (“the Central Commission”), which was the body responsible for the examination of such applications, informed the applicant that it had stopped receiving applications in September 2001. 7. On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time. On 13 May 2003 the Lezha District Court allowed his application for leave to submit an application to the Central Commission out of time. 8. On 19 June 2003, following the Lezha District Court’s decision, the applicant requested the Central Commission to have his status as a (national liberation) war veteran recognised. 9. On 14 July 2003 the Central Commission informed him, by way of a letter, that, in spite of the Lezha District Court’s decision, it had ceased to operate on 30 July 2002 and could not examine his application. The applicant did not institute any judicial proceedings in response to the Central Commission’s communication. 10. On 9 December 2004 the applicant was informed by the Directorate of Information at the Council of Ministers (Drejtoria e Informacionit, Këshilli i Ministrave) that the end date for the Central Commission’s operations had been extended to 31 December 2006 (paragraph 26 below). 11. On 7 December 2005 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) for the legal recognition of his time and status as a (national liberation) war veteran (vërtetimin e faktit juridik të njohjes së kohës së veteranit të LANC-it...si dhe njohjen e statusit të veteranit). He relied on Article 388 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) (paragraph 27 below), the Status of War Veterans Act (paragraph 21 below) and the Council of Ministers’ decisions no. 190 of 3 May 1995 and no. 748 of 11 November 2004 (paragraph 26 below). 12. On 1 February 2006 the District Court allowed the action. It found that from 1 March 1943 to the liberation of the country, the applicant had been a messenger for a partisan unit (korrier ... në shërbim të çetës partizane). The Tirana District Court considered just the applicant’s reliance on CMD no. 748 of 11 November 2004. It recognised the applicant’s war veteran status (vendosi...njohjen e statusit të veteranit). 13. On 14 February 2006 the Central Commission, which had intervened as a third party in the proceedings, appealed against the District Court’s decision arguing that the decision had been taken contrary to the law. 14. On 1 February 2007, the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It found that, in so far as the Central Commission did not challenge the accuracy of the evidence examined by the District Court, its decision was considered just and given in accordance with the law (...meqenëse për provat e paraqitura personi i tretë nuk ka pretendime, Gjykata e Apelit çmon se vendimi i Gjykatës së Rrethit Tiranë është i drejtë dhe i bazuar dhe si i tillë duhet të lihet në fuqi). On 12 March 2007, following a request by the applicant, an enforcement writ was issued. 15. On 13 April 2007 a bailiff requested the Central Commission to voluntary comply with the court’s decision. 16. On 26 September 2007 the bailiff’s office decided to conclude the enforcement proceedings (pushimin e ekzekutimit) on the grounds that the judgment was of a declaratory nature, was not directed against a debtor and that no rights or obligations had arisen therefrom. The court decision had been transmitted to the Central Commission for further action. 17. Following requests by the applicant to the authorities, on 2 and 13 July 2007 and 4 March 2008 the Ministry of Defence informed him that the Central Commission had ceased to exist on 31 December 2006. Despite efforts to extend its operations into 2007, no legislation had been subsequently adopted to enable it to continue. 18. On 5 March 2008 the applicant lodged a civil claim requesting the Central Commission to pay him the financial entitlements he was eligible to under domestic law on account of his status as a war veteran. 19. On 23 October 2008 the Tirana District Court dismissed the claim. It held that the decision of 14 February 2006, as upheld on appeal on 1 February 2007, recognised the existence of a legal fact on the basis of Article 388 of the CCP and was of a declaratory nature. An interested party could institute proceedings for the recognition of the existence of a legal fact; however, the authority competent for recognising a person’s war veteran status was the Central Commission. That entity had never examined an application made by the applicant, who had never been recognised as having war veteran status. When a decision by the Central Commission was taken, it was amenable to appeal before the national courts. The Central Commission’s powers had not been transferred to any other authority. 20. Appeals lodged by the applicant with the Tirana Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court were dismissed on 8 December 2009, and 10 February and 18 May 2012 respectively.

4. The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-type Prison. 5. According to the arrest report, signed by thirteen police officers, on 18 March 2009 at 2.15 p.m. the applicant was stopped by police officers for an identity check. He resisted and opened fire, killing a police officer. The other police officers used force to neutralise and arrest him. Several fake identity cards were found in the applicant’s bag. 6. At 5.15 p.m. the applicant was sent to the Bursa Şevket Yılmaz State Hospital for a medical examination. The medical report indicated that there were superficial grazes on the applicant’s back and bruises to the frontal region of his head, caused by blunt instrument trauma. It further specified that the abrasions on the applicant’s wrists could have been caused by handcuffs. The report concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body were not life-threatening. 7. The applicant was then taken to the Kestel District Police Station. According to the form explaining the rights of arrested persons, the applicant was reminded of his rights, including his right to have the assistance of a lawyer, to remain silent, and to inform his family members of his arrest. According to a report signed by seven police officers, the police tried to conduct a fingerprint examination in order to identify the applicant, but he resisted, shouted slogans, tried hitting his head on the machine and kicked the nearby furniture. The applicant alleged that he had been beaten at the police station. 8. The applicant was subsequently transferred to the anti-terrorism branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. According to the applicant, in the basement of the Bursa Security Headquarters, his testicles were squeezed and he was beaten, subjected to hanging by his arms, hosed with cold water, exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice-covered blanket. 9. According to a police report, on 19 March 2009 at about 7 p.m. the applicant was taken by four police officers to Istanbul, where he had offered to show the officers a house used as a cell by the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation. It was reported that, as the applicant could not find the house, they returned to the Bursa Security Headquarters on 20 March 2009 at 4.15 a.m. This report was signed by four police officers, but the applicant declined to sign it. 10. On 20 March 2009 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer at the Bursa Security Headquarters in connection with the killing of a police officer and his alleged involvement in the MLKP. The applicant exercised his right to remain silent. 11. On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Bursa Forensic Medicine Institute. During his examination, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated whilst in custody. He stated that he had been beaten, hung by his arms and hosed with cold water and alleged that ice cubes had been placed over his body. The medical examination revealed that the applicant had a haematoma under his left eyelid, a red-coloured bruise measuring 5 x 10 cm and swellings in his occipital region, and purple‑coloured bruises on his right eye and periorbital region. It was also noted that the applicant had several bruises on his left eyebrow, on the zygoma, on both sides of his mouth, between his eyebrows, on his left arm and both wrists, and also on his penis. The doctor noted that the bruises on the applicant’s wrists could have been sustained as a result of the use of handcuffs. It was further noted that the applicant had complained about shortness of breath, headaches and pain in his ribs. The doctor requested consultations from the thoracic surgery, neurosurgery and internal medicine departments. 12. Later on the same day, the applicant was interrogated, in the presence of his lawyer, by both the Kestel Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Kestel Magistrates’ Court and exercised his right to remain silent. On the basis of the evidence in the case file, the judge ordered his detention on remand. 13. On 21 March 2009 at about 1.40 a.m. the applicant was taken to the emergency department of the Bursa Uludağ University Hospital. In the hospital he was examined by several doctors, specifically from the neurosurgery, general surgery, thoracic surgery and radiology departments. The radiology examinations did not reveal any abnormality in the bones, lungs or heart. The general surgeon indicated that there was no need for surgery. Finally, the thoracic surgeon noted in his report that the applicant had no respiratory problems but that he had several bruises on his body, specifically on his back. He also stated that no fractured ribs had been observed. According to the information in the file, the applicant left the emergency department at about 4 a.m. 14. Later on 21 March 2009 the applicant was also taken to the emergency service of the Bursa State Hospital as he had complained of a pain in his chest. Following consultation of doctors from general surgery, neurosurgery and radiology departments, a doctor from the emergency service issued a report concluding that the applicant’s eighth and ninth ribs had been fractured and that he was suffering from post-traumatic injury. He was accordingly admitted to the emergency department for monitoring and observation. 15. On 30 March 2009 the applicant filed a complaint with the Bursa Public Prosecutor and alleged that he had been ill-treated in custody. In his petition, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten at the Kestel Police Station. He also maintained that following his transfer to the Anti‑Terrorism Branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters, his testicles had been squeezed, he had been beaten, subjected to hanging by his arms, hosed with cold water, exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice-covered blanket. The applicant further stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill-treated him if he met them face to face. 16. Upon receiving the applicant’s complaint, the Bursa Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation into his ill-treatment allegations. In this connection, the applicant gave a statement on 31 March 2009, and claimed in a detailed account that he had been ill-treated during his custody. The applicant further maintained that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill-treated him. 17. The public prosecutor interviewed seven police officers who had been on duty at the time of the applicant’s arrest and during his custody at the Kestel Police Station and the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters. They all denied the accusations against them. The police officers who had arrested the applicant stated that they had used proportionate force to neutralise him. 18. At the request of the public prosecutor, on 8 April 2009 the applicant was once again taken to the Bursa Uludağ University Hospital for a medical examination. As the gendarme officer refused to leave the consultation room, the doctor did not perform the examination. The gendarme officer issued a report stating that the doctor had not complied with the Protocol for Prisons signed by the Ministries of Justice, Health and Interior, dated 6 January 2000 ‒ according to which a gendarme officer is obliged to stay in the consultation room during the medical examination in a hospital of a person who has been remanded in connection with terrorism‑related crimes ‑and the examination was then carried out in the absence of the gendarme officer. The doctor prepared a detailed report stating that there were several bruises on the front of his left arm which appeared to be self-inflicted. Similar marks were also noticed on his abdomen. Healed scars were observed on both wrists. Bruises on the fingers and right knee were also noted. 19. The doctor further ordered certain medical tests but according to the information in the case file, the prison authorities did not allow the applicant to go to the hospital on the appointment dates and transferred him to the Tekirdağ F‑type Prison. 20. On 15 April 2009 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a medical report about the applicant based on the medical reports dated 20 March 2009 and 21 March 2009 issued by the Uludağ University Hospital. It was concluded that his injuries were not life-threatening and would heal with simple medical care. It was also noted that no fractured ribs had been observed. No reference was made to the medical report dated 21 March 2009 issued by the Bursa State Hospital. 21. In the course of the investigation, the public prosecutor also requested the video camera recordings taken during the applicant’s periods in custody in Kestel Police Station and the Bursa Security Headquarters. The Bursa Security Directorate informed the public prosecutor’s office that the camera recordings were only kept for eight days. 22. On 3 November 2009 the public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution decision. In his decision the prosecutor held that the injuries observed on the applicant’s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest. The prosecutor also concluded that the force used to neutralise the applicant had been in compliance with Article 16 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police. 23. On 1 December 2009 the applicant filed an objection against the public prosecutor’s decision. He repeated that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill-treated him. On 23 March 2010 the Yalova Assize Court rejected the objection. 24. In the meantime, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for killing a police officer. By a judgment delivered on 20 January 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case file contains no information regarding the current status of these proceedings.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kazanluk. 6. The applicant was representing his father in a tort action against the local forestry office. At a hearing held in December 2001 he objected to the decision of the judge hearing the case, who was the President of the Kazanluk District Court, to order a graphological examination of a photocopied document. The judge overruled his objection and the applicant appealed. 7. On 7 December 2001, allegedly in order to illustrate the absurdness of the judge’s ruling, the applicant filed with the court photocopies of two declarations, asking that they be attached to his appeal. The first, purportedly emanating from the judge, said that she had forced the applicant to draw it up and that, to compensate him for the frustration and damage caused, she undertook to pay him 5,000 United States dollars (USD). The second, purportedly emanating from the director and an official of the forestry office, said that they owed the applicant USD 5,000. On 18 December 2001 the applicant filed with the court a further document purportedly emanating from the forestry office’s counsel which stated that she had forced the judge to carry out certain acts in relation to the case and that she owed the applicant USD 10,000. 8. All three documents, presented in photocopy, bore the purported signatures of the individuals concerned. 9. The judge referred the matter to the prosecution authorities, which opened an investigation against the applicant on charges of forgery. The judge, the forestry office’s officials and counsel also brought civil-party claims against him. 10. All judges of the Kazanluk District Court withdrew from the case and it was transferred to the Stara Zagora District Court. On 23 September 2002 that court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of procedural errors. On 7 May 2003 the prosecuting authorities indicted the applicant, the charge being reduced to using forged documents contrary to Article 316 of the Criminal Code (see Relevant domestic law below). 11. Following a query by the President of the Kazanluk District Court, on 5 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation ordered that the case be transferred to the Nova Zagora District Court, which was in another judicial region, because that would obviate the need for judges to withdraw from the case even at the appellate level. 12. On 1 July 2003 the applicant objected to the indictment. He argued, inter alia, that he had filed the copies of the documents in order to illustrate the impossibility of subjecting photocopies to graphological testing. 13. The trial took place on two dates over the summer of 2003. 14. In a judgment of 30 September 2003 the Nova Zagora District Court found the applicant guilty. Instead of imposing a penal sentence, it replaced his criminal liability with an administrative fine of 500 Bulgarian levs (BGN). It further ordered him to pay the civil parties non-pecuniary damages in the following amounts: BGN 10,000 to the judge (the full amount claimed), BGN 5,000 to the counsel, BGN 1,200 to the director of the forestry office, and BGN 700 to the official of that office. 15. In reaching its decision, the District Court found that the applicant had knowingly used false documents with a view to improving his procedural position in the case against the forestry office. Since there was no proof that he had made the documents, he could not be held liable for that. In using them, however, he had understood the unlawful character of his actions and had wished for negative consequences to occur in order to win the civil case. His act was particularly serious, because he had undermined the integrity of the judicial process. Moreover, further aggravating factors included the high amounts mentioned in the documents and the fact that they had been linked with the professional capacities of the individuals mentioned in them. 16. In assessing the quantum of damages, the court noted that the applicant was unemployed and did not own any property, which militated in favour of a minimal fine. However, concerning the judge’s claim for damages, the court found that the applicant’s act had injured her reputation and lowered her professional standing. The declaration purportedly emanating from her had become known to all judges and staff members of the court in which she worked, as well as to those members of the court which had examined the appeal against her ruling. It had also become known to the investigators and prosecutors who had dealt with the criminal case against the applicant. The judge had been serving for seventeen years, eleven of which as a president of the court; for that reason the allegation that she acted unlawfully when hearing cases had been particularly injurious. The applicant’s act had also impaired society’s trust in the judicial system, at a time when it was being subjected to many criticisms. 17. The applicant appealed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusions. He asked the court to order the prosecution to produce the originals of the impugned documents, with a view to their graphological examination, and sought leave to re-question the claimants and the experts and to call witnesses and adduce further evidence. Finally, he requested that counsel be appointed for him. 18. In a decision of 11 November 2003 the Sliven Regional Court held that there was no need for an expert examination of the signatures on the documents, as the applicant was not charged with forging them but merely with using them. In any case, it was impossible to enjoin the prosecution to produce the originals, as this could obviously not be done without the assistance of the person who had used the photocopies. No re‑questioning was necessary, because the applicant had been given the opportunity to ask questions at the trial, but had failed to do so. Finally, it was impossible to assess the need for further witnesses, as the applicant had not indicated their identity. 19. The court also refused to appoint counsel for the applicant. It noted that he could not afford one, but held that the interests of justice did not require that he be provided with free legal assistance, as he held a university degree and the charges against him were not very serious. 20. In a brief filed on 1 December 2003 the applicant argued that the lower court had erred in the assessment of the evidence and had made arbitrary findings of fact. In particular, it had not specified on what basis it had concluded that the applicant had used the documents to win the civil case, seeing that he had not claimed the sums mentioned in them, but had merely employed them to illustrate a theoretical assertion. The court had also given reasons bordering on the absurd in determining the gravity of the offence, and had impermissibly dealt with the civil‑party claims. 21. In a final judgment of 9 December 2003 the Sliven Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It held that it had properly admitted and analysed the evidence, had not omitted to gather relevant evidence, had made accurate findings of fact, and had correctly concluded that, by using false documents to win the civil case, the applicant had committed the offence with direct intent. There had been no material breaches of the rules of procedure. In particular, it had not been erroneous to try the applicant and only then give him an administrative punishment, nor to examine the civil claims against him, because all damage directly flowing from the offence – in this case, the claimants’ moral suffering – was subject to reparation. Nor had the court erred in determining the quantum of damages.

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Tyumen Region. 5. In 1999 he brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car. 6. By judgment of 6 March 2001 the Armizonskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region awarded the applicant 38,368.92 Russian roubles (RUR) and recovered in his favour RUR 673 in compensation for court fee. The District Court specified that those amounts had to be paid by the Ministry of Finance at the expenses of the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Regional Court on 23 July 2001. 7. On an unspecified date the President of the Tyumen Regional Court granted the Ministry of Finance's request to file a motion for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court. 8. On 22 February 2002 the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of 6 March 2001. 9. The judgment of 6 March 2001, as upheld on 23 July 2001, remains unenforced to date.

6. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Tomsk. She works as a deputy head of the Tomsk Regional Hospital. 7. On 25 November 2000 the applicant asked the Kirovskiy District police department to institute criminal proceedings against her former husband, Mr Ch., complaining that he had assaulted her. She provided a police investigator with a certificate from the Tomsk Town Hospital no. 1. According to that certificate, on 25 November 2000 the applicant presented herself at the hospital, where she was examined and diagnosed with injuries to the soft tissues of the head. The certificate also stated that the applicant did not have concussion. 8. Two days later a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report which, in the relevant part, read as follows: “1. On the day of the examination, on 27 November 2000, [the applicant] has: two bruises on the face, [and] an injury to the soft tissues on the left side of the parietal tuber. As it follows from medical documents, from 29 November to 16 December 2000 [the applicant] underwent treatment in the neurological department of the Tomsk Regional Hospital; following her dismissal from the hospital she underwent outpatient treatment, consulting a therapist until 23 December 2000 in respect of her diagnosis: “concussion”. 2. The concussion, bruises on the face, the injury to the soft tissues of the head sustained by [the applicant] were caused by blunt firm objects and are considered to have caused “minor health damage” requiring treatment for no more than twenty-one days.... It cannot be excluded that those injuries could have been caused in the period indicated by [the applicant]”. 9. On 15 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings, finding as follows: “On 25 November 2000 [the applicant] applied to the Kirovskiy District police department seeking institution of criminal proceedings against her husband, Mr Ch., on the ground that he had injured her on 24 November 2000, at 8.30 p.m., in their place of residence... I see particular social importance in the fact that the injuries were caused by a man to a woman who cannot offer adequate resistance”. 10. On an unspecified date Mr Ch. was committed to stand trial before the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk. 11. The District Court held several hearings at which it heard the applicant, Mr Ch. and a number of witnesses and examined documentary evidence, including two reports by forensic medical experts. The applicant insisted on her description of events as given to the police and prosecution authorities. Mr Ch. disputed the accusations, denying that he had even visited the applicant on the day of the alleged assault. He claimed that he had visited his female friend, Ms P., on that day and spent the night at her house. Ms P. confirmed Mr Ch.’s statement in open court. The defendant’s alibi was also corroborated by his son, who claimed that he had spent the whole day with his father before the latter had gone to see Ms P. One witness testified to having heard the applicant and Mr Ch. arguing in the applicant’s flat on the day of the alleged assault. Two witnesses stated that they had seen the applicant in the evening of the day of the alleged assault or on the following day. The applicant had complained to them that Mr Ch. had beaten her up. One witness, the applicant’s neighbour, stated that the applicant had unsuccessfully asked two persons to lie in court about Mr Ch. assaulting her. The District Court also heard a doctor who had examined the applicant immediately after the alleged assault. The doctor insisted that the applicant had not had concussion. 12. On 15 July 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court found Mr Ch. guilty of assault and sentenced him to six months of correctional labour. The sentence was suspended on probation. The District Court also partly accepted the applicant’s tort action against Mr Ch. and awarded her 4,782.68 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for pecuniary damage and RUB 10,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 13. Mr Ch. and his lawyer appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that the defendant had beaten the applicant. He had an alibi which had been confirmed by two witnesses. However, no witnesses testified to seeing the defendant hitting the applicant. The witnesses also did not state that they had seen the defendant in the vicinity of the applicant’s flat at the alleged time of the assault. Furthermore, the lawyer argued that the presiding judge had unlawfully dismissed his request to step down from the case as the applicant’s lawyer had supervised the presiding judge’s Ph.D. work. 14. On 12 September 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court reduced the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to RUB 3,000 and upheld the remainder of the judgment, endorsing reasons given by the District Court. 15. On 30 September 2002 Mr Ch. and his lawyer applied to the President of the Tomsk Regional Court, seeking institution of supervisory review proceedings. They once again insisted on the partiality of the presiding judge and the unavailability of evidence proving Mr Ch.’s guilt. 16. In October 2002 the President of the Tomsk Regional Court lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002. 17. On 1 November 2002 the Registry of the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court notified the applicant by letter that a hearing was scheduled for 13 November 2002 at 10.00 a.m. The applicant was also invited to study the case file materials and to submit her observations in response to Mr Ch.’s and his lawyer’s applications for a supervisory review. On 10 November 2002 the applicant lodged her written arguments with the Presidium. 18. On 11 December 2002 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court, relying on Article 378 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (the CCP), quashed the judgments of 15 July and 12 September 2002 and acquitted Mr Ch. The compensation claims were accordingly dismissed. The Presidium held, inter alia, that the district and regional courts had not established what constituted the criminal conduct under the particular head of the criminal charge, whether it had in fact taken place and whether it had been committed by the former husband. The District and Regional courts, without proper assessment of evidence, presumed that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by her former husband. Thus, Mr Ch.’s guilt was not proven and the principle of presumption of innocence was violated. 19. The applicant and her representative attended the supervisory review hearing and submitted their arguments. On 10 January 2003 the applicant was served with a copy of the judgment of 11 December 2002.

9. The applicant, Mrs Myra Xenides-Arestis, is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, who was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia. 10. The applicant owns property in the area of Ayios Memnon (Esperidon Street), in the fenced-up area of Famagusta, that she acquired by way of a gift from her mother. In particular, she owns half a share in a plot of land (plot no. 142, sheet/plan 33/29) with buildings thereon, consisting of one shop, one flat and three houses. One of the houses was her home, where she lived with her husband and children, whereas the rest of the property was used by members of the family and/or rented out to third parties. Furthermore, the applicant partly owns a plot of land (plot no. 158, sheet/plan 33/29) with an orchard (her share being equivalent to 5/48). This was registered in her name on 31 January 1984. The rest of the property is owned by other members of her family. 11. In August 1974 she was forced by the Turkish military forces to leave Famagusta with her family and abandon their home, property and possessions. Since then she has been prevented from having access to, using and enjoying her home and property, which are under the occupation and the control of the Turkish military forces. According to the applicant, only the Turkish military forces have access to the fenced-up area of Famagusta. 12. On 23 April 2003 new measures were adopted by the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) regarding crossings from northern to southern Cyprus and vice versa through specified checkpoints. On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the TRNC” enacted “Law no. 49/2003” on compensation for immovable properties located within the boundaries of the “TRNC”, which entered into force on the same day. On 30 July 2003, under Article 11 of this “Law”, an “Immovable Property, Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission” was established in the “TRNC”. The rules of the commission were published in the “TRNC Official Gazette” on 15 August 2003 and the commission was constituted by a decision of the “TRNC Council of Ministers” published in the aforementioned gazette on 18 August 2003. 13. On 24 April 2004 two separate referendums were held simultaneously in Cyprus on the Foundation Agreement–Settlement Plan (“Annan Plan”) which had been finalised on 31 March 2004. Since the plan was approved in the Turkish-Cypriot referendum but not in the Greek-Cypriot referendum, the Foundation Agreement did not enter into force.

6. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Monaco. 7. In 1998 the applicant was involved in an altercation with a cameraman outside his property, “Gut Calenberg”, during which he struck the cameraman with an umbrella. In January 2000 the press reported on another scuffle between the applicant and the manager of a discotheque on Lamu Island off the Kenyan coast, as a result of which the applicant was convicted of assault. 8. On 27 March 2000 the company British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH (“the company”) launched a ten-day advertising campaign with full-page advertisements in magazines and on posters at bus stops and other busy locations showing, on the lower half, a crumpled packet of Lucky Strike cigarettes lying on its side. The top half read, in large lettering: “Was it Ernst? Or August?” At the bottom of the advertisement was the phrase “Lucky Strike. Nothing else.” (“Lucky Strike. Sonst nichts.”) The campaign covered eighteen towns and cities and 6,364 billboards, which meant that it had a potential reach of approximately 2.97 million people. It was also reported in the media. 9. The applicant asked the company that had commissioned the advertisement and the advertising agency that had designed it to discontinue the campaign. The agency agreed to do so in writing, but the company refused. The applicant then made an urgent application to the Hamburg Regional Court. 10. On 31 March 2000 the Regional Court granted an interim injunction against any further distribution of the advertisement at issue, and confirmed the injunction on 14 April 2000. The company subsequently announced that it was discontinuing the advertisement, but refused to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant for the official notice served on it. 11. On 8 March 2001 the applicant asked the company to pay him damages of 250,000 euros (EUR). The company did not respond to that request. 12. On 23 December 2003 the applicant applied to the Hamburg Regional Court for an order requiring the company and the advertising agency that had designed the advertisement to pay him EUR 100,000 for a “notional licence” (fiktive Lizenz) and at least EUR 500 in compensation for infringing his right to protection of personality rights, and also to reimburse the costs incurred in serving the official notice. 13. On 21 January 2005 the Regional Court allowed the applicant’s application as regards the notional licence and costs, and dismissed it as regards compensation. It pointed out that although everyone had the right to decide whether or not to allow his or her name to be used for advertising purposes, the general right to protection of personality rights (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht) protected a person against the unlawful use by third parties of his or her name, including in the context of advertising. The Regional Court went on to observe that although the forenames “Ernst” and “August” were fairly common, the combination of the two was not. Moreover, since entering into a relationship with Princess Caroline of Monaco the applicant had become well known and the crumpled cigarette packet was a clear allusion to his scuffles. The Regional Court explained that advertising was also protected by freedom of expression in so far as it contributed to shaping public opinion; this applied, in its view, to the impugned advertisement. It further pointed out that both the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of personality rights were protected under the Basic Law and that, in principle, they deserved equal respect. Where a person was used for advertising purposes without his or her consent, the right to protection of personality rights prevailed as a general rule. The Regional Court added that the company’s argument that as a result of his scuffles, the applicant had himself caused the event to which the advertisement referred did not deprive him of protection but it did affect the degree of the interference and the level of protection of freedom of expression. In conclusion, the Regional Court held that when balancing the competing interests, more weight was to be attached to the protection of the applicant’s personality rights than to the company’s right to freedom of expression regarding an advertisement which was essentially humorous in nature and pursued commercial aims. 14. As regards the pecuniary damage sustained, the Regional Court pointed out that the aim of a “notional licence” was to ensure that anyone using someone else’s personality without permission would not be in a more advantageous position than if he or she had obtained the person’s consent. It explained that the cost of such a licence was determined on the basis of the amount of a fee that would have been reasonable (angemessen). Having regard in particular to the applicant’s high profile, the billboards and advertising media used, and the fact that the advertisement had only used the applicant’s forenames, the Regional Court assessed the pecuniary damage at EUR 60,000. It also awarded the applicant the costs incurred in serving the official notice because they had resulted from the actions of the company and the agency. 15. On the other hand, the Regional Court did not award the applicant compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on the ground that there had been no serious interference with the protection of his personality rights. It emphasised that the applicant had struck the cameraman in public and that the advertisement had simply referred back to that event. Furthermore, the fact that the advertisement was merely derisive meant that there was no unavoidable need (unabwendbares Bedürfnis) to award pecuniary compensation, and the award of a notional licence should be deemed sufficient redress. 16. On 15 May 2007 the Hamburg Court of Appeal upheld most of the Regional Court’s judgment, varying it solely as regards the order for the company to reimburse the costs incurred in serving the official notice. 17. The Court of Appeal observed that the company and the agency had interfered with the applicant’s right to his own name without his permission. In that context, it pointed out that even though the advertisement had only used the applicant’s forenames, those names were well known to the general public because of the relationship between the applicant and the daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco and the repeated press reports on the applicant’s altercations in 1998 and 2000. It further noted that the company had derived a pecuniary advantage from using the applicant’s forenames. In cases such as the present one, where the impugned advertisement was designed to enhance the recognition and sales of a brand of cigarettes, freedom of expression generally took second place to the protection of personality rights. The Court of Appeal considered that the impugned advertisement had made very little contribution, if any, to shaping public opinion, that the applicant’s scuffles had been neither a political nor a societal event, and that the incidents had only been exploited for the purpose of entertaining a general public curious about the behaviour of famous people. 18. The Court of Appeal further pointed out that the impugned advertisement had infringed the pecuniary aspect of the right to protection of personality rights by depriving the applicant of his right to make his own choice as to whether and how his name could be used for advertising purposes. Clearly, the advertisement had not given the impression that the applicant identified with the product advertised or that he recommended it, nor was it offensive or degrading in nature, but with the sole aim of increasing sales of a brand of cigarettes it publicly mocked the applicant by suggesting that he even crumpled up cigarette packets. 19. As regards the cost of the notional licence, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the unauthorised use of a person’s name for commercial purposes was tantamount to unlawfully using a person’s image and infringed the pecuniary aspect of the right to protection of personality rights. It held that in using the applicant’s name without his consent the company and the agency had shown that they had attached economic importance to that name. The company and the agency were therefore under an obligation to pay the applicant the amount corresponding to the use of his name, and this obligation existed irrespective of whether the person in question would have been prepared to consent or not. 20. The Court of Appeal further stated that the cost of the notional licence had to be freely determined on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. It noted that the particular feature of the impugned advertisement was that it mocked the applicant, which made it unlikely that the applicant would have authorised it. However, it considered that the amount of the fees agreed between advertising companies and famous people who consented to the use their names might provide an indication for determining the cost of the notional licence. It noted in that connection that the company was one of the largest tobacco companies in Germany and that the impugned advertisement had been part of a very successful advertising campaign which the company had launched in 1989. The advertisement in question had taken up a full page in several national magazines and also, from 27 March 2000 onwards, in the form of posters at bus stops and other busy locations. Lastly, emphasising that the applicant was a well-known figure, it found that the advertising campaign had indeed attracted extensive public attention, thus justifying the award made by the Regional Court. 21. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on points of law, on the grounds that the question whether the use of a famous person’s name for advertising purposes was justified where the advertisement referred to an event in contemporary history which was of no, or virtually no, interest except from an entertainment perspective had not yet been determined by the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, and that a decision was required from that court in order to develop and maintain a standard line of authority. 22. In a judgment of 5 June 2008 (no. I ZR 96/07) the Federal Court of Justice quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It held that the applicant’s claims were ill-founded because the company and the agency had not unlawfully interfered with his right to protection of personality rights or his right to his name, given that the use of his name in the impugned advertisement was covered by the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 5 § 1 of the Basic Law (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). While upholding the findings of the Court of Appeal as regards the existence of an interference and the possibility of granting a notional licence in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment, the Federal Court of Justice held that the Court of Appeal had not had sufficient regard to the fact that the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights and the right to one’s name were only protected by ordinary law, whereas freedom of expression enjoyed protection under constitutional law. 23. The Federal Court of Justice explained at the outset that the case before it related solely to interference with the pecuniary components of the rights relied upon, since the applicant’s contention that the advertisement had also infringed the non-pecuniary components of his rights had already been dismissed by the Regional Court. It pointed out that the rights to protection of personality rights were among the fundamental rights safeguarded by the Basic Law to the extent that they protected non-pecuniary interests, but that the pecuniary components were only protected by civil law and therefore did not prevail over freedom of expression. The Federal Court also observed that the protection conferred by Article 5 § 1 of the Basic Law also covered advertising whose content contributed to shaping public opinion, while specifying that that was not only the case where the advertisement referred to a political or historical event, but also where it dealt with questions of general interest. Furthermore, reports with an entertainment purpose could also play a role in shaping public opinion, or indeed, in certain circumstances, could stimulate or influence the shaping of public opinion more effectively than strictly factual information. 24. The Federal Court of Justice noted that the impugned advertisement provided a satirical, derisive slant on the applicant’s scuffles outside his “Gut Calenberg” property and on Lamu Island. The media had reported on these events, mentioning the applicant’s name and publishing photographs of him, because there was a particular public interest in information about the incidents on account of the applicant’s relationship with the daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. The Federal Court of Justice considered that even though the company had merely alluded to the applicant’s scuffles as part of its advertising campaign, it could still rely on the specific protection of freedom of expression. It held that the fact that the advertisement – by using the applicant’s forenames and alluding to his propensity for picking fights – had been mainly intended to increase sales of the cigarette brand by capturing the attention of the general public did not mean, as the Court of Appeal had maintained, that the right to protection of personality rights prevailed in general. 25. The Federal Court of Justice continued as follows: “In weighing up the competing interests the Court of Appeal failed to take adequate account of the fact that the only issue at stake in this case was the protection of the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights, such protection being based solely on civil law and not constitutional law. In the case of interference with the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights because a well-known person’s name has been used in an advertisement without his consent, it cannot simply (ohne weiteres) be maintained that the person’s right to protection of his personality rights will always prevail over the advertiser’s right to freedom of expression. On the contrary, it might be appropriate to tolerate an interference with protection of personality rights resulting from reference to a person’s name if, on the one hand, the advertisement alludes in a derisive, satirical manner to an event involving the person and forming the subject of public debate and if, on the other hand, it does not exploit the person’s brand image (Imagewert) or advertising value (Werbewert) by using his name, and if it does not give the impression that the person identifies with the product advertised or advocates its use (reference to the Federal Court of Justice judgment of 26 October 2006, no. I ZR 182/04).” 26. The Federal Court of Justice held that the impugned advertisement had not given such an impression. It had merely served as a reminder of the applicant’s scuffles for anyone who already knew about them, while anyone who had never heard of those events would have been unable to understand the play on words, especially since the incidents had not been actually mentioned but had been hinted at in a particularly clever (pfiffig) way. The Federal Court of Justice therefore took the view that the advertisement had been part of the public debate on the applicant’s aggressive attitude. Above and beyond the derisive, satirical allusion to the events already known to the public, it had been devoid of any offensive or seriously degrading content in relation to the applicant. Given the absence of any suggestion that the applicant identified in any way with the product advertised, there were no grounds for considering that the advertisement was disparaging towards him simply because it was promoting cigarettes. The Federal Court of Justice concluded that the applicant’s interest in not being mentioned in the advertisement without his consent carried less weight than the tobacco company’s freedom of expression, and that in the absence of a violation of the pecuniary or non-pecuniary components of his right to protection of his personality rights, the applicant could not claim an entitlement to a notional licence or to reimbursement of the costs incurred in serving the official notice. 27. On 6 April 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept for adjudication a constitutional complaint by the applicant (no. 1 BvR 3141/08). It provided no reasons for its decision. ...

7. The applicant was born in 1961. 8. In March 1994 the applicant was suspected by police officers in the Cambridge Constabulary of involvement in robbery. The view was taken by the Cambridgeshire Regional Crime Squad that it was necessary to place a hidden battery-powered listening and recording device in the applicant’s home. An application was therefore made to the Chief Constable for the instalment of such a device, which was authorised on 21 June 1994, pursuant to the non-statutory Home Office Guidelines of 1984. 9. In order to install the device, the police decided to arrest the applicant and his partner in connection with another matter (credit card fraud) and to remove them and their children from their home. Enquiries into the credit card fraud had previously lapsed without any arrest or questioning of the applicant or his partner. However, DC Harrison of the Regional Crime Squad and WDC Fletcher, an officer in the intelligence bureau of the Cambridgeshire County Constabulary, decided to revive the investigation for the purpose of removing the applicant and his partner from their home for long enough to enable the installation of the listening device. 10. WDC Fletcher briefed three officers about purported grounds for arresting the applicant and his partner for credit card fraud, without informing them of the intended installation of the device. 11. At 6.15 a.m. on 8 July 1994 the three officers arrested the applicant’s partner in her home and shortly thereafter arrested the applicant. Both were taken to the police station. The officers seized the keys to the applicant’s home and car. Officers from the Regional Crime Squad then used the house key to enter the applicant’s home and install the listening device. They also had a copy of the key cut to enable them to enter the house at a later date. 12. The applicant and his partner were released from police custody on the evening of 8 July 1994 after being interviewed. Neither was charged, but both were released on police bail and required to report back to the police station on 24 August 1994. The applicant’s keys to his home and car were returned to him. 13. On 24 August 1994 the applicant and his partner attended the police station in accordance with their bail and were interviewed again. Neither was charged at that time or subsequently with credit card fraud. During their interview police officers entered their home using the duplicate key in order to renew the battery in the listening device. 14. During September 1994, police officers again entered the applicant’s home to renew the battery in the listening device. 15. As a result of conversations that were recorded between the applicant and J, his co-defendant in the criminal proceedings, both men were arrested in September 1994. They were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary between 1 January 1993 and 9 December 1994. 16. The trial was at Peterborough Crown Court in October 1996. An application was made, in a voir dire procedure, on behalf of the defendants for the tape recorded evidence to be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the basis that it had been obtained unlawfully and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This application was rejected by the trial judge on 24 October 1996. The judge found that the officers who carried out the arrests on 8 July 1994 did have reasonable grounds for suspecting those whom they arrested and that if further information had arisen at the interviews or from the other enquiries which were carried out it was possible that charges would have been brought for those matters. He did find that the removal of the applicant’s keys was in breach of the search and seizure requirements of PACE, that the taking and use of the house key constituted a civil wrong, that there was a trespass to the applicant’s home and that minor criminal damage had taken place. However, balancing the various factors, including the fact that the tape-recordings amounted to confessions of serious crimes involving the possible use of firearms, that there was no suggestion of improper inducement or incitement to commit the offences and that there was no dispute about the content of the conversations, the judge ruled the evidence admissible. 17. As a result of the ruling on admissibility, the applicant and his co-defendant changed their pleas to guilty. They were each sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 18. On 18 December 1997, after being granted leave to appeal, the applicant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (R. v. Chalkley and Jeffries [1998] 2 All ER 155). On 15 June 1998 the House of Lords refused the applicant’s petition for leave to appeal. In early 2001, the applicant was released on licence.

5. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Chişinău. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. The preliminary results of those elections were announced on 6 April 2009. According to them, the ruling Communist Party of Moldova had narrowly won the elections. 8. On 6 April 2009 growing discontent with the results of the elections and with alleged electoral fraud was felt, notably in various online forums. At 6 p.m. several hundred people, mostly young, gathered in front of the Stephen the Great (Ştefan cel Mare) monument in the centre of Chişinău. Half an hour later there were already 3-4,000 people assembled, who began to protest against the alleged electoral fraud, doing so in front of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings and then returning to the Great National Assembly Square. A bigger demonstration was then announced for 10 a.m. the next day. 9. On 7 April 2009 the protest restarted with the participation of some 5‑6,000 people. While the demonstration was peaceful at the beginning, several hundred of the participants gradually became violent. As established by the subsequently created parliamentary inquiry commission tasked with the elucidation of the causes and consequences of the events following the general elections held on 5 April 2009 in Moldova (“the Commission”), two incidents of poorly planned intervention by a fire truck and riot police brought the crowd to a point beyond which massive violent acts could no longer be prevented. Following violent attacks and stone throwing, which met very weak police resistance, approximately 250 violent protesters were eventually able to take over the lower floors of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings. They looted those floors and set the canteen in the Presidential Palace alight. During the night, several fires broke out in the Parliament building, some of them breaking out after full control over the building was recovered by the authorities at around 11 p.m. 10. At approximately 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 various police and special forces units started a massive operation aimed at re-establishing public order. However, as established by the Commission, excessive force was used and all those still present in the main square were arrested, regardless of whether they had acted violently or not. The arrests continued for several days. The media reported cases and showed video footage of young people being arrested and/or beaten by both uniformed police and plain-clothed officers in the city centre during 8 April and thereafter, long after the protests ended on the evening of 7 April 2009. 11. According to the applicant, on 7 April 2009 he and his friend S. went to the centre of Chişinău to see the protests. 12. Having spent some time peacefully attending the protests, they stopped a taxi with the intention of returning home. However, they were forced into the taxi by three plain-clothed police officers who did not identify themselves. The officers ordered the driver to drive to Botanica police station. The applicant and S. were taken to that police station and locked in a cell which was cold, unfurnished and lacked access to daylight. 13. At around 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 an officer in police uniform entered the cell. He was accompanied by the three arresting officers, who started beating the applicant and S. for no reason. The applicant lost consciousness and woke up with blood running from his nose and upper lip. No medical help was given to him. 14. According to the record of the applicant’s arrest, he was arrested on 8 April 2009 at 2 p.m. The reason indicated in the record was that he had been “caught in the act and the investigating authority suspects that he may abscond”. No further details were given. 15. On 8 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility of the General Police Directorate (“the GPD”), where he was held together with ten other people in a cell measuring 5 x 4 metres, was given meagre quantities of inedible food and was denied water. The cell lacked access to daylight and ventilation. According to the Government, the applicant was examined by a prison doctor on 8 April 2009. No signs of ill-treatment were noted. 16. On 10 April 2009 an investigating judge from the Buiucani District Court, Judge M. D., accepted a prosecutor’s request to order the applicant’s detention pending trial for thirty days. The hearing took place at the GPD’s premises. On the same night, the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13. On the way there, he was allegedly made to pass through a “death corridor” formed of police officers, each of whom hit him as he passed by. 17. On 16 April 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the investigating judge’s decision of 10 April 2009 and ordered the applicant’s release. 18. According to the Government, the applicant was not ill-treated during his detention or his transfers to other detention facilities. Despite being assisted by a lawyer, he made no complaints of such ill-treatment until several days later. 19. On 14 April 2009 the applicant complained to the Botanica prosecutor’s office of his ill-treatment. He made a similar complaint to the military prosecutor’s office on 15 May 2009, describing in detail his ill-treatment and the conditions of his detention. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and noted that he had not received any reply to his complaint of 14 April 2009. The stamps present on his complaint of 14 April 2009 reveal that the case file was received by the military prosecutor’s office on 21 April 2009. 20. Also on 14 April 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found an abrasion on his face which had formed a scab and a bruise accompanying an abrasion on his upper lip on the right side, which were considered to be injuries that had not caused damage to his health. According to the applicant, he was not told to take off his clothes, and for this reason the doctor did not establish the presence of other injuries, notably on his back. 21. In a report dated 30 April 2009 the military prosecutor dealing with the applicant’s complaint noted that requests had been made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (without specifying the nature of the requests) but that no answer had been received. In the absence of such materials no decision as to next steps could be made. The prosecutor therefore asked for an extension of the period for finalising the case until 15 May 2009. This request was granted. 22. On 15 May 2009 the same prosecutor noted that on 5 May 2009 the Ministry of Internal Affairs had been asked to carry out an internal investigation to identify the officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. As no officers from Botanica police station had been heard, the prosecutor asked for an extension of the period for finalising the case until 29 May 2009. This request was granted. 23. On 29 May 2009 the same prosecutor noted that an action plan had been made in order to verify the circumstances of the case. The applicant and his friend S. had been heard. The officers who were on duty at Botanica police station on 8 April 2009 were still to be heard. In such circumstances, the prosecutor asked for an extension of the period for finalising the case until 12 June 2009. This request was granted. 24. On 12 June 2009 the military prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. He noted that S. had not confirmed having been ill-treated or having seen the applicant being ill-treated. All the police officers had denied any wrongdoing and the officer on guard had denied that anyone had entered the applicant’s cell during the night of 7 April 2009. That officer had not seen any injuries on the applicant’s body when the applicant had returned from his interview with the investigators concerning his alleged participation in mass disorder on 7 April 2009. The three officers who had arrested the applicant (R.P., E.G. and V.T.) stated that they had brought him and S. to Botanica police station and had then returned to the centre of Chişinău, where they had guarded Government buildings until 7 a.m. on 8 April 2009. They had not returned to the police station and had not entered any cells there. Moreover, according to a report concerning a medical examination of the applicant on 8 April 2009, no injuries had been noted on the applicant’s body. The prosecutor considered that the injuries on the applicant’s face could have been caused during his participation in the riots in the centre of Chişinău. 25. By letter dated 16 July 2009 the military prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the decision taken on 12 June 2009. 26. On 20 August 2009 the applicant complained about the prosecutor’s decision to the military prosecutor’s office. He noted that he had been in police custody between 7 and 16 April 2009 and that his injuries had appeared during that period. Moreover, none of the arresting officers had noted any injuries on his body at the time of his arrest. He noted the discrepancies between the two medical reports of 8 and 14 April 2009 and called into question the professionalism and independence of the doctor who had filed the report of the examination on 8 April 2009. He also noted that S. was a former police officer and might have given a statement in support of his former colleagues, either out of solidarity with them or after having been threatened. The applicant referred to his complaint, in which he had noted that he could identify the people who had ill-treated him, but that no identity parade had been organised to verify his claim in that regard. 27. On 21 August 2009 the military prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The prosecutor referred to S.’s statement that he had not seen any ill-treatment occurring. 28. On 10 September 2009 the applicant complained to the Buiucani District Court about the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings. He considered that the investigation had been protracted, given that his complaint of 14 April 2009 had reached the military prosecutor’s office only a week later. Having received no response to his complaint, he had made another complaint on 15 May 2009. After a decision had been taken on 12 June 2009 – two months after his initial complaint – not to initiate a criminal investigation, he had been informed of it another month later. The applicant repeated his arguments made in his complaint of 20 August 2009 and added that the prosecution had not ordered any additional medical examination in order to dispel the doubts concerning the discrepancies between the medical reports of 8 and 14 April 2009. The applicant also noted that he had been undergoing a series of extensive medical examinations which would confirm his ill-treatment. 29. On 21 September 2009 the Memoria Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and a member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), issued an Extract of the medical file (Extras din Fişa Medicală) concerning the applicant’s examination during the period 22 April – 1 June 2009. He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. According to the document, the applicant had suffered, inter alia, the consequences of a head injury including intracranial hypertension syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, which had had both physical and psychological effects on him. The document was submitted to the Buiucani District Court. 30. On 29 September 2009 the Buiucani District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. It found that the prosecutor had interviewed all those concerned and noted that S. had not confirmed the applicant’s allegations. The prosecutors’ decisions having been adopted in full compliance with the law, there was no reason to quash the decisions taken. 31. On 12 January 2010 the Supreme Council of Magistrates (“the Council”) refused to extend the appointment of Judge M. D. of the Buiucani District Court, following which he was dismissed from his position as a judge by the acting President of Moldova. The reason for the Council’s decision was that the judge had examined a number of cases concerning the events of 7 April 2009 outside the courtroom and at the premises of the General Police Directorate, which was “a grave violation of the Constitution and of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. 32. On 4 February 2010 the criminal case against the applicant was discontinued for lack of evidence that he had committed a crime. 33. The relevant parts of the report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Moldova from 25 to 28 April 2009, read as follows: “... Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg and his delegation visited Moldova two and a half weeks after the post-electoral demonstrations of 6-7 April 2009. The specific issue of the treatment of the people detained in relation to the events was the central focus of the Commissioner’s attention. The majority of the persons interviewed by the Commissioner’s delegation, who had been arrested in connection with the April 2009 post-electoral demonstrations, alleged that they had been beaten – some of them severely - by police officers. In several cases, the medical expert accompanying the Commissioner directly observed physical marks consistent with those allegations. Moreover, the medical files in the establishments visited contained records of injuries which were consistent with the persons’ accounts. ... Representatives of the Moldovan authorities accepted that police had abused their powers in the aftermath of the protests when dealing with persons deprived of their liberty, and expressed their resolve to overcome the problem of ill-treatment by the police. It was strongly underlined by the Commissioner that such large-scale violations of the fundamental right to be free of ill-treatment must never be allowed to recur, and that active steps must be taken to pursue accountability whenever individual cases of ill-treatment emerge... ... 10. The Minister of the Interior informed the Commissioner that 106 people were detained in the aftermath of the 6-7 April 2009 demonstrations on suspicion that they had committed criminal offences. Nine of those persons were still in custody as of 28 April 2009, remanded in Prison No. 13, an institution under the authority of the Ministry of Justice. Moreover, 216 people, including ten young women, had been detained on administrative charges related to the events in question; all of those persons had been released by the time of the Commissioner’s visit. 11. Based on the information at the Commissioner’s disposal, the persons apprehended in the aftermath of the demonstrations were brought to one of the following police establishments in Chisinau: the General Police Directorate, or the Centru (Centre), Botanica, Ciocana, Rîşcani and Buiucani district police stations. People who were initially detained in one of the district police stations were then transferred to the detention facility at the General Police Directorate. 12. The Commissioner received no complaints regarding the treatment of persons in Prison No. 13. However, the majority of the persons interviewed by the Commissioner’s delegation, who had been arrested in connection with the April 2009 post-electoral demonstrations, alleged that they had been physically ill-treated by police officers. In most cases, the persons who were subjected to the alleged ill-treatment were relatively young (under 25). As the Prosecutor General has himself observed, the alleged ill-treatment broadly related to three different situations: 1) at the time of apprehension; 2) during transport to a detention facility; and 3) ill-treatment within the detention facility, including during questioning with the objective of extracting a confession.[1] 13. The physical ill-treatment alleged included punches, kicks and blows with rubber batons, wooden sticks, the butts of firearms, or other blunt and hard objects. Certain persons claimed that the ill-treatment was sufficiently severe or prolonged so as to make them lose consciousness at least once and/or to result in fractures or permanent nerve damage. Many persons also alleged that they had been threatened with physical violence or even with summary execution, verbally abused, and/or subjected to humiliating treatment... 14. According to the Minister of Justice, of the 111 persons admitted to Prison No. 13 following a period of deprivation of liberty by the police, 28 persons displayed various degrees of injuries. The Minister of the Interior informed the Commissioner that, as of 28 April 2009, 54 complaints concerning ill-treatment were being processed. The Prosecutor General indicated that his office had received 37 complaints as of that date, and that investigations in 30 further cases had been initiated ex officio. In addition, one criminal prosecution had been initiated. 15. In several cases, the medical expert accompanying the Commissioner directly observed physical marks consistent with allegations of ill-treatment, despite the fact that more than two weeks had elapsed since the time the alleged ill-treatment occurred. Moreover, the files studied by the Commissioner’s medical expert contained records of injuries which were consistent with the accounts of physical ill-treatment given by the persons who had been in police custody. For instance, the records in the Emergency Hospital in Chisinau revealed that 115 persons had sought medical attention during the relevant period because of injuries they sustained due to use of force by the police. Of those, 24 had to be hospitalised because of severe injuries, including concussions, contusions of the kidneys, fractured limbs or ribs, and/or multiple soft tissue injuries... 22. In contrast to the prison and hospital medical records, the Commissioner’s medical expert observed that the records of injuries kept in the detention facility at the General Police Directorate in Chisinau were extremely cursory and superficial. The explanation given for this was that the feldsher (paramedic) employed in that facility was not a forensic doctor. These deficiencies in the recording of injuries in police establishments have already been highlighted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in the report on the Committee’s 2007 visit to Moldova. ...The CPT made a detailed recommendation on screening for injuries of persons within 24 hours of their admission to a police detention facility outside the presence of police officers, and on the imperative to record any injuries in a thorough manner. If the injuries recorded are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment, they should immediately be brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutor and an examination should be ordered by a recognised forensic doctor. In the interests of preventing ill-treatment, the Commissioner strongly urges the Moldovan authorities to provide for proper screening, recording and reporting of injuries, in light of the CPT’s recommendations on this subject. ... 24. ... representatives of the Consultative Council for the Prevention of Torture (the National Preventive Mechanism under the UN OPCAT) were reportedly prevented on 11 April 2009 from visiting certain police establishments in Chisinau where persons were being held, including the General Police Directorate and the Centru District Police Station. 25. The Commissioner received many complaints about the conditions of detention in police establishments following the large-scale arrests; most of these involved reports of serious overcrowding, very poor hygiene, lighting and ventilation, as well as the lack of provision of food, clean bedding, and personal hygiene or sanitary items. As already noted, the Commissioner only visited one police detention facility, i.e. the one at the General Police Directorate in Chisinau. The Commissioner observed that the material conditions in the cells were poor, with very dim lighting and bad ventilation; in general, the conditions corresponded quite closely to the descriptions provided by the persons who had been held in those cells. As for the issue of overcrowding, it was confirmed by the staff that the capacity of the establishment was exceeded during the dates in question. ... 39. It is of great concern to the Commissioner that a large number of the more than three hundred persons – certain of whom were minors - arrested in the context of or following the protests were subjected to ill-treatment by the police, some of it severe. ... 45. The Commissioner’s official interlocutors accepted that police had abused their powers in the aftermath of the protests when dealing with persons deprived of their liberty. The Commissioner underlined strongly that such large-scale violations of the fundamental right to be protected from ill-treatment must never be allowed to recur, and that active steps must be taken to pursue accountability whenever individual cases of ill-treatment emerge. 46. The Prosecutor General stated that he will investigate each case brought to his attention and also take initiatives himself upon information indicative of ill-treatment even in the absence of a complaint. According to him, special prosecutors which have not had working relations with police departments implicated in the events were being assigned to the cases.” 34. The relevant part of the report of the visit to Moldova carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) from 27 to 31 July 2009 read as follows: “3. The main purpose of the visit was to assess the manner in which investigations were being carried out into cases possibly involving ill-treatment by the police in the context of post-election events in April 2009 in Chişinău. The visit also provided an opportunity to review the treatment of persons detained by the police. In the course of April 2009, the CPT received reports from various sources according to which, following the parliamentary elections of 5 April 2009, hundreds of persons had been apprehended by the police after violent incidents occurred during public protests in front of the Presidency, Parliament and Government buildings in Chişinău. Those reports referred to severe physical ill-treatment at the time of apprehension, during transportation and/or during subsequent police custody. The Committee also received information indicating that some persons had died as a result of police action on 7-8 April 2009. ... 10. During the 2009 visit, the delegation observed that the practice of holding remand prisoners in police temporary detention facilities (izolatoare de detenţie preventivă, abbreviated “IDP”) continued unabated. In the report on the 2007 visit, the CPT called upon the Moldovan authorities to give the highest priority to the implementation of the decision to transfer the responsibility for persons remanded in custody to the Ministry of Justice. In response, the Ministry of Internal Affairs indicated that it was in favour of a temporary transfer of responsibility for IDPs to the Ministry of Justice, pending the building of pre-trial establishments under the latter Ministry’s authority. However, at the end of the 2009 visit, the Minister of Justice indicated that the responsibility for the IDPs could not be taken over by his Ministry because conditions of detention in these facilities were substandard. The CPT shares the view that IDPs do not offer suitable conditions for holding persons remanded in custody. The Committee would nevertheless like to stress that, in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, the sooner a criminal suspect passes into the hands of a custodial authority which is functionally and institutionally separate from the police, the better. The delegation’s findings from the 2009 visit support that; most cases of alleged police ill-treatment in the context of the April events had emerged only after the persons concerned had been transferred to an establishment under the Ministry of Justice or released. ... ... 12. In the course of the 2009 visit, the CPT’s delegation heard a remarkably large number of credible and consistent allegations of police ill-treatment in the context of the post-election events in April 2009. Many persons interviewed referred to the remarks made by police staff, which suggested that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted in retaliation for acts of violence against the police during the day of 7 April. ... 14. The delegation also heard numerous accounts, from women, men and juveniles alike, of physical ill-treatment whilst in police custody in the course of 8 April and/or during the following days. Most persons interviewed who had not been released shortly after apprehension complained of repeated or prolonged beatings during the initial questioning by operational police officers or between interrogation sessions (e.g. kicks and blows with a truncheon or with a plastic bottle filled with water). The delegation also heard widespread allegations of threats of physical ill-treatment (including rape) and killing during the initial police questioning. The persons interviewed referred not only to the retaliatory nature of the alleged ill-treatment, but also claimed that it was aimed at extracting statements from them. Many persons interviewed also alleged that they had been hit with truncheons and kicked when going through a “corridor” of police officers before entering a police establishment or transfer. Further, the delegation received a few allegations of ill-treatment by custodial staff (e.g. kicks) upon admission to the IDP of the General Police Directorate in Chişinău. 15. Most of the above allegations were supported by forensic or other medical evidence. In some cases, the competent prosecuting authorities considered that the ill-treatment alleged was such that it could amount to torture ... The CPT shares this view. Moreover, the above findings lead the Committee to the conclusion that, rather than isolated incidents, there were patterns of alleged ill-treatment. ... 22. In its previous visit report, the CPT stressed that effective screening for injuries by health-care staff can make a significant contribution to the prevention of ill-treatment of persons detained by the police, and it made a series of recommendations designed to improve the procedures followed by feldshers working in IDPs. During the 2009 visit, the delegation observed the same shortcomings as those identified in the past. There were undue delays in the examination of newly admitted detainees (i.e. of up to several days). The screening for injuries was generally superficial and was routinely carried out in the presence of custodial or operational staff, and a copy of the report drawn up following an examination was accessible to police staff. Not surprisingly, the injuries sustained by detained persons in the context of the April 2009 events had frequently been detected and/or recorded only after release or transfer to a penitentiary establishment. In contrast, the screening for injuries on arrival at Penitentiary establishment No. 13 in Chişinău was generally of a better standard: newly arrived remand prisoners were examined by prison health-care staff shortly after admission and reports describing injuries observed during medical screening were forwarded to the prosecuting authorities. However, the recording of injuries was not fully satisfactory: in a number of instances, the description of lesions was succinct and the records rarely contained the prisoners’ accounts as to the origin of their injuries. ... 28. ... A new system of free legal assistance for indigent criminal suspects came into operation in mid-2008, following the entry into force of the Law on Legal Aid of 26 July 2007. However, a considerable number of detained persons interviewed by the delegation complained about the quality of ex officio lawyers. The inaction of certain ex officio lawyers during the April 2009 events when their clients displayed visible injuries or alleged ill-treatment provoked scepticism about their independence from the police and the prosecuting authorities. 29. The right of persons in police custody to have access to a doctor (including to one of their own choice), is still not expressly guaranteed by law... Many persons who were in police custody in the context of the April 2009 events complained that, despite repeated requests for independent medical assistance, they had been refused such assistance. In some cases, police staff allegedly denied access to a doctor in order to obtain a confession or other statement from the injured detained persons concerned. Further, it appeared in a few cases of persons who had presented visible injuries that medical care had not been provided to them on the grounds that they had not specifically requested it. Such situations not only deprive detained persons of a safeguard which can play a significant role in the prevention of ill-treatment, but it may also have serious repercussions on the health of persons in police custody. Clearly, access to an independent doctor should not be left to the discretion of police officers. ... 40. Control of police establishments by public prosecutors has been reinforced over the years since the first CPT visit to Moldova in 1998. Shortly after the post-election events in April 2009, prosecutors paid visits to police detention facilities. The delegation was informed that they had received and processed a number of complaints of ill-treatment in the context of such inspections. However, most persons met by the delegation who had been detained at the time claimed that, before such visits, they had been warned by police staff not to make any complaints to the visiting prosecutors. Further, prosecutors were apparently accompanied by police staff and did not seek to have private interviews with detained persons. ... 43. ... In the aftermath of the April events, a number of persons met by the delegation had been interviewed in private by members of the [Consultative Council for the Prevention of Torture[2]] while in detention. ... Further, between 9 and 23 April 2009, on eight occasions, members of the Council had reportedly not been able to carry out their tasks; denial of access (on 9 and 11 April), delays in access (of up to two hours) and refusal to allow them to consult custody registers were among the major problems encountered. Police officers met by the delegation excused the problems of access by a lack of information, in particular as regards the composition of the Council. 44. In short, the post-election period in April 2009 had been a litmus test of the ability of independent visiting bodies to carry out their functions effectively. However, the delegation’s findings suggest that there had been serious shortcomings in their operation. ... 61. The CPT recognises that the high number of cases possibly involving police ill-treatment in relation to the April events constituted a significant challenge for the prosecuting authorities in carrying out their task. However, this should have prompted them to adopt a more proactive and holistic approach, with a particular emphasis on establishing a timeline of the incidents, including all the police officers involved, and all the alleged victims, potential witnesses and outside professionals (e.g. medical staff). Indeed, many complaints and other information indicative of ill-treatment consistently referred to the same incidents, at the same locations, with the same patterns of alleged ill-treatment and, possibly, the same police officers involved. It is clearly a flawed approach to carry out individual investigations into such cases while treating them as unrelated episodes and without proper co-ordination. ... 63. In almost all the cases examined at the time of the visit, the action taken had still not led to the identification of the perpetrators of alleged ill-treatment and/or any officials who may have condoned or encouraged it. Prosecutors met by the delegation explained this situation by the impossibility in most cases to identify suspects because police officers were wearing balaclavas, or the fact that the position of the victims did not allow them to see the police officers allegedly inflicting blows. However, it clearly appeared during the 2009 visit that no steps had been taken by the prosecuting authorities in a number of cases where victims indicated that they would recognise the police officers involved in the alleged ill-treatment... Further, key information that could have led to the identification of potential suspects and witnesses among members of the BPDS “Fulger” (such as apprehension reports) had not yet been examined in the context of investigations into alleged ill-treatment; by contrast, such information was being reviewed by prosecutors investigating mass disorder and usurpation of power on 7 April 2009. It is also noteworthy that the responsibility of senior Internal Affairs officials and police officers was not being addressed by the prosecutors dealing with cases of alleged ill-treatment; in the CPT’s view, the fact that such an important issue was being dealt with by prosecutors investigating mass disorder and usurpation of power could seriously undermine the impartiality of any investigative action taken in this respect. 66. When investigating cases possibly involving ill-treatment, the prosecuting authorities do not have an obligation of result; however, they are under an obligation to take appropriate investigative action. Efforts had generally been made by the prosecuting authorities to react to allegations of police ill-treatment in relation to the April 2009 events, even in the absence of a formal complaint, when this had been brought to their attention. However, the above findings suggest that in many cases the competent prosecutors had not taken all reasonable steps in good time to secure evidence and had failed to make genuine efforts to identify those responsible. It should also be stressed that many alleged victims interviewed by the delegation, including those who had not yet lodged official complaints, as well as their lawyers, expressed a general lack of confidence in the capability and determination of the prosecuting authorities, including military prosecutors, to carry out effective investigations into cases of police ill-treatment. In the CPT’s view, if a police complaints mechanism is to enjoy public confidence, it should not only be independent but should be seen to be independent of the police. In their letter of 26 October 2009, the Moldovan authorities informed the Committee that, following the visit, the prosecuting authorities “moved to other investigation tactics”, placing a particular emphasis on the accountability of senior police officers for their actions or lack of action...” 35. The relevant parts of the Report of the parliamentary inquiry commission tasked with the elucidation of the causes and consequences of the events following the general elections held on 5 April 2009 in Moldova (“the Commission”) read as follows: “IV. 2.1.1. Number and profile of detainees ... in accordance with the registers held by [establishments belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairs], 571 individuals were arrested on 7-12 April 2009. ... [The] majority of these individuals were arrested on 7-9 April 2009. In addition, an analysis of various detention records and other data provided by the State authorities revealed that the arrest of almost 70 people had not been reflected in the detention centre records. In a number of cases, the registers did not reflect that the detainee had been taken to hospital due to [his or her] injuries suffered. Many of the entries as to the reason for the arrest made during 7-12 April 2009 noted simply “from Stephen the Great (Ştefan cel Mare) St.”, “from Parliament”, “from the Presidential Palace”, “near Government [offices]” or even “for clarification” and “from office no. ...” (probably the office number in the relevant police station from which the detainee had been transferred) without any further details. Even though the authorities declared that 274 police and other officers had been injured during the events of 7 April 2009, only three people were arrested for causing such injuries, most others being accused of minor hooliganism and refusing to obey or insulting the police. The Commission concluded that “the simple presence of people in the perimeter of the [relevant few] streets and buildings amounted to ‘sufficient grounds’ for arresting [them] and bringing them to the police stations.” The Commission found that “all the concerns expressed by international organisations, the media, NGOs and society as a whole concerning the inadequate and disproportionate actions of the police after the events of April 2009 have been fully justified. Most people were detained by the police arbitrarily, in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime; the operative services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have failed to identify the people who committed violent acts against their own colleagues from the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the police committed ill-treatment and acts of torture against individuals held in detention and allowed serious violations of procedural rights guaranteed by the Constitution...” IV. 2.2. Actions of the courts For the first time in the modern history of the Republic of Moldova, cases against detainees whom the police suspected of having committed administrative or criminal offences connected with the 7 April events were examined inside police sections. ... M. D., a former investigating Judge of the Buiucani District Court, [stated to the Commission that he] only examined cases concerning administrative offences on 10 April 2009 at the GPD, between approximately 13:00 and 16:40. [He] examined nine cases at the GPD... Nobody complained of ill-treatment and neither did their lawyers. Moreover, no signs of ill-treatment were apparent.” The Commission also drew up statistical data, according to which the judges accepted 80% of all the requests made by the prosecutors for the ordering of the detention of individuals accused of various criminal offences in relation to the April 2009 events. Of the total of 148 such requests, 88% were examined outside courtrooms, and a majority of such cases were examined on the GPD’s premises. According to the data in the Commission’s possession, Judge M. D. examined 15 cases on 10 April 2009 at the GPD. He accepted all the prosecutor’s requests, spending between 22 and 30 minutes on each case. Most of the decisions taken by each investigating judge in the cases connected with the April 2009 events were virtually identical. Of the 60 appeals lodged by defence lawyers against the decisions remanding their clients, 95% were accepted by the Court of Appeal and the detainees were either released or subjected to preventive measures not involving detention. All the judges who had examined cases connected with the April 2009 events declared to the Commission that they had not seen any evident signs of ill-treatment on the persons brought before them. Only in one case had a detainee and his lawyer complained of ill-treatment. The Commission noted the discrepancy of these statements with the statements of a number of victims, who had allegedly complained of ill-treatment to the judges, to no avail. According to a reply from the Prosecutor General’s Office, 105 complaints were received concerning alleged ill-treatment by the police during 7 and 8 April 2009. Following medical examinations in respect of 100 of them, 64 were found to have injuries of various degrees of seriousness. In 33 cases criminal investigations have been initiated as a result. The Commission found that “the actions of prosecutors in identifying, investigating and punishing cases of torture and ill-treatment during the initial phase were “reserved”, sometimes even suggesting that detainees had painted injuries on their bodies... At the same time ... it was established that prosecutors, as well as judges, did not take firm action to stop acts of torture, even when signs of violence had been visible.” The Commission concluded, inter alia, that “the actions of the police on the night of 7 April 2009 were disproportionate and unlawful.”” 36. In their report “Liberty, Security and Torture: April 2009 events in Moldova”, the Institute for Human Rights in Moldova (IDOM) and the Resource Centre for Human Rights (CReDO) found, inter alia, that: “Police [had] responded with blunt brutality and untargeted, largely unjustified arrests, beatings and intimidation; Arrests and detention in the Ministry of Interior custody ha[d] been widely and systematically used as a response by the police; Comprehensions and detentions went in a substantial number of cases with no explanations of the motives and reasons;” The authors of the report also found that 64% of those detained had claimed that they had been beaten by the police during their detention, and 81% had been beaten during their apprehension. This police brutality resulted in at least two confirmed deaths, with ten more suspected cases. Some 40% of those detained during the April 2009 events were not given access to a lawyer within reasonable time and 79% of all legal representation had been entrusted to State-appointed legal aid lawyers. 37. The relevant part of the Declaration of the Moldovan Bar Association (“the MBA”) of 17 April 2009 reads as follows: “[The MBA] condemns both the violent actions of certain persons during the protests of 7 April 2009 and the disproportionally violent and repressive actions of the State authorities after 7 April 2009. ... [The MBA] declares unacceptable and condemns instances of refusing lawyers access to their clients and to the materials in the relevant case files and [the fact] that many arrestees were refused access to a lawyer of their own choice, having been offered, against their will, legal assistance by lawyers [appointed under the legal aid scheme], some of whom had had a purely formal role and who, by their participation, validated the unlawful acts committed in respect of the detainees...”.

4. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Košice. 5. On 30 March 1999 the applicant filed a civil action with the Košice II District Court. She claimed that the defendant should be ordered, in accordance with his earlier written undertaking, to sell a flat to her. 6. The applicant replied to the defendant on 23 July 1999 and 8 February 2000. 7. In the course of the proceedings the applicant discovered that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in issue to a different person in 1999. The transfer of ownership had been formally registered on 3 March 1999. On 24 February 2000 the applicant therefore requested that the new owner of the flat should join the proceedings as a defendant. She also expressed her wish to extend the action, claiming that the purchase contract of 1999 was void. 8. Three hearings were adjourned because of the defendant’s absence. 9. On 13 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 24 February 2000. The decision stated that the purchase contract had been concluded prior to the introduction of the applicant’s action of 30 March 1999, and that nothing had prevented the applicant from bringing separate proceedings on the question of its validity. The hearing was held in the defendant’s absence. The defendant submitted a medical opinion certifying that he had serious health problems and could not leave his flat. 10. Three hearings were again adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear. Because of the defendant’s medical condition, a District Court official heard the defendant at his home on 15 August 2002. 11. The judge dealing with the case was on sick leave between 4 September and 31 October 2002. 12. On 17 December 2002 the case was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer. 13. On 4 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant’s action. The court noted that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in question to a third party on 9 March 1999, that is prior to the introduction of the proceedings by the applicant. As he was not the owner of the flat, he could not be obliged to conclude a purchase contract as requested by the applicant. On 21 February 2003 the judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer. 14. The applicant appealed. She subsequently withdrew the appeal and, as a result, the Košice Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on 12 September 2003. 15. On 19 March 2003 the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had not been violated in the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It further held that the proceedings had been substantially protracted as a result of the defendant’s repeated failure to appear before the District Court. It established that the District Court had, in principle, taken appropriate action to ensure the defendant’s attendance. The Constitutional Court found a period of inactivity of approximately six months in 2001 imputable to the District Court. That period was not, however, capable of significantly interfering with the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Poznań. 5. By an administrative decision of 29 June 1978 of the Head of the Dominowo District (Naczelnik Gminy) the real estate owned by the applicant’s husband was transferred to his son – S.K. Neither the applicant’s husband nor the applicant was informed by the authorities about this decision. 6. In 1990 the applicant’s husband died in a car accident. 7. On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a request with the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978. 8. On 23 February and 17 March 1999 the applicant was informed by the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune (Wójt Gminy) that her request had been left without consideration. 9. On 22 March 1999 she complained to the Head of the Commune Council (Przewodniczący Rady Gminy) about the fact that her case had been left without consideration and that no decision had been taken on it. She did not receive any answer. 10. On 14 January 2001 the applicant repeated her request for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978. 11. On 6 December 2000 the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) informed the applicant that her request could not be dealt with since the case file had been sent to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Admnistracyjny). 12. On 3 March 2005 the applicant complained to the Commune Office about the delay. She asked for the proceedings to be accelerated. 13. On 5 April 2005 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Commune with the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny). 14. On 9 June 2005 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, since the applicant had failed to lodge it in accordance with the formal requirements set out in Polish law, namely she had failed to lodge a complaint with the administrative authority under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. 15. On 3 February 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze). The complaint was referred to the Dominowo Commune Council, being the competent administrative authority. 16. By a resolution of 30 August 2006 her complaint was dismissed as ill-founded. 17. On 4 January 2007 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Regional Administrative Court. She submitted that she had lodged numerous complaints with different administrative authorities, her case had been pending for 8 years and no decision had been given on it. 18. On 5 December 2007 the Regional Administrative Court found the complaint well-founded. It held that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had exceeded a reasonable time and ordered the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune to proceed speedily with the case. 19. On 8 April 2008 the Self-Government Board of Appeal decided to grant the applicant retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.

5. The applicant was born in 1959. Formerly a resident of the village of Goyskoye of the Urus-Martan District in the Chechen Republic, he is currently living in the town of Nazran in Ingushetiya. He is a lawyer at the Memorial Human Rights Centre. 6. In April 1996 the applicant was appointed head of the administration of Goyskoye. In June 1996 the district administration stopped paying his salary because of lack of funds. 7. In August 1996 Chechen rebel fighters took power in Grozny, the capital of the Chechen Republic. 8. In December 1999 the Russian federal government regained control over the Urus-Martan District. In spring 2000 the district administration was re-established and the applicant applied for payment of his salary. He states that the administration promised to pay his salary as soon as the money arrived from the federal budget. 9. In December 2000 the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the Town Court”) started functioning, but it was located in Gudermes, the administrative centre of the Gudermes District of Chechnya, about 80 km from Goyskoye. The applicant submitted that he could not go to Gudermes to lodge his claim because of the poor overall security situation and a curfew imposed by the military. Moreover, he had no money for travel and accommodation there. 10. On 25 June 2001 the applicant again applied to the district administration for payment of his salary. On 15 July 2001 he received a reply from the head of the administration dated 4 July 2001 in which the latter informed him that the salary would be paid as soon as funds were available. 11. Sometime after July 2001 the Town Court moved from Gudermes to Urus-Martan. 12. On 9 October 2001 the applicant brought a court action with the Town Court against the district administration for payment of salary arrears over the period between June 1996 and April 1997. 13. On the same date he lodged a formal request for reinstatement of time-limits for lodging his claim. It read as follows: “Courts started functioning in the Chechen Republic in December 2000. Therefore, I could lodge a claim against the administration of the Urus-Martan District for salary arrears due for my work as head of administration of Goyskoye in 1996 only from that moment. However, in the beginning the court was located in Gudermes and it was difficult to go there because of numerous checkpoints, curfew and lack of money for travel. Furthermore, on numerous occasions I have applied to the administration of the Urus-Martan District with requests to pay me the salary arrears, considering that my claims were lawful. On 4 July 2001 I received a letter signed by the head of the administration of the Urus-Martan District, from which it emerged that the payment of salary arrears had again been postponed. Until the last moment I hoped that the salary arrears would be paid to me voluntarily, as it was an obligation of any state authority. For the above reasons I missed the time-limits for lodging a claim against the administration of Urus-Martan for salary arrears. Taking into consideration the above statements and in accordance with Article 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure of RSFSR I request [the Town Court] to restore the procedural time-limit for lodging a claim for salary arrears.” 14. On 16 October 2001 the Town Court held a hearing in the applicant’s case. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant gave the following explanation as regards his failure to comply with the time‑limits: “I applied to a court only on 9 October 2001 as I did not know that law established the time-limits for applying to a court. I request the court to reinstate the time-limits for applying to a court and to recover salary arrears ...” The defendant accepted the applicant’s salary claims only for the period between June and August 1996 and submitted that the applicant would receive the arrears as soon as funds were available. On the same date the Town Court adopted a judgment in the case, which in its relevant part provided as follows: “... [Mr Itslayev] applied to the court only on 9 October 2001 because he did not know that law established the time-limits for applying to a court and he requests the court to reinstate the time-limit for applying to the court and to recover salary arrears ... The defendant’s representative submitted that ... the Administration of the Urus‑Martan District agreed to pay the applicant salary arrears for the period between June and August 1996 as soon as the funds were available. Having regard to the parties’ submissions and having read the materials of the case, the court comes to the following conclusion: ... According to Article 211 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute is to be lodged with a district court within three months of the date when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right. In violation of this statutory provision, the applicant did not apply to a court between December 2000, when the courts started functioning in Chechnya, and 9 October 2001. The court considers that the applicant’s arguments that he had missed the time-limits because the head of administration of the Urus‑Martan District had promised to pay him salary and that he was not aware of time-limits are unsubstantiated. Therefore the court comes to a conclusion that the applicant missed the time-limit without any valid reason and that there are no grounds to restore it.” 15. The applicant alleged that the presiding judge had relied on an order from “higher” authorities not to accept claims similar to that of the applicant’s for examination on the merits and that he had to seek advice from judge B. of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic (“the Supreme Court”). The applicant also indicated that the presiding judge had been appointed for a period of one year and therefore he could not be considered independent. 16. The applicant provided the Court with a copy of the decision delivered by the Town Court on 17 October 2001 in a case of a certain M., who had claimed from the district administration salary arrears due to his wife. He submitted that his wife had been killed in April 2001 and that he was in a very difficult financial situation because he had borrowed money to bury her. The Town Court restored the time-limit for lodging his claim and examined it on the merits. It held as follows: “... the court finds that the plaintiff missed the time-limit for a valid reason, because no courts were functioning in Chechnya between August 1996 and December 2000, and between January and July 2001 the court was based in Gudermes and he could not have applied there for lack of funds ...” 17. On 6 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 16 October 2001. In so far as he contested the application of time-limits in his case, the applicant made two arguments. In the first place he submitted that he had applied for the reinstatement of time-limits because the Town Court requested him to do so. However, Article 211 of the Labour Code could not be applied in his case, as the anti‑terrorist operation was still going on in the Chechen Republic. On 15 July 2001 he had received a letter from the head of the district administration by which he was informed that his salary arrears would be paid as soon as funds were available. Therefore his right had been infringed at the end of July. The three-month time-limit had started to run from the end of July and he had applied to the court in due time. Secondly, assuming that he had missed the time-limit, the Town Court could and should in accordance with Article 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure accept that he had missed the time-limit for valid reasons which were as follows: “(a) I was appointed head of a rural administration in April 1996 and worked in this position in very difficult conditions, sometimes at risk to my life. (b) I think that it is a matter of honour for the Russian state to pay at least salary arrears to heads of administrations of communities which were appointed in that period and who had worked with federal authorities. (c) On numerous occasions I have applied orally to the Administration of Urus‑Martan. And when I was told that there were no funds, that I would have to wait and that I would be paid, I continued to wait, believing the authorities and understanding the situation which existed in the Republic. (d) The Town Court should not have punished me, as it did, and taken the side of those who in that period killed and continue to kill people who work for the state. As a matter of fact, the Urus-Martan Town Court have now punished me for my work for the state in 1996. (e) There existed no legal conditions in the Chechen Republic to apply Article 211 of the Labour Code in labour disputes involving state authorities because of the circumstances which existed in previous years.” The applicant requested the appeal court to take into account the above circumstances, to quash the judgment of 16 October 2001 and deliver a new decision in his case. 18. On 26 February 2002 the Supreme Court, comprising judges B. and A. and presided over by Judge S., upheld the judgment of 16 October 2001. It held as follows: “... Having regard to the materials of the case and to the submissions by the plaintiff, the Civil Chamber finds that the judgment is lawful and reasoned. According to Article 211 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute is to be lodged with a court within three months of the date when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right. However, since December 2000 the plaintiff has not made such an application to a court. The [Town] court has thoroughly examined the submitted evidence and reasonably found that the reasons advances by the plaintiff for missing the time-limit were not valid and refused to restore the time-limit.” The applicant was present at the hearing. He alleged that Judge B., to whom, the Town Court judge had allegedly referred, was a member of the court. Furthermore, according to the applicant, his appeal was not examined in a public hearing, but took place in one of the rooms in the Supreme Court building.

5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb. 6. On 5 October 2006, by a final decision of the Nova Gradiška Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Nova Gradiška), the applicant adopted a three-year old child. At that time the applicant was a self-employed businesswoman living in Zagreb. 7. On 16 October 2006 the applicant submitted a request to the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje Područni ured u Zagrebu) seeking to establish her right to paid maternity leave. 8. On 20 October 2006 the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that under the legislation on maternity leave for self-employed entrepreneurs and unemployed mothers (“the Maternity Leave Act”), biological mothers were entitled to paid maternity leave only until the child’s first birthday, and adoptive mothers had to be treated equally. 9. The applicant lodged an appeal with the central office (Direkcija) of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund against the first-instance decision. She complained that she had been discriminated against as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman. She relied on the Labour Act, which provided that the adoptive parent of a child under the age of twelve was entitled to paid leave of 270 days, starting from the date of adoption. 10. On 21 March 2007 the central office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the Maternity Leave Act had to be applied in the applicant’s case as a lex specialis. That Act did not provide for maternity leave to be granted to either a biological or an adoptive mother if the child was older than one year. 11. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the administrative bodies’ decisions. 12. On 26 November 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the administrative bodies had correctly applied the Maternity Leave Act as a lex specialis, and that under that Act she was not entitled to paid maternity leave since at the time of adoption, her child had been older than one year. 13. On 10 December 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She argued that the administrative bodies had interpreted the relevant domestic law in a manner that rendered its provisions ineffective and illusory, since it was extremely rare for somebody to adopt a child under the age of one. In her view, the purpose of paid maternity leave was to provide the adoptive parent and the child with a period of adaptation. Paid maternity leave was accessible to biological mothers after childbirth, and to employees who adopted a child under the age of twelve. In denying her that opportunity, the administrative bodies had discriminated against her as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman. 14. On 9 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Będzin. 6. On 30 October 2000 the applicant was arrested by the customs authorities in Malmö after 5 kilograms of heroin had been found in her car. On 10 April 2001 the Malmö District Court convicted the applicant of drug-trafficking and sentenced her to 20 months' imprisonment. On 5 January 2002 she was released from a prison in Sweden. 7. On 15 December 2000 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor instituted an investigation concerning drug-trafficking from Poland to Sweden by the applicant and other persons, acting in connection with a request for legal assistance submitted by the Swedish and Norwegian prosecution authorities. 8. On 16 October 2002 the applicant was arrested in Katowice. On the following day the Katowice Regional Prosecutor served on her the statement of charges. The applicant was charged with supplying significant amounts of heroin to the market between February 2000 and October 2000 in Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. She was also charged with acting in an organised criminal group of drug traffickers. During her questioning by the prosecutor, she confessed that she had attempted to smuggle heroin to Sweden and responded to all questions put by the prosecutor. 9. On 18 October 2002 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody until 16 January 2003 on reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences referred to above. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses since she had not confessed. The court also took into account that the applicant had been charged with acting in an organised criminal gang and had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty. 10. On 8 January 2003 the Katowice District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2003. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, having regard to the number of suspects involved. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty, given the organised character of the criminal activities, their scale and the amount of drugs involved. Lastly, it referred to the need to continue the process of gathering evidence. 11. In her appeal the applicant submitted that her continued detention was not necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. She argued that she had already given evidence and that she had had no contacts with the witnesses or other suspects, so the risk of tampering with evidence did not exist in her case. Her appeal was dismissed on 5 February 2003. 12. On 19 March 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice District Court a motion for the prolongation of the applicant's detention until 30 June 2003. 13. On 25 March 2003 the Katowice District Court notified the applicant's counsel of the hearing scheduled for 26 March 2003 at which the prosecution's motion would be examined. 14. On 26 March 2003 the Katowice District Court held a hearing (posiedzenie) on the prolongation of the applicant's detention. 15. According to the Government, before the hearing had begun the applicant's counsel consulted the prosecution's motion without authorisation from the judge. 16. During the hearing the applicant's counsel applied for access to the investigation file. The Regional Prosecutor stated that his motion for prolongation of the detention constituted an integral part of the file and that access to it required his permission. The prosecutor also stated that the counsel had not applied earlier for leave to consult the file. Counsel unsuccessfully requested the court to adjourn the hearing until she had been granted access to the file. The District Court, having regard to Article 156 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held that it could not decide on the counsel's request for access to the file since such decision was within the exclusive competence of the authority conducting the investigation. The judge informed both parties that the counsel's request would be transmitted without undue delay to the Regional Prosecutor for examination. 17. The applicant's counsel requested the court to dismiss the motion for prolongation because the prosecutor had simply stated that he maintained it without giving specific reasons for it. 18. The Katowice District Court granted the prosecution's motion and extended the applicant's detention until 30 June 2003. In the reasons for its decision, the court noted that the applicant had pleaded not guilty and had denied that she had taken part in an organised criminal group trafficking in heroin. Having regard to the applicant's statements and the number of suspects involved, the court considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence. In this connection, it had regard to the fact that several other potential suspects were still being sought. 19. The applicant's counsel appealed. She alleged, relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that the District Court had violated the principle of adversarial proceedings. In this connection, she submitted that the Regional Prosecutor's motion for prolongation of detention had been received at the District Court on 19 March 2003. However, it was only in the afternoon of 25 March 2003 that the applicant's counsel had been notified by telephone that the court's hearing would be held on 26 March 2003 at 8.40 a.m. Having further regard to the fact that counsel had not been served with a copy of the prosecutor's motion, she argued that she could not properly defend the interests of the applicant. Counsel further submitted that the prosecutor had not read out the grounds of his application during the hearing. 20. On 14 May 2003 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It noted that the applicant had been charged with participation in an organised criminal group which operated in a number of European countries. In this context, it considered that there was a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings if released. The Regional Court further relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and emphasised the danger to society posed by the drug trafficking. Furthermore, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's allegations regarding access to the file and the belated summoning of her lawyer to the hearing. It held, in so far as relevant: “The limitation on the lawyer's access to the investigation file results from the binding procedural rules. The court's hearing on the matter of detention is ancillary to the main proceedings and thus notification of this hearing can be effected shortly before the date for which it has been fixed. The lawyer was notified of the hearing at 1 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing. Thus, it cannot be said that the court was at fault in this respect.” 21. It appears that the request of the applicant's counsel for leave to consult the file made during the hearing held on 26 March 2003 was received by the Katowice Regional Prosecutor only on 16 May 2003. On 27 May 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor refused that request, invoking the interests of the investigation (ważny interes postępowania). The prosecutor observed that the investigation was at its early stages and still in progress. Furthermore, he found that for reasons which had not been attributable to the prosecution a number of important witnesses had not yet been heard. The applicant appealed against that decision, relying on the principle of equality of arms. On 1 July 2003 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor upheld the refusal of 27 May 2003. He observed that the restrictions on access to the file had been temporary and justified by the interests of the investigation. In the latter respect, the Appellate Prosecutor referred to the organised character of the criminal activities at issue and the number of suspects involved. He considered that in those circumstances, the interests of the investigation weighed against the applicant's right to be acquainted with all the evidence obtained so far in the case. 22. On 16 June 2003 the Regional Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice District Court a motion for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 30 September 2003. 23. On 23 June 2003 the applicant's counsel was informed about the hearing scheduled for 25 June 2003 regarding prolongation of detention. On 24 June 2003 the applicant's counsel requested the Katowice District Court to adjourn the hearing until she had received a copy of the prosecutor's motion. The court refused that request. 24. On 24 June 2003 the applicant's counsel requested the Regional Prosecutor to provide her with a copy of his motion for the prolongation of the applicant's detention with a view to preparing for the court's hearing. 25. On 25 June 2003 the Katowice District Court granted the prosecution's motion and ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 September 2003. It relied on the same grounds as in its earlier decisions. During the hearing the Regional Prosecutor indicated that his motion for prolongation referred to, inter alia, the need to question one person whose details could not be disclosed. The counsel stated that the prosecutor simply referred to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but did not provide any specific grounds justifying the prolongation of the applicant's detention. 26. On 26 June 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor refused to grant the applicant's counsel access to the file following her application of 24 June 2003, having regard to the interests of the investigation. He considered that the lawyer's request was tantamount to a request for access to the entire contents of the investigation file. Consequently, it refused the request on the same grounds as in the decision given on 27 May 2003. The applicant appealed. On 8 July 2003 the Appellate Prosecutor upheld the refusal on the same grounds as in his earlier decision. 27. The applicant's counsel appealed against the decision of 25 June 2003 prolonging the applicant's detention. She argued that she had not been provided with a copy of the prosecution's motion and that she had not been notified in good time of the hearing. She submitted that consequently she had been prevented from properly discharging her obligations as the applicant's counsel. 28. On 9 July 2003 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal. As regards the refusal to provide the applicant with a copy of the prosecution's application for prolongation of detention, the Regional Court found that the prosecutor was the only authority competent to decide on the issue of access to the file at the investigation stage and that any decision in this respect might be reviewed by a higher prosecutor. In respect of the notification of the hearing to the lawyer, the court found the applicant's complaint unfounded. It considered that in cases of detention, such notification could be made by telephone. 29. On 15 September 2003 the Regional Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice District Court a motion for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 16 October 2003. 30. On 16 September 2003 the applicant's counsel was notified by telephone about the hearing scheduled for 23 September 2003. On 18 September counsel unsuccessfully requested the District Court to adjourn the hearing since she had not been provided with a copy of the prosecutor's application for prolongation of detention and thus could not prepare for the hearing fixed for 23 September 2003. On the same date the counsel applied to the prosecutor for leave to obtain a copy of the application for prolongation of the applicant's detention. On 19 September 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor refused that request, having regard to the interests of the investigation and to the fact that it was still in progress. 31. On 23 September 2003 the Katowice District Court held a hearing. It granted the prosecution's motion and ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 16 October 2003. It had regard to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which she had been charged. It relied in this respect on the evidence gathered to date, including evidence given by the applicant and her co-suspect, and the documentary evidence obtained from abroad. It also considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, given that some of the co-suspects were still at large and that the case concerned an organised criminal group. It also had regard to the need to take further measures in the investigation as indicated in the prosecution's application for prolongation of detention. 32. On 16 October 2003 the statutory time-limit of one year for the applicant's detention pending the investigation expired. Consequently, any further prolongation of the applicant's detention was to be decided by the Court of Appeal. 33. On an unspecified date the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a motion for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 31 January 2004. On 3 October 2003 the Court of Appeal notified the counsel about the hearing scheduled for 8 October 2003. 34. On 8 October 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal held a hearing. It appears that during the hearing the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor agreed to provide counsel with a copy of his motion for prolongation of the detention. The Court of Appeal granted the prosecution's motion and extended the applicant's detention until 31 January 2004. It noted that the investigation in the present case, which concerned trafficking in substantial amounts of drugs in a number of European countries, had been very time-consuming. It was further complicated by the need to obtain evidence from abroad and to hold a confrontation between the suspects and a certain H.S. who had been recently transferred to Poland from Norway to serve his sentence. The court noted that another important suspect M.O., who had lived abroad, had been arrested in September 2003. It thus considered that the investigation was being conducted without undue delays, and that the extension of the detention pending the investigation beyond the statutory time-limit was due to the exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeal also had regard to the scale of the alleged criminal activities and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The applicant appealed against that decision. 35. On 5 November 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision. It referred, inter alia, to the presumption established by Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce her to obstruct the proceedings. In view of the said presumption, the Court of Appeal underlined that it was not required to consider the imposition of other preventive measures. 36. On 21 January 2004 the applicant's counsel requested the Regional Prosecutor to release the applicant subject to certain guarantees. 37. On 27 January 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor ordered the applicant's release, having obtained a bail deposit and an additional personal guarantee from a local councillor that the applicant would not obstruct the proceedings. The applicant's passport was seized and she was ordered not to leave the country. The prosecutor noted that despite the fact that more than 15 months had elapsed since the applicant's arrest, the investigation had not been concluded. He observed that the prosecution was endeavouring to obtain evidence from abroad, however it could not be predicted when that evidence would be made available. The prosecutor considered that the applicant should not be prejudiced by those delays and that other preventive measures would be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 38. On 19 May 2004 the applicant's lawyer was informed by the Katowice Police that she could apply for access to the investigation file pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the investigation was coming to an end. On 7 June 2004 the applicant's counsel was allowed to consult the file. 39. On 29 June 2004 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Katowice District Court. The applicant was charged with drug-trafficking and acting in an organised criminal group. 40. On 20 June 2005 the applicant made a plea and requested the trial court to sentence her to 18 months' imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution did not object. On 27 June 2005 the Katowice District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to 18 months' imprisonment and a fine. 41. The applicant appealed. She argued that the trial court had not taken into account her conviction in Sweden. The Katowice Regional Court dismissed her appeal on 1 March 2006.

4. The applicants were born in 1955, 1935 and 1950 respectively and live in Hatay. 5. On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land (nos. 1233, 1230 and 1162 respectively) near the coast in Hatay. They each built a house there[1]. 6. In 1995 the Treasury filed an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land on the ground that they were located within the coastline. 7. On 16 December 1999 (nos. 40/02 and 41/02) and 9 December 1999 (42/02), the Samandağ Court of First Instance, relying, particularly, on expert reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site. 8. On various dates the applicants appealed. In their petitions they submitted, inter alia, that the right to property - a human rights norm - was protected under the constitution and the domestic law, and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination and without a payment of compensation. On 3 October 2000 their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. 9. On various dates the applicants requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ requests on 2 May 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 19 April 2001 (no. 41/02). These decisions were served on the applicants on 6 June 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 23 May 2001 (no. 41/02).

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Crikvenica. 5. On 28 May 1986 the applicant and her former husband A.P. (“the debtor”) concluded an in-court settlement (sudska nagodba) by which he undertook an obligation to: (a) hand over to her certain items of movable property listed therein (among which some jewellery), and (b) supply her with certain goods (house equipment and furniture). Under Croatian law an in-court settlement is equal, in terms of its effects, to a res judicata judgment and constitutes an enforcement title. 6. On 9 January 1989, 9 April 1991 and 2 June 1992, respectively, the applicant also obtained three court judgments against the debtor obliging him to pay her certain amounts of money. 7. In the period between 1988 and 1992 the applicant instituted five enforcement proceedings against the debtor before the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) in order to enforce the above settlement and the judgments. 8. On 15 May 1991 the Municipal Court decided to join three of those proceedings i.e. those instituted in 1988 (two proceedings) and 1989, respectively (see under A., B. and C. below). The intervention of the bailiff (sudski izvršitelj) of 6 June 1991 (see paragraphs 31 and 43 below) was therefore undertaken with a view to seizing the debtor's movables in order to satisfy the applicants claims in at least two proceedings (those under B. and C.). Likewise, they were both affected by the third party intervention resulting in inadmissibility of the enforcement in respect of some of the movables seized (see paragraphs 32 and 44 below). However, it would appear that the court subsequently separated the three proceedings again. 9. The remaining two proceedings complained of (see under D. below) remained separate until 27 March 2001 when the court decided to join them. 10. On 2 September 1988 the applicant applied for enforcement of the part of the settlement concerning the handover of movable property. The court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 15 September 1988 ordering the debtor to hand over the movables to the applicant. The writ became final on 7 October 1988. 11. Two successive attempts of the bailiff, on 24 October 1988 and 19 June 1990, to seize the movables failed as he was unable to find them in the possession of the debtor. The applicant therefore on 6 December 1993 invited the court to assess the value of the movables and oblige the debtor to pay her their monetary equivalent. 12. In order to satisfy her request, on 17 September 1997 the court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of the movables and appointed an expert to prepare and submit a report thereon. The expert submitted his report on 22 October 1997 and the court immediately forwarded it to the parties. On 26 June 1998 the applicant objected to the report and invited the court to obtain a new one from another expert. 13. On 20 October 1998 the President of the Municipal Court instructed the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings. 14. The Government submitted that on 17 May 1999 the police had served the summons on the applicant because she had been refusing to receive it. The applicant submitted that she had never refused to receive the summons and explained that this had been common practice of serving the court's correspondence at the time. Namely, due to budgetary restrictions the court had often asked the police authorities (which were located in the same building as the court) to distribute the summons through their policemen while they were patrolling the town. 15. At the hearing held on 26 May 1999 the court accepted the applicant's request for an additional expert opinion and appointed another expert. The second expert submitted his report on 14 July 1999 to which the applicant made no objections. Nevertheless, on 20 September 1999 the court invited the expert to supplement his findings by calculation of the statutory default interest. The expert did so on 11 November 1999. 16. At the hearing held on 27 October 1999 the court heard the debtor and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert competent to assess the value of the jewellery. 17. In the period between 25 November 1999 and 21 March 2001 the applicant filed four rush notes urging the court to accelerate the proceedings. Also, on 31 May 2000 she had challenged the partiality of all judges of that court but eventually, on 19 January 2001, withdrew her challenge. 18. On 27 April 2001 the President of the court for the second time instructed the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings. 19. At the hearing held on 10 July 2001 the court invited the two experts to harmonise their opinions. 20. In the period between 21 September 2001 and 19 August 2002 the applicant filed three rush notes asking the court to speed up the proceedings. 21. On 8 October 2003 the President of the court dismissed the applicant's request for withdrawal of the judge in the case submitted seven days earlier. 22. On 22 October 2003 the court accepted the applicant's request of 6 December 1993 (see paragraph 11 above) and issued a decision ordering the debtor to pay the applicant 20,552 Croatian kunas (HRK). The decision became final on 5 November 2003. 23. Meanwhile, the applicant apparently made another request for withdrawal of the judge in the case. On 10 November 2003 the President of the court accepted her request and assigned the case to another judge. 24. On 25 November 2003 the court invited the applicant to indicate the means and object of the enforcement, i.e. the debtor's assets against which the decision of 22 October 2003 could be executed. The applicant did so on 5 December 2003 indicating that the debtor owned two cars. 25. On 20 January 2004 the court issued a writ of execution by seizure of the debtor's cars and invited the applicant to advance the costs of the bailiff's intervention. As the applicant had advanced the costs on 2 February 2004, the case was forwarded to the bailiff four days later. 26. The police authorities informed the court on 22 November 2004 that they had made a notice of seizure in the register of vehicles in respect of the debtor's cars. 27. On 11 July 2005 the bailiff effected an in situ inspection and seized the debtor's cars by making an inventory thereof. The court sent the minutes of the inspection to the applicant for comment on 22 November 2005 and invited her to make further proposals as regards the seized vehicles. In her reply of 15 December 2005 the applicant asked the court to asses the value of the seized cars and thereafter sell them in satisfaction of her claim. 28. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 29. On 2 September 1988 the applicant also applied for enforcement of another part of the settlement (see paragraph 5 above). On 15 September 1988 the court issued a writ of execution entitling the applicant to perform the debtor's obligation herself, at his expense. Subsequently, it accepted the applicant's proposal and on 15 April 1991 issued an order to the debtor to advance the costs of obtaining the goods. 30. The debtor failed to comply. Therefore, on 22 May 1991 the court, at the applicant's proposal and in order to cover those costs, ordered the seizure and sale of the debtor's movable property to be found at his home and his business premises. 31. On 6 June 1991 the bailiff seized some debtor's movables (those apparently included, at least, a car and a motorcycle). They were entrusted to a guardian – a certain M.Č. – for safekeeping. 32. However, M.R.P. intervened in the proceedings as a third party claiming that she was the owner of some of the seized movables as the debtor had transferred them to her. Eventually, on 19 October 1994 M.R.P. obtained a final court judgment in her favour declaring inadmissible the enforcement of the applicant's claim in respect of those movables. It appears that the applicant did not thereafter ask the court to continue with the enforcement by seizure of other movable property. 33. On 11 July 2000 the court decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the applicant's claim had been satisfied. 34. The applicant appealed against this decision on 4 December 2000 to the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci). She argued that, since the enforcement in respect of certain movables had been found inadmissible, her claim had not actually been satisfied and the court should have continued with the enforcement. 35. On 12 June 2002 the County Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 36. In the resumed proceedings, on 9 October 2003 the President of the court dismissed the applicant request for withdrawal of the judge in the case. However, on 4 November 2003 he accepted her second request to that end and assigned the case to another judge. 37. On 11 January 2005 the court set aside its decisions of 15 April and 22 May 1991 and discontinued the enforcement in its part ordering the debtor to advance the costs. Thus, from then on it was for the applicant, pursuant to the writ of 15 September 1988, to procure the goods and submit the invoice, whereupon she could apply to the court for a decision ordering the debtor to cover the costs. Both parties appealed. 38. On 9 February 2005 the Municipal Court gave a decision discontinuing the enforcement proceedings. The applicant appealed. 39. On 18 May 2005 the Rijeka County Court upheld the Municipal Court's decision of 11 January 2005 and dismissed the parties' appeals against it. On the other hand, accepting the applicant's appeal, it quashed that court's decision of 9 February 2005 and remitted the case. 40. The Government submitted that in the resumed proceedings, on 23 June 2005 the applicant asked the Municipal Court to “appoint an expert to assess the value of the movables” and that at the hearing held on 5 October 2005 the court accepted her proposal. On January 2006 the applicant advanced the costs thereof. 41. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 42. On 11 October 1989 the applicant applied for enforcement of the 1989 judgment seeking seizure of the debtor's movable property to be found at his home and his business premises. She specified that the court should seize, in particular, the debtor's car and motorcycle, as well as the tools, machinery and equipment from his car mechanic workshop. The court issued a writ of execution on 12 February 1990. 43. As already mentioned above, on 6 June 1991 the bailiff seized some debtor's movables (paragraphs 8 and 31), and they were entrusted to M.Č. as the guardian. 44. It appears that after M.R.P.'s intervention (see paragraphs 8 and 32 above) the applicant did not ask the court to continue with the enforcement by seizure of other movable property. 45. On 20 October 1998 the President of the court instructed the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings 46. On 19 April 2001 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings on account that the applicant's claim had been satisfied. On 30 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Rijeka County Court. 47. On 3 March 2004 the County Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 48. At the hearing held on 14 June 2004, the court invited the applicant to inform it of the address of M.Č. with a view to establishing the location of the movables seized on 6 June 1991. On 29 June 2004 the court invited the police authorities to provide that information. 49. In their reply of 7 July 2004 the police authorities responded that there existed several persons with the same name and that they needed more data in order to identify the person to whom the movables had been entrusted. The court informed the applicant of the reply of the police on 3 August 2004 and invited her to provide the address of M.Č. It appears that, to date, the applicant has not done so. 50. On 28 June 2005 the court invited the applicant's new representative in the proceedings to submit the power of attorney. It repeated its request on 24 October 2005. 51. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 52. On 25 March 1992 the applicant applied for enforcement of a part of the 1991 judgment. On 15 April 1992 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure of movable property. 53. The bailiff's attempt of 18 November 1992 to seize the debtor's movable property failed as he found no movables susceptible to seizure. 54. On 20 October 1998 the President of the court instructed the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings. 55. On 19 June 2000 the court invited the applicant to submit a copy of the 1991 judgment, indicate the amount to be enforced in Croatian kunas, and provide the calculation of the statutory default interest. The applicant did so on 5 July 2000 by seeking payment of HRK 25,926.73. 56. The President of the court again invited the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings on 20 November 2000, 18 January and 26 February 2001. 57. On 13 March 2001 the court requested the applicant to submit a copy of the 1991 judgment stamped with the certificate of enforceability (clausula execuendi). The applicant did so on 21 March 2001. 58. On 29 March 1993 the applicant applied for enforcement seeking execution of the 1992 judgment. She sought HRK 83,140.93. On the same date the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure of movable property. 59. The bailiff's attempt of 30 June 2000 to seize the debtor's movables was unsuccessful since no seizable movable property was found. 60. On 13 March 2001 the court invited the applicant to make further proposals as how to continue the enforcement given that already two attempts of the bailiff to seize the debtor's movable property had failed. 61. On 27 March 2001 the court decided to join the two above proceedings. 62. The bailiff attempted to seize the debtor's movable property on 18 April 2001 but found no car registered on his name. On the other hand, it found a boat for which the debtor claimed was the property of his current wife. 63. On 21 June 2001 the court decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on 10 July 2001.

4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Wałbrzych. 5. The applicant was the owner of a piece of land in Radomsko. On 12 December 1985 he concluded an arrangement with a co-operative enabling him to begin construction work. 6. On 16 September 1988 the applicant renounced his right to the land and the house which had meanwhile been constructed on it. 7. In consequence, on 4 November 1988 the board of the co-operative stripped the applicant of his membership. The applicant appealed. On 21 November 1988 the supervisory board upheld the decision. 8. On an unspecified date a certain S.B. and his family settled in the applicant’s house. 9. On 31 December 1988 the applicant brought an action against S.B. and the co-operative in the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking repossession of his property and restoration of his membership of the co-operative. 10. On 30 July 1990 the court allowed the applicant’s claim. On 22 November 1990 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the defendant’s appeal. 11. On 8 February 1991 the Radomsko District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment. 12. After the judgment became final, the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings. 13. On 27 May 1991 the bailiff, despite the fact that S.B. had not vacated the applicant’s house, made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant (protokolarne wprowadzenie w posiadanie). 14. On 18 September 1991 the Radomsko District Court quashed the bailiff’s decision and ordered that S.B. be evicted. 15. On 8 May 1992 the District Court bailiff found that it had no competence to deal with the case. The applicant lodged a complaint about the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). On 5 January 1993 the Radomsko Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 16. As the enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful, on 1 August 1994 the applicant brought an action against S.B. before the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court seeking repossession of the property and compensation. On 1 June 2000 the court gave judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered S.B. to return the property. 17. On 13 February 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the Regional Court judgment. On 4 April 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment. 18. On 23 July 2001 the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court to institute enforcement proceedings. 19. On 18 September 2001 the bailiff requested S.B. to vacate the property. 20. On 28 November 2001 the bailiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 21. On 6 December 2001 the applicant made a further complaint about the actions of the bailiff. On 17 January 2002 the Radomsko District Court dismissed the complaint. 22. On 4 February 2002 the Radomsko District Court again made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision. 23. On 17 October 2002 the applicant lodged his third complaint against the actions taken by the bailiff. On 25 November 2002 the District Court ordered the bailiff to secure alternative accommodation for S.B. and his family. 24. On 25 November 2002 the Radomsko District Court ordered the bailiff to guarantee alternative accommodation to S.B. and his family. 25. On 10 March 2003 the bailiff requested the municipal authorities to provide S.B. with alternative accommodation. 26. On 14 March 2003 the municipal authorities informed the bailiff that no social housing was available. 27. On 9 April 2003 the bailiff informed the applicant of the unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 28. On 26 May 2003 the applicant brought an action against S.B. and his family for repossession of his property. On 23 January 2004 the Radomsko District Court, relying on the principle of res iudicata, refused to examine the claim. The court further stated that the lack of alternative accommodation should not be an obstacle to eviction. 29. On 11 February 2004 the bailiff stayed the execution due to the death of S.B. In the meantime, on 13 January 2004, the Radomsko District Court ordered that S.B.’s wife and any other persons in the household be evicted. 30. On 19 February 2004 the applicant submitted to the District Court a complaint about the actions taken by the bailiff (stay of the proceedings). On 17 May 2004 the court rejected the complaint. The applicant appealed. On 13 July 2004 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed the appeal. 31. On 28 May 2004 the applicant submitted a complaint about the bailiff to the National Bailiffs Committee (Krajowa Rada Komornicza). After one year of investigation, on 28 December 2006 the Radomsko district prosecutor charged the bailiff with fraud and abuse of authority. 32. On 3 September 2004 the bailiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 33. On 15 December 2004 the bailiff discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed. 34. On 12 February 2005 the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be resumed. On 9 March 2005 the bailiff resumed the proceedings and ordered S.B.’s family to vacate the property. 35. On 2 September 2005 S.B.’s widow vacated the applicant’s property. According to the applicant, the building was dilapidated and the garden neglected. 36. In the meantime, on 22 March 2004, the applicant brought an action for damages against the bailiff, the State Treasury and S.B.’s widow. 37. On 26 March 2008 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court delivered its judgment. The court ordered S.B.’s widow to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 60,450.84 and dismissed the action against the bailiff and the State Treasury. The applicant appealed. 38. On 15 December 2008 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the part of the judgment in which the first instance court had ordered S.B.’s widow to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 60,450.84 and quashed the remainder. The case was remitted for reconsideration. 39. On 22 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court alleging a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the provisions of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. Under section 3 of the 2004 Act a complaint can be lodged in the course of enforcement proceedings. 40. However, on 8 November 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court examined only the course of the proceedings after 11 February 2004, when the proceedings were stayed by the bailiff. It held that the stay of the enforcement proceedings owing to S.B.’s death had been in compliance with the relevant procedural rules and considered that the proceedings had not been unreasonably lengthy. The applicant appealed. 41. On 24 November 2004 the appeal was rejected by the Regional Court as being inadmissible in law.

6. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Vittorio Veneto. 7. The applicant entered into a relationship with D.P., an Austrian national, and lived together with her in Vittorio Veneto. Their daughter, who is an Italian and Austrian national, was born in December 2006. Under Italian law the applicant and D.P. had joint custody of her. 8. The relationship between the applicant and D.P. deteriorated and the latter left the family home on 31 January 2008, taking their daughter with her. 9. The applicant applied to the Venice Youth Court (tribunale per i minorenni di Venezia) for an award of sole custody of the child and asked the court to issue a travel ban prohibiting her from leaving Italy without his consent. 10. On 8 February 2008 the Venice Youth Court issued a travel ban in respect of the applicant’s daughter. On the same day the applicant learned that D.P. had left Italy with the child and had travelled to Austria, where she intended to take up residence. 11. On 23 May 2008 the Venice Youth Court lifted the travel ban in respect of the applicant’s daughter, granted preliminary joint custody of the child to both parents, and authorised her to reside with her mother in Austria, having regard to her young age and close relationship with her mother. It also appointed an expert who was entrusted with the task of collecting the necessary information for a final decision on custody. In addition, the court granted the applicant access rights twice a month in a neutral location, noting that the meetings should alternate between Italy and Austria and that the dates and arrangements should be agreed with the expert. 12. According to the applicant, D.P. brought their daughter to Italy only once. Visits took place in Austria, although D.P. did not facilitate their organisation. At a later date visits ceased, allegedly due to D.P.’s obstructive behaviour. In a report of 15 May 2009 the expert noted that she was not in a position to evaluate the applicant’s ability to take care of his daughter. 13. According to the Government the applicant met his daughter fifteen times in Austria, where supervised visits took place between October 2008 and June 2009. Subsequently, he refused to travel to Austria without giving any reasons. 14. The applicant applied for assistance to secure his daughter’s return under the Hague Convention. His application was forwarded via the respective central authorities in Italy and Austria to the Leoben District Court (Bezirksgericht), where proceedings began on 19 June 2008. Subsequently, the court appointed an expert. 15. On 3 July 2008, the Leoben District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for the return of the child under the Hague Convention. Referring to the expert’s opinion and having regard to the very young age of the child, the court found that her return would constitute a grave risk for her within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. 16. On 1 September 2008, the Leoben Regional Court (Landes­gericht) set aside that decision because the applicant had not been duly heard in the proceedings. 17. On 21 November 2008 the Leoben District Court, having heard the applicant, again dismissed his application for his daughter’s return, referring to the Venice Youth Court’s decision of 23 May 2008. 18. On 7 January 2009 the Leoben Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that returning the child to him and her separation from her mother would entail a grave risk of psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. 19. Meanwhile, in March 2009 D.P. brought proceedings before the Judenburg District Court, seeking an award of sole custody of the child. 20. On 26 May 2009 the Judenburg District Court held that it had jurisdiction with regard to custody, access and maintenance issues in respect of the child by virtue of Article 15(5) of EU Regulation 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“the Brussels IIa Regulation”). 21. On 25 August 2009 the same court made a preliminary award of sole custody to D.P., referring to the child’s close links with Austria and the risk of danger to her well-being upon a possible return to Italy. 22. On 8 March 2010 the Judenburg District Court awarded D.P. sole custody of the child. 23. In the meantime, on 9 April 2009 the applicant made an application to the Venice Youth Court for his daughter’s return under Article 11(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 24. In a judgment of 10 July 2009 the Venice Youth Court, having held a hearing, ordered the child’s return to Italy. The child would live with her mother, should the latter decide to return to Italy with her. In that event the Vittorio Veneto social services department was required to provide them with accommodation. In addition, a programme for the exercise of the applicant’s access rights would have to be established. If the child’s mother did not wish to return to Italy, the child was to reside with the applicant. 25. The Venice Youth Court found that it remained competent to deal with the case, as the Judenburg District Court had wrongly determined its jurisdiction under Article 15(5) of the Brussels IIa Regulation. It noted that its previous decision of 23 May 2008 had been designed as a temporary measure in order to re-establish contact between the applicant and his daughter through access rights and to obtain a basis for an expert opinion for the decision on custody of the child. However, the child’s mother had failed to co-operate with the appointed expert and had refused a programme of access rights for the applicant prepared by the expert. The latter had stated in her preliminary opinion that she was not in a position to answer all questions relating to the child’s best interests in a satisfactory manner. 26. On 21 July 2009 the Venice Youth Court issued a certificate of enforceability under Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 27. On 22 September 2009 the applicant sought the enforcement of the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 10 July 2009. He was represented by counsel in these and all subsequent proceedings. 28. On 12 November 2009 the Leoben District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for enforcement of the Venice Youth Court’s order to return the child. It noted that the child’s mother was not willing to return to Italy with her. However, the child’s return without her mother would constitute a grave risk for her within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. 29. On 20 January 2010 the Leoben Regional Court quashed that decision and granted the applicant’s request for enforcement. 30. The Leoben Regional Court noted that under Article 11(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation a judgment refusing return under Article 13 of the Hague Convention was irrelevant where the court which was competent pursuant to the Brussels IIa Regulation had ordered the child’s return in a subsequent judgment. It confirmed that the Venice Youth Court had been competent to issue the judgment of 10 July 2009, as D.P. had unlawfully removed the child from Italy and the applicant had immediately requested her return. Moreover, the applicant had submitted a certificate of enforceability under Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation in respect of the judgment at issue. The Austrian courts therefore had to recognise the judgment and to enforce it. They were not to establish anew whether the child’s return would be contrary to her best interests. In any event, there was no indication that the circumstances had changed since the Venice Youth Court had given its judgment. It was for the court of first instance to order appropriate measures of enforcement. 31. D.P. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 16 February 2010. 32. On 20 April 2010 the Supreme Court requested a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), submitting a number of questions concerning the application of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 33. On 1 July 2010, the CJEU issued a preliminary ruling (C-211/10 PPU) confirming the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in the case and the enforceability of the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 10 July 2009. It found, in particular, that: (1) a provisional measure [such as the one issued by the Venice Youth Court in 2008] did not constitute a ‘judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child’ within the meaning of Article 10(b) subparagraph (iv) of the Brussels IIa Regulation and could not be the basis of a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State to which the child had been unlawfully removed; (2) Article 11(8) of the Regulation applied to a judgment of the court with jurisdiction ordering the return of the child, even if it was not preceded by a final judgment of that court relating to custody of the child; (3) Article 47(2) subparagraph (2) of the Regulation had to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment delivered subsequently by a court of the Member State of enforcement which made a provisional award of custody could not preclude enforcement of a certified judgment previously delivered by the court which had jurisdiction in the Member State of origin and had ordered the return of the child; and (4) enforcement of a certified judgment [ordering the child’s return] could not be refused by the Member State of enforcement because, as a result of a subsequent change of circumstances, it might be seriously detrimental to the best interests of the child. Such a change had to be pleaded before the court which had jurisdiction in the Member State of origin, which also had to hear any application to suspend the enforcement of its judgment. 34. On 13 July 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed D.P.’s appeal on points of law. It noted that according to the CJEU’s ruling the Austrian courts’ only task was to take the necessary steps for the enforcement of the return order, without proceeding to conduct any review of the merits of the decision. If D.P. asserted that the circumstances had changed since the Venice Youth Court had given its judgment, she had to apply to that court, which would also be competent to grant such an application suspensive effect. 35. The Supreme Court noted that it was now for the first-instance court to enforce the Venice Youth Court’s judgment. In doing so, it had to take into account the fact that the Venice Youth Court had in the first place envisaged that the child should reside with her mother upon her return to Italy and had ordered the Vittorio Veneto social services department to make accommodation available for them. The first-instance court would therefore have to ask the applicant to submit appropriate evidence, in particular confirmation from the Venice Youth Court or Vittorio Veneto municipal council, that accommodation was indeed available. The first-instance court would then have to order the mother to return with the child within two weeks. Should she fail to comply within that time-limit, the first-instance court would, upon the applicant’s request, have to order coercive measures for the child’s return, while still giving the mother the opportunity to avoid such drastic measures by voluntarily returning to Italy with the child. 36. On 31 August 2010 the Venice Youth Court refused to grant an application by D.P. for the enforcement of its judgment of 10 July 2009 to be stayed. Referring to that decision, the applicant asked the Leoben District Court to order his daughter’s return to Italy. 37. The applicant claimed that he had offered to make accommodation (apparently a flat belonging to him) available to D.P. and his daughter, but that the Leoben District Court had found that this did not fulfil the conditions set by the Venice Youth Court in its judgment of 10 July 2009. 38. On 17 February 2011 the Leoben District Court asked the applicant to submit evidence that appropriate accommodation would be made available to his daughter and her mother by the Vittorio Veneto social services department, as required by the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 10 July 2009. 39. By letter of 22 March 2011 the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice, as Central Authority, informed its Italian counterpart accordingly and also noted that to date the condition had not been complied with. A similar letter was sent to the Italian Central Authority on 27 May 2011. Three further letters with similar content were sent to the Italian Central Authority prior to November 2011. 40. By a judgment of 23 November 2011 the Venice Youth Court withdrew D.P.’s custody rights and awarded the applicant sole custody of the child. It further ordered the child’s return to Italy to reside with the applicant in Vittorio Veneto. The court ordered the Vittorio Veneto social services department – if need be in co-operation with the neuropsychiatry department of the local health authority – to ensure that contact between the child and her mother was maintained and to give the child linguistic and educational support in order to assist her integration into her new family and social environment. 41. The Venice Youth Court referred to its decision of 23 May 2008, which had been aimed at preserving the child’s relationship with her mother while re-establishing contact with the applicant, noting that such attempts had failed owing to a lack of co-operation from the mother. It had therefore ordered the child’s return to Italy in its judgment of 10 July 2009. It further considered that D.P. had unlawfully removed the child to Austria and had subsequently deprived her of contact with the applicant without good reason. She had thus acted contrary to the child’s best interests. It therefore found that sole custody was to be awarded to the applicant. Given that to date any attempts to establish contact step by step had failed, his daughter was to reside with him immediately. The court noted that this would entail a difficult transition for her, but considered that the damage caused by growing up without her father would weigh even heavier. The court considered that the social services department would have to give the child educational and linguistic support to help her settle in her new family and social environment and to maintain contact with her mother. Finally, the court considered that the child’s return would not entail any grave risk of psychological or physical harm within the meaning of Article 11 of the Brussels IIa Regulation, which in turn referred to Article 13 of the Hague Convention. 42. D.P. did not appeal against this judgment. 43. On 19 March 2012 the applicant notified the Leoben District Court of the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 23 November 2011. He also submitted a certificate of enforceability under Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 44. On 3 May 2012 the Leoben District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for enforcement of the Venice Youth Court’s order for the child’s return. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision of 13 July 2010, it considered that he had failed to submit proof that appropriate accommodation would be made available for the child and her mother upon their return. 45. The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 23 November 2011 had granted him sole custody of the child and had ordered her return to Italy, where she was to reside with him. 46. On 15 June 2012 the Leoben Regional Court granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered D.P. to hand the child over to the applicant within fourteen days, noting that enforcement measures would be taken in case of failure to comply. 47. The Regional Court found that the condition that appropriate accommodation be made available to the child and the mother was no longer valid: in its judgment of 23 November 2011 the Venice Youth Court had awarded sole custody of the child to the applicant and had ordered that she return to reside with him. The applicant had submitted that judgment together with a certificate of enforceability under Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. The mother’s obligation to return the child to the applicant thus resulted directly from the Venice Youth Court’s judgment of 23 November 2011. Finally, the Leoben Regional Court noted that the award of custody made by the Judenburg District Court on 8 March 2010 could not prevent the enforcement of the Venice Youth Court’s judgment. The latter had retained its competence to rule on custody matters, as D.P. had unlawfully removed the child to Austria and the applicant had made a timely request for her return under Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 48. D.P. did not comply with the return order. She lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. 49. On 13 September 2012 the Supreme Court rejected D.P.’s extraordinary appeal on points of law, as the case did not raise an important legal issue. It noted that the return order had become final and was enforceable. The first-instance court now had no other task than to define the steps to be taken to enforce the return order. The CJEU had clarified that where there was a certificate of enforceability under Article 42(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, the requested court had to proceed with the enforcement of the main judgment. Any questions relating to the merits of the return decision, in particular the question whether the requirements for ordering a return had been met, had to be raised before the courts of the requesting State in accordance with the laws of that State. Consequently, any change in circumstances affecting the issue of whether a return would endanger the child’s well-being had to be raised before the competent court of the requesting State. D.P.’s argument that the child’s return would lead to serious harm for her and entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention was therefore not relevant in the proceedings before the Austrian courts, but rather had to be raised before the competent Italian courts. 50. On 1 October 2012 the Leoben District Court held that it was not competent to conduct the enforcement proceedings and transferred the case to the Wiener Neustadt District Court, apparently on account of a change of residence by D.P. and the child. 51. On 4 October 2012 the Wiener Neustadt District Court issued a decision on the next steps to be taken in the enforcement proceedings. The judge noted, in particular, that a continuation of the path chosen by both parents, namely the use of the child in the conflict between them, would lead to the child being traumatised, especially if the parents’ unbending position eventually led to an enforcement of the return order by coercive measures as a last resort. He noted that the best interests of the child required the parents to reach a workable compromise. The judge therefore proposed that a hearing in the presence of both parents be held in order to seek a constructive solution. Accordingly, he asked both parents to indicate within two weeks whether they were ready to take part in the proposed hearing. The judge further noted that if the parents were not willing to take part in the hearing, the enforced return of the child would be arranged. In this connection, the judge stated that any trauma suffered by the child because of such enforcement would then have to be laid at the door of the parents. Moreover, the applicant would be required to find a way to deal with the trauma caused to the child. 52. On 16 October 2012 the applicant informed the Wiener Neustadt District Court that he was not ready to take part in a hearing with the child’s mother, but wanted to arrange the return of the child with the least traumatic impact possible. He therefore suggested that he come to Austria with his parents to pick up the child or, alternatively, that D.P. travel to Italy with the child to hand her over. He therefore asked D.P. to either set a pick-up date in Austria or to inform him of a date when she would bring the child to Italy. 53. On 23 October 2012 D.P. informed the District Court that she was ready to take part in the proposed hearing. She also informed the court that she had appealed against the decision which had transferred the case from the Leoben District Court to the Wiener Neustadt District Court. Consequently, the decision establishing the latter court’s competence had not become final. She therefore asked the court to await the decision on her appeal before taking any further steps. 54. In the related case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by the mother of the child (Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013), the Court granted a request for interim measures on 4 December 2012. It asked the Government to stay the child’s return to Italy. Having obtained information from the Austrian and Italian Governments and from the applicants, the Court lifted the interim measure on 18 February 2013. 55. On 4 April 2013 the applicant’s counsel requested that the enforcement proceedings be continued. 56. On 25 April 2013 the Wiener Neustadt District Court decided to continue the enforcement proceedings and, on 30 April 2013, requested that the parties submit their views within two weeks in order to reach a comprehensive solution for the benefit of the child. According to the Government, the applicant refused to contribute to that process. 57. In a decision of 20 May 2013 the Wiener Neustadt District Court ordered D.P. to hand over the child to the applicant by 7 July 2013 and stated that in case of failure to comply coercive measures would be applied. The District Court noted that it was for D.P. to choose whether she would accompany her daughter to Italy or whether she would set a date within that timeframe for the applicant to pick up the child in Austria. Furthermore, the District Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 13 September 2012, repeated that it was for the Italian courts to examine any issues relating to the child’s well-being. It noted finally that the deadline for handing over the child had been set in such a way as to allow her to finish the school year in Austria. 58. As D.P. did not comply with the order to hand over the child, an attempt to enforce it by means of coercive measures was made in the early hours of 24 July 2013 without prior notice. The attempt, in which the judge, trained bailiffs and police officers participated, was unsuccessful, as D.P. and the child were not present at their place of residence. The applicant had been informed of the planned enforcement and was present. 59. On 9 August 2013 D.P. asked the Venice Youth Court to stay the enforcement of its judgment of 23 November 2011. Furthermore, she sought an award of sole custody in her favour. She alleged that she had not been adequately heard in the initial proceedings. Furthermore, she asserted that there had been a change of circumstances, in that her daughter was fully integrated into her living environment in Austria and had formed bonds with D.P.’s family, consisting of her mother, the latter’s partner and her younger half-brother. There had been no contact between father and child for a lengthy period and the child had no knowledge of Italian. D.P. submitted an expert opinion, according to which the child’s return to her father through the use of coercive measures would cause serious harm to the child. 60. On 14 August 2013 the Wiener Neustadt District Court dismissed D.P.’s application for a stay of enforcement, but decided to provisionally refrain from returning the child until the Venice Youth Court gave a decision on D.P.’s action before it. 61. In his observations of 18 October 2013 the applicant claimed that he had not yet been duly notified of the fresh proceedings before the Venice Youth Court. The Government, in their submissions of 18 November 2013, stated that the proceedings were pending before the Italian courts and that the parties had been notified of the dates of hearings. Moreover, the Government submitted that the applicant had not taken advantage of numerous opportunities to re-establish communication between himself and his daughter. 62. According to information provided by the applicant in a letter of 17 November 2014, the Venice Youth Court held hearings in January and April 2014 in the presence of both parents and fixed a series of meetings between the applicant and his daughter. A number of meetings took place between February and May at intervals of three weeks in Austria and then in June in Italy. The mother of the child was present at the meetings and on some occasions also her partner. The applicant alleges that on two occasions the mother’s partner threatened him and disrupted the meetings. According to the applicant meetings which had been scheduled for July and August 2014 did not take place as the mother refused to bring the child to Italy. The Venice Youth Court held a further hearing on 29 September 2014 and scheduled further meetings in Italy between the applicant and his daughter for December 2014 and January 2015. The proceedings before the Italian courts are still pending.

4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Martin. 5. A person whom the applicant operated on vertebrae after a traffic accident alleged that her health was permanently damaged due to malpractice in the course of the surgery. 6. The police opened criminal proceedings in that respect on 27 October 2004. In the course of 2005 the police investigator heard several witnesses and obtained the opinion of an expert. 7. On 30 December 2005 the investigator accused the applicant of having damaged the patient’s health. On 23 February 2006 a public prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision. 8. Between 11 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 three institutions informed the investigator that they were not in a position to review the expert’s opinion for various reasons. On 13 June 2006 the investigator heard three witnesses. 9. On 28 August 2006 the investigator appointed a different institution with a view to obtaining a second expert opinion. 10. On 16 February 2007 the injured party submitted the opinion of an expert elaborated in the context of civil proceedings concerning her claim for damages. 11. On 21 May 2007 the institution appointed to submit an opinion on 28 August 2006 informed the investigator that all its experts considered themselves biased as they knew the applicant as a physician. 12. On 1 June 2007 a different expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 9 July 2007. 13. After having taken further evidence the investigator proposed that the proceedings be discontinued on 28 August 2007. On 28 November 2007 a public prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings. 14. The injured party filed a complaint on 31 December 2007. On 21 March 2008 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The case was returned to the police investigator on 4 April 2008. 15. In May 2008 the investigator heard the experts and a witness. On 27 May 2008 it appointed an institution in the Czech Republic with a view to obtaining a counter-opinion. Upon the investigator’s request a public prosecutor transmitted the relevant documents, on 27 October 2008, to his Czech counter-part with a view to having them delivered to the institution concerned. The latter submitted the counter-opinion on 22 October 2009. 16. On 25 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that their duration was due to difficulties of an objective nature in obtaining relevant expert evidence. 17. On 12 February 2010 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the facts imputed to the applicant had not occurred. 18. On 2 June 2010 a public prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision and then discontinued the proceedings on a different ground, namely that the facts in issue do not constitute a criminal offence.

4. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Vuzenica. 5. In 1994 the applicant began investing in commercial papers of the company Kompas Consulting d.d. via the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. At the end of 1994 such trading was prohibited by the Securities Market Act however the applicant continued with the activity until 1996. 6. In 1996 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. before the Maribor District Court seeking the payment of lost investments from Kompas Maribor for not informing her of the legislative amendments and continuing with the trading of commercial papers. She further complained before the domestic courts that as the company Kompas Consulting d.d. was bankrupt, she could only receive back a small proportion of her investments in bankruptcy proceedings. 7. On 14 October 1996 the Maribor District Court issued a writ of execution. 8. On 12 November 1996 following an objection the case was referred to contentious proceedings. 9. On 4 February 1998 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. She appealed. 10. On 24 November 1998 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The second-instance court found that as the applicant had clarified that she was seeking compensation for damages only in the appeal phase, this constituted a new fact that the first-instance court would have to deliberate upon. 11. On 24 October 2001 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment. The court found that given the contractual arrangements the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. could not be held responsible for the damages sustained. The applicant appealed. 12. On 15 September 2004 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the first‑instance judgment and rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 13. On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. She lodged a constitutional appeal. 14. On 10 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal.

5. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Baku. 6. He was a student at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy at the time of the events. 7. On 15 March 2008 the applicant and his girlfriend (A.M.), who was an adult, accompanied by other three persons, travelled by car from Baku to Ganja in order to get married there. 8. On the same day the father of A.M. lodged a complaint with the police alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped. 9. On 16 March 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of that complaint under Article 144.2.3 (kidnapping committed by a group of persons) of the Criminal Code. 10. On 16 March 2008 A.M. called her family, informing them that she had gone to Ganja with her boyfriend. On the same day her parents went to Ganja to bring her back to Baku. 11. On 17 March 2008 the applicant returned to Baku. As the police had been to his home several times while he was in Ganja, on 19 March 2008 he went to the police station. The applicant was arrested at the police station and the investigator issued an order for his detention for forty-eight hours as a suspect (tutma protokolu). 12. On 21 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged with the criminal offence of kidnapping as provided in Article 144.2.3 of the Criminal Code. On the same date the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. The prosecutor substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal act and the risk of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation. 13. On 21 March 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the prosecutor’s request. At the hearing before the court, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to apply a non-custodial preventive measure, submitting that the applicant had no criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence, and that he was young. The judge at the Narimanov District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity for this measure as follows: “Taking into account the fact that there is sufficient evidence that Allahverdiyev Amil Allahverdi oglu has committed criminal acts, the gravity and character of the crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation, and that there are sufficient grounds [to believe that he might] obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, I consider it necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him.” 14. The applicant appealed against the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 21 March 2008. He complained that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that his personal circumstances had not been taken into account when the court had ordered his detention. The applicant submitted in this connection that he had a permanent place of residence, that he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, that he was an internally displaced person, and that his family and financial situation were difficult. The applicant also submitted that his pre-trial detention would violate his right to education, as he would no longer be able to attend courses during his pre-trial detention, which would result in his expulsion from university. 15. On 3 April 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The relevant part of the court’s decision reads as follows: “Taking into account the gravity of the act attributed to the accused A. Allahverdiyev, its degree of public dangerousness, the circumstance of its commission, and the fact that the sanction provided for the commission of this act is over two years’ imprisonment, the panel of the court considers that the arguments put forward in the appeal lodged by the lawyer are not sufficient for the quashing of the court order.” 16. On 11 June 2008 the investigator in charge of the criminal case asked the prosecutor for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by one month, noting that more time was needed to complete the investigation. The prosecutor lodged a request to that effect with the court. 17. On 14 June 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention period. At the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor’s request and to impose a less strict preventive measure on the applicant. In this connection, he submitted that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, that there was no risk of his absconding, that he was an internally displaced person, and that he was a student. On the same date the judge extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 19 July 2008. He substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows: “Taking into account the personality of the accused and the gravity, character, circumstances of the commission and degree of public dangerousness of the act attributed to him, as well as the necessity to carry out various investigative actions, I consider that the request must be granted, as it is justified, and the detention period of the accused Allahverdiyev Amil Allahverdi oglu must be extended.” 18. The applicant appealed against that decision, complaining that there was no justification for his continued detention. He asked the court to replace his remand in custody with the preventive measure of police supervision pending trial, an undertaking not to abscond, or house arrest. In support of his request, he pointed out that he was an internally displaced person, that he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, that he was a student, that he had no criminal record, and that he had a permanent place of residence. 19. On 20 June 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Narimanov District Court’s decision, finding that the extension of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention was justified. The court reiterated the first‑instance court’s findings concerning the nature and gravity of the criminal offence of which the applicant was suspected, and pointed to the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “The panel of the court considers that the first-instance court, having taken into account the degree of public dangerousness of the offence of which A. Allahverdiyev was accused, which was a serious crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings, and of obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation, as well as the necessity to carry out various investigative actions, has correctly extended the period of his detention.” 20. On 11 July 2008 the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with the Assize Court. 21. On 16 July 2008 the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice asking to be released from the detention facility on 19 July 2008, the date on which his authorised pre-trial detention was due to expire. 22. On 22 July 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Prosecutor General complaining that despite the fact that his pre-trial detention period had expired on 19 July 2008 he had not been released from detention. 23. On 29 July 2008 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. The applicant complained at the hearing that he had been detained unlawfully since 19 July 2008 and asked the court to replace his remand in custody with another preventive measure. At that hearing the Assize Court rejected the applicant’s request and decided that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain “unchanged”. The Assize Court further held that, as the indictment had been lodged with the court on 11 July 2008, the applicant’s detention since 19 July 2008 had been lawful. 24. The applicant appealed against the Assize Court’s decision of 29 July 2008, reiterating his previous complaints. 25. On 7 August 2008 Assize Court refused to admit the applicant’s appeal. The court noted that a decision taken at a preliminary hearing was not subject to appeal. Subsequent attempts by the applicant to challenge the decision were unsuccessful. 26. In the meantime, on 30 July 2008 the applicant brought an action against the prison department of the Ministry of Justice. He asked the court to order his release from detention, because the authorised period of pre-trial detention had expired on 19 July 2008. 27. On 11 August 2008 the Azizbayov District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court found that the Assize Court had upheld the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody at its preliminary hearing held on 29 July 2008. 28. On 11 September 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 11 August 2008. 29. On 19 March 2009 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of kidnapping together with a group of persons and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.

5. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Yerevan. 6. A third person, G., owned a plot of land, a part of which, with her consent, was separated by a fence and used by another person, J. 7. On 21 April 1998 G. concluded an agreement with J., according to which she gave a part of her plot of land, measuring 285 sq. m., to him. It appears that the plot of land actually used by J., as separated by the fence, was 38.75 sq. m. bigger than the 285 sq. m. plot given by G. The 38.75 sq. m. also belonged to G. In this connection, another agreement was reached between G. and J., according to which G. gave her consent for J. to become the owner of the whole plot of land used by him. However, it appears that J.’s ownership rights were officially registered only in respect of the plot of land measuring 285 sq. m. 8. On 28 April 1998 the applicant bought the larger plot of land from J. and, since the fence was still in place, continued to use also the 38.75 sq. m. strip of land. 9. In 2004 G. instituted proceedings against the applicant, seeking to take the 38.75 sq. m. strip of land used by the applicant, claiming her ownership rights. 10. On 14 December 2006 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan granted the claim, ordering the applicant to release the strip of land to G. 11. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal. 12. On 9 March 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the appeal and dismissed G.’s claim. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that since G. had agreed that J. become the owner of the plot of land used by him, as separated by the fence, she had relinquished her rights in respect of the strip of land in favour of J. and, consequently, in favour of the applicant. 13. This judgment was subject to appeal on points of law within six months from the date of its delivery. 14. On 26 March 2007 G. lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of 9 March 2007 with the Court of Cassation, claiming that it had been adopted in violation of substantive and procedural law. As a ground for admitting her appeal on points of law, G. submitted, pursuant to Article 231.2 § 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP), that the violations of the substantive and procedural law might have grave consequences, such as deprivation of her ownership rights in respect of the plot of land. 15. On 7 April 2007 amendments were introduced to the CCP which stipulated that there was no right to bring an appeal on points of law more than once, unless the Court of Cassation – when returning an appeal – fixed a time-limit to correct and re-submit it (see paragraph 26 below). 16. On 12 April 2007 the Court of Cassation decided to return G.’s appeal as inadmissible for lack of merit. The reasons provided were as follows: “The Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ... having examined the question of admitting [G.’s appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Court of Appeal of 9 March 2007], found that it must be returned for the following reasons: Pursuant to Article 230 § 1 (4.1) of [the CCP] an appeal on points of law must contain any of the grounds [required by] Article 231.2 § 1 of [the CCP]. The Court of Cassation finds that the admissibility grounds raised in the appeal on points of law[, as required by] Article 231.2 § 1 of [the CCP], are absent. In particular, the Court of Cassation considers the arguments raised in the appeal on points of law concerning a possible judicial error and its consequences, in the circumstances of the case, to be unfounded. ... At the same time, the Court of Cassation does not find it appropriate to fix a time‑limit for correcting the shortcomings and lodging the appeal anew.” 17. This decision entered into force from the moment of its delivery and was not subject to appeal. 18. On 7 September 2007 G. lodged another appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 9 March 2007, alleging violations of substantive and procedural law. As a ground for admitting her appeal G. indicated, in addition to the ground mentioned in her appeal of 26 March 2007, that the judicial act to be adopted by the Court of Cassation on her case might have a significant impact on the uniform application of the law, and that the contested judgment of the Court of Appeal contradicted a judicial act previously adopted by the Court of Cassation. 19. On 1 October 2007 the Court of Cassation decided to admit the appeal for examination. The reasons provided were as follows: “[The appeal] must be admitted for examination since it satisfies the requirements of Articles 230 and 231.2 § 1 of [the CCP].” 20. On 8 October 2007 the applicant lodged a reply to G.’s appeal with the Court of Cassation where, inter alia, he stated that the admission of G.’s second appeal by the Court of Cassation was in violation of the principle of res judicata and his property rights. When the Court of Cassation, by its decision of 12 April 2007, had returned G.’s appeal without fixing a time‑limit to correct any shortcomings and to re-submit the appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 9 March 2007 became final and binding. 21. On 12 December 2007 the Court of Cassation examined G.’s appeal on the merits and decided to grant it partially by quashing the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 9 March 2007 in its part related to G.’s property claim in respect of the plot of land and remitting the case for a fresh examination. The Court of Cassation found that the Civil Court of Appeal, when reaching its conclusions, had failed to take into account an expert opinion which was among the materials of the case file, as well as to indicate the provisions of the domestic law on which its judgment had been based. 22. On 1 April 2008 the General Jurisdiction Court of Erebuni and Nubarashen Districts of Yerevan conducted a fresh examination of G.’s claim and granted it by recognising G.’s ownership rights in respect of the strip of land in question. 23. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal. 24. On 10 July 2008 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court.

5. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Sant’Angelo In Campo (Lucca). 6. In 2001 the applicant was practising law. In September 2001 he sent a letter to the Italian National Legal Service Commission (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura – the “CSM”) in which he complained about the conduct of a judge, X, at the Lucca District Court. He subsequently transmitted the content of that letter by means of a “circular letter” to a number of judges of the same court, but without expressly referring to X by name. 7. The relevant parts of that circular letter read as follows: “Before you receive any incorrect or untrue information, before the corporatist spirit prevails over a correct interpretation of the reasons that drove me to write to the CSM, to the Ministry of Justice, to the National Council of Notaries and to the National Bar Council, about the conduct of two judges of the Lucca District Court in the context of a judicial partition procedure to which my clients were parties, and before any of my colleagues come to apologise, on my behalf, for my initiative, perhaps making out that I am insane or irresponsible, my intention is to clarify and tell you the reasons which led me to do so. An appeal on points of law is pending against a judgment of the Lucca District Court in which that court, ruling against the claims by a female partner and deciding on the related issue of the partition of an inheritance, asked the investigating judge to proceed with the sale of a flat, which was the sole item of property to be divided between the heirs, and which was occupied by the partner and her daughter, an heir, born to the cohabiting couple. Since the judgment of the Lucca District Court was not final, it was not possible to proceed with the sale or to initiate the procedure relating thereto, since this was prohibited expressly by Article 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other heir, however, applied for ... the sale, and the investigating judge, in spite of our repeated requests for suspension of the sale, which were all rejected, brought about, after two auctions without a buyer, the conveyance of the property to a third party at the third auction. Here are the specific reasons for which all our requests were rejected: ... In spite of this, I would like to point out at the outset that I do not feel any animosity towards the judiciary and judges in general, and that I consider, by contrast, that the role played by judges is crucial and irreplaceable for civil society. There are and have been judges who carry out and have carried out their duties with great dignity and decorum [decoro], and who deserve my admiration and the admiration of all those who have worked in the field of justice. None of us can forget Y, who died, one can say, on the ‘battlefield’. I still remember that, in the courtroom, he was the one, out of all his colleagues, who, even in his state of extreme and obvious suffering, took the greatest number cases for adjudication, and he carried on doing this until the bitter end. I confess that if I had been able to spare him the effort, in view of his condition, I would willingly have taken over his workload. But there are other equally deserving judges who work, even during their holidays, going to the office, talking to lawyers, and with whom we can have a form of collaboration and dialogue – and to them I also express my esteem and admiration. I am well aware that justice is done by men and precisely for that reason decisions may be erroneous and incomplete. I still prefer, however, a human justice to one that is automated. But what I refuse to accept is the idea that, when the rights of the individual and the dignity of those whose task it is to defend him or her are at stake, those rights could be decided upon in a partial manner, perhaps with a display of arrogance, or that a ruling could be given with total indifference and lack of commitment. I personally believe strongly in the autonomy of the judiciary and I feel that without respect for the autonomy of the person whose task it is to decide, it would be impossible to have dispassionate and fair judgments. Autonomy, however, cannot be turned into an absolute discretionary power because that would be bordering on or tantamount to arbitrariness. I have pointed out how I see the meaning of justice and reiterate that I think very highly of the duties exercised by judges, and that my full admiration goes to those who act with dedication, commitment and decorum [decoro]. I am even envious of judges, because they probably have more time to study and to dwell on issues, and also to attend to other cultural and social interests, than lawyers who, by the nature and specificity of their work, do not always manage to do things or to do things well. I often take home things to read and to study and I end up, mid-evening, nodding off over a book after a busy day, running from one office to another in the morning, and answering the phone or receiving clients in the afternoon. I also understand that the judiciary is burdened with work and with problems, that the staffing is insufficient and the workload huge – and for that reason it is true that protests [esposti] do not help to get the work done more easily, and that more collaboration and dialogue would be better than protests. There are limits, however, that in my view should not be passed and, after thinking about this for quite some time, I decided to submit this particular protest [the letter to the CSM]. I will now quote the last part of my protest in which I dwell on the meaning of the lawyer’s profession and ask whether it is legitimate that any decision or conduct should always be accepted: ‘This lawyer would point out as follows: It is regrettable to direct this letter against individuals who, even [if they have] different duties, are considered by this lawyer to be “colleagues”, as practitioners in law usually call each other. He considers, however, that he is obliged to do so in response to a lack of commitment and total indifference towards the legitimate demands of the citizen in whose name justice is done, with a belief in impunity, as the position is one of “power”, even though it should be seen as the discharge of a “duty”, and “last but not least”, a lack of respect for the dignity and responsibility of this lawyer’s profession. This lawyer has practised law in courts at three levels of jurisdiction, has borne very high costs on behalf of his clients – to the point where, if one were to apply the professional rate, one would exceed the amount of the claim – has sought, in three statements of claim filed in the Florence Court of Appeal, a stay of execution under Article 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but his requests were all rejected by reasoning that leaves much to be desired – but that is not the subject of this protest –has accumulated a formidable pile of documents of all descriptions, and has seen the attachment of funds in respect of his own claim go up in smoke. In the time it has taken to work on these cases, he could probably have dealt with fifteen ordinary cases of average complexity. If work – any type of work, provided it is lawful – has its own protection and its own dignity, then the judge too (more than any person, as a result of his function and role) cannot but allow himself not to respect for the work of others, including that of the lawyer. As a legal practitioner, this lawyer has a duty to provide some certainty to his client, who is the citizen in whose name justice is done (judgments are headed “In the name of the Italian People”). What certainty can the lawyer provide if each judge, instead of applying the law, gives his preferred interpretation and does not even explain his interpretation of the laws in question? It should be noted that the system of appeals and claims is no guarantee for the citizen. Judges are only human and can make mistakes (errare humanum est), but they cannot and must not wilfully make mistakes, by malicious intent, serious misconduct or negligence, and the citizen must have his or her claims upheld, provided they are well founded, from the earliest stage. There are a large number of cases; this can be explained by the fact that if many decisions had been taken correctly from the outset, one could have avoided the proliferation of cases, procedures and claims, as can be seen here; and not forgetting the many cases where the citizen, disappointed and bemused to receive abnormal decisions, having lost all confidence in the justice system, decides not to appeal. This entails a justified loss of confidence in the courts and an increase in workload and expense for the State, because of the extra work for other judges, registries and bailiffs. And what justification and explanation could be given by the lawyer to this client, to whom he had predicted a certain result, with all due caution, only to present a decision by the judge that is diametrically opposed to that which he predicted?? If that is the result of an error, or a lack of knowledge or commitment or analysis on the part of the lawyer, he should take responsibility for it; but when this depends on the judge, it is damaging to the lawyer because the client will necessarily have a negative opinion of the lawyer’s work. Are clients and citizens capable of understanding whether it is the lawyer or the judge who has made a mistake and to what extent?? If the lawyer does not obtain appropriate results with legal argument, what other means are available?? What must the lawyer do to obtain something to which he is professionally entitled?? ... Or should the lawyer not make life difficult for himself and carry on regardless, tending to his garden [il suo orticello], while protecting his head from any tiles that might fall off the roof – because on the one hand he is not protected and on the other he is at the mercy of another person’s discretionary power?? ... Without any regard for his own professional dignity?? ... When this letter reaches you I will be undergoing a medical operation. I am sorry that, for the time being, I cannot provide any further clarification or explanations to those who may wish them. I am however ready, if necessary, to answer for my conduct and to provide any clarification that may be requested of me after my operation, when I am in a better state of health again.’” 8. Finding that certain expressions used in the circular letter had impugned his reputation, X filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the applicant. 9. As X was a judge in Lucca, the file was transferred, under Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the judicial authorities of Genoa. 10. On 13 February 2003 the Genoa public prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed to stand trial before the court of that city. 11. X joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil party. 12. According to the charge, in the circular letter the applicant had expressed admissible (lecite) criticism in so far as he spoke about interpreting and performing the work of a judge, but had then overstepped the limits to his freedom of expression by writing the following sentences in particular: (a) “Autonomy ... cannot be turned into an absolute discretionary power because that would be bordering on or tantamount to arbitrariness”. (b) “... in a partial manner, perhaps with a display of arrogance, or ... a ruling ... given with total indifference and lack of commitment”. (c) “... the judge ... cannot allow himself not to respect the work of others, including that of the lawyer”. (d) “Judges are only human and can make mistakes ... but they cannot and must not wilfully make mistakes, by malicious intent, serious misconduct or negligence”. 13. At the hearing of 4 March 2004 the representative of the public prosecutor’s office stated that the applicant also had to be charged with proffering insults, given that it transpired from X’s statement that he had been one of the recipients of the circular letter. 14. In a judgment of 3 February 2005, deposited in the court’s registry on 11 February 2005, the Genoa District Court convicted the applicant of defamation and proffering insults and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment and to the reimbursement of X’s court costs (amounting to 2,000 euros (EUR)) with reparation for the damage sustained by X. The amount of that damage was to be fixed in separate civil proceedings; the court nevertheless awarded X an advance payment (provisionale) of EUR 15,000. 15. The District Court observed that it was not in dispute that the applicant had written the circular letter and had asked his secretary to send copies to the judges in the civil divisions of the Lucca District Court. During the proceedings, the applicant had filed pleadings and had made spontaneous statements. His arguments in defence had not, however, made it possible to disregard the offensive nature of the expressions used in the circular letter, exacerbated by the fact that he was a lawyer. In his letter, the applicant had stated that he had the greatest respect for the judiciary and for judges who carried out their duties with “dedication, commitment and decorum”. But he was clearly not talking here about X, who had been accused by the applicant of being arrogant and indifferent, of believing that he was immune because he held a position of power, and of having committed wilful mistakes, by malicious intent, serious misconduct or negligence. Those accusations could be explained not by X’s inaction in the handling of a case, but by the decisions taken by X in a case where the applicant’s requests had been rejected. Instead of reiterating his legal arguments, the applicant had overstepped the limits of his right to criticism, alleging that X had erred “wilfully”, thus seriously impugning the honour of the judge in question. 16. According to the District Court, the subject of the accusations contained in the circular letter could only have been X, as shown by similar letters, which expressly referred to that judge, addressed by the applicant and his clients to the CSM, the Ministry of Justice, the National Council of Notaries and the National Bar Council. 17. The applicant’s defence (esimente) of provocation (Article 599 of the Criminal Code) was not accepted. Even supposing that the decisions of X could be regarded as “unfair acts”, the circular letter, sent about four months after those decisions, did not constitute an immediate reaction to them. 18. The applicant lodged an appeal. 19. He alleged, among other things, that the offences he was said to have committed were punishable merely by a fine, that the sentence imposed on him had been disproportionate and that the advance he had to pay was excessive. Moreover, in his complaint X had not mentioned that he himself had been a recipient of the circular letter, thus ruling out the charge of proffering insults. The applicant also argued that it could not be seen from the text of the letter that the criticism was directed at X and that this document, when assessed as a whole, was merely a manifestation of his frustrations about the shortcomings of the justice system in general. 20. Lastly, in the alternative, he took the view that his defence of provocation was valid. He argued that, in the proceedings for the partition of an inheritance, X had on a number of occasions rejected his requests for the suspension of a sale by auction of the flat in question, and that X’s decisions had subsequently been overturned by another judge. 21. At the hearing of 12 March 2007, the applicant stated that it had not been his intention to offend X personally and he produced documents as evidence of his ill-health. 22. In a judgment of the same day, deposited in the court’s registry on 2 April 2007, the Genoa Court of Appeal ruled that no prosecution could be brought on a charge of proffering insults, as there had been no criminal complaint on that ground, and reduced the sentence for the offence of defamation to a fine of EUR 400. It stated that this sentence was fully remitted (condonata), and ordered the applicant to make reparation for the damage sustained by X, which it assessed at EUR 15,000, and to reimburse X’s court costs in the appeal proceedings (EUR 2,000). 23. The Court of Appeal observed that, in the first part of his circular letter, the applicant had recounted the tribulations of the partition proceedings in which X had taken the impugned decisions. He had added that he regretted having to make complaints about certain individuals (X and another judge) whom, even though they had different duties from his own, he regarded as “colleagues”. In addition, the judges of the Lucca District Court, giving testimony in the first-instance proceedings, had had no difficulty in identifying X as the addressee of the criticisms in the circular letter. In those circumstances, the applicant’s argument that the letter was merely a manifestation of his discontent about the justice system in general could not be accepted. 24. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the decisions taken by X in the context of the inheritance partition proceedings could, at most, be regarded as “erroneous” but not as “unfair”. The court also pointed out that one of the questions at the heart of the dispute (the existence of inheritance rights in favour of the partner) had been settled by the Court of Cassation differently from the applicant’s proposed solution. The National Bar Council had in fact noted that the applicant’s letters could have been seen as a means of pressure against the judges concerned. 25. According to the Court of Appeal, the applicant had not expressly challenged the part of the first-instance judgment considering that the expressions contained in the circular letter had overstepped the limits of the right to criticise. 26. The applicant, who had no criminal record, had to be allowed the benefit of mitigating circumstances, and under Article 52 of Legislative Decree no. 274 of 2000 (see paragraph 32 below), the penalty for defamation was now a mere fine (and not a custodial sentence). 27. The Court of Appeal observed that the distribution of a letter such as that sent by the applicant, within a small court, could not but impugn the dignity of the judge against whom it was directed and his image as an independent judge. The expressions used by the applicant, outside any procedural act, sought to call into question the professional conduct of X, who was portrayed, within a restricted community, as a partial and soft judge. In the light of those considerations, the Court of Appeal, ruling on an equitable basis, awarded the civil party EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damage. 28. The applicant appealed on points of law. 29. He reiterated his grievances and, referring to a particular passage in his grounds of appeal, stated that the Court of Appeal had made a mistake in asserting that the defendant had failed to challenge the finding about the offensive nature of the expressions contained in the circular letter. In any event, the judge had been required, at all stages of the proceedings, to verify of his own motion whether or not the criminal charge in question was made out. 30. In a judgment of 12 November 2008, deposited in the court’s registry on 17 December 2008, the Court of Cassation, finding that the Court of Appeal had given logical and correct reasoning in respect of all the contentious points, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.

7. The applicants are: (1) Mrs Medina[1] Bilalovna Akhmadova, born in 1954; (2) Mr Magomed[2] Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1979; (3) Mr Kazbek Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1982; (4) Mr Turpal Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1984. 8. They live in Grozny, Chechnya. 9. The first applicant is the wife of Musa Mausurovich Akhmadov, born in 1951. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is disabled and cannot work. 10. On 6 March 2002 Musa Akhmadov travelled to the village of Makhkety in Vedeno district in the south of Chechnya to see his ailing father. On that day between 2 and 3 p.m. he was detained at the military checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt village, Vedeno district. The applicants did not themselves witness the detention, and in their reconstruction of the events they relied on an affidavit by Alu S., the first applicant’s cousin, who was travelling with Musa Akhmadov, as well as on information obtained by them from the residents of Makhkety and a senior officer of the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt. 11. Alu S. submitted that he and Musa Akhmadov had arrived in the town of Shali, where they had hired a VAZ car with a driver to take them to Makhkety. In the village of Kirov-Yurt (also known as Tezvan) the car had been stopped at the permanent checkpoint of the Russian military, which had been installed in 2000 and remained there until early 2003. The military collected documents from the persons in the car and took them inside the checkpoint. Several minutes later they returned the passports of everyone except for Musa Akhmadov, who was ordered to get out of the car. The soldiers ordered the car to move away from the roadblock and took Mr Akhmadov into the checkpoint building. Alu S. got out of the car and tried to stop the soldiers but one of them threatened him with a machine gun and forbade him to approach. 12. Some time later the military serviceman who had accompanied Musa Akhmadov into the checkpoint building returned to the road, and Alu S. asked him what had happened. The serviceman said that Musa Akhmadov had been detained because his family name was on the list of wanted persons. He also said that they had called the headquarters of their regiment in the village of Khatuni and that someone would come from there and take him to that military unit for an identity check. All further questions should be directed to the regiment in Khatuni. 13. Later, a senior officer at the checkpoint who was known as “Arthur” (the applicants submitted that it was not his real name) told Musa Akhmadov’s relatives that the latter had been taken on the same day to the military base in Khatuni by an armoured personnel carrier (APC) with hull number 719. 14. The applicants have had no news of Musa Akhmadov since his detention on 6 March 2002. 15. The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock near Kirov-Yurt unidentified armed men had arrested Musa Akhmadov and taken him away to an unknown destination. 16. Immediately after Musa Akhmadov’s detention the applicants and other family members started looking for him. 17. On the day of detention, on 6 March 2002, Musa Akhmadov’s relatives went to the military base in Khatuni, but were not allowed to go through the gates. At about 6 p.m. the head of the temporary group of policemen from Samara on mission in Vedeno district, Mr Andrey K., came out to see them. He confirmed that he had seen Musa Akhmadov at the base and had talked to him. He assured the relatives that he had been detained by mistake, that in fact they were looking for another Akhmadov and that he would be released the next morning. 18. On the following morning, at about 10 a.m. on 7 March 2002, Mr K. again came out and told the relatives that Mr Akhmadov had been transferred by helicopter to the main military base in Khankala, where he would be released “according to his permanent registration [in Grozny]”. 19. The applicants learnt of Musa Akhmadov’s detention on 7 March 2002 and the first applicant immediately travelled to Khatuni. In the morning of 8 March 2002 she too went to the military base in Khatuni and talked to Mr Andrey K., who confirmed that her husband had been transferred to the Khankala military base the day before and who said that he had probably already been released in Grozny. 20. The applicants applied to numerous official bodies, both in person and in writing, trying to find out the whereabouts and the fate of Musa Akhmadov. Among other authorities they applied to the departments of the Interior, to the military commanders, to the Federal Security Service (FSB), to the civil and military prosecutors of various levels, to administrative authorities and public figures, and to the OSCE mission in Chechnya. The first applicant also personally visited detention centres and military bases in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Northern Caucasus. She attempted to get access to the Khankala military base where her husband had allegedly been taken, but she was not permitted to enter. 21. The applicants received hardly any substantive information about the fate of their husband and father and about the investigation. On several occasions they were sent copies of letters by which their requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors’ services. They submitted these documents to the Court, and these can be summarised as follows. 22. On 25 April 2002 the first applicant talked to “Arthur”, the head of the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt. The applicants submitted that at the time in question the roadblock had been manned by servicemen of the 51st airborne regiment from Tula (51-й полк ВДВ г. Тула). “Arthur” asked her if she had applied anywhere in connection with her husband’s disappearance. The first applicant replied that her father-in-law had written a complaint to the local department of the FSB. “Arthur” told her that probably because of that he had received a visit by officers of the FSB, who had destroyed all entries relating to Akhmadov’s detention and told him to keep quiet. In reply to “Arthur”‘s question about the witnesses to the detention, the applicants allegedly told him that the witnesses would keep quiet too. 23. The first applicant submitted that she had talked on several occasions to the servicemen at the base in Khatuni, who used the names Sergey, Dima, Yarulin and Damir (the applicant believed these were not their real names) and that they had not denied her husband’s detention there. 24. On 13 May 2002 the Vedeno District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) informed the applicant that on the same day they had opened criminal file no. 73023 “into the kidnapping of Musa Akhmadov, born in 1951, on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock in Kirov-Yurt”. 25. On 21 May 2002 the first applicant submitted a complaint about her husband’s detention and disappearance to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, identifying the witnesses to the detention. 26. On 22 and 23 May 2002 she submitted similar complaints to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 in Khankala. 27. On 11 June 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms. In that letter she referred to her conversation with “Arthur” on 25 April 2002, during which he had informed her of the destruction of documents related to her husband’s detention. 28. On 23 June 2002 the head of the Oktyabrskiy District temporary department of the interior of Grozny (Oktyabrskiy VOVD) informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Vedeno VOVD. 29. On 27 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that criminal case no. 73023, opened in relation to the kidnapping of her husband “by unknown persons”, had been forwarded for investigation to the responsible military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 in Shali. 30. On 28 June 2002 the military prosecutor for the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 in Shali with a request to conduct a thorough investigation of the complaint and to inform the applicant and the circuit prosecutor of the results. 31. On 4 July 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 forwarded the documents related to the applicant’s complaint to the Regional Counter-Terrorist Operations Headquarters in Khankala, with a copy to the applicant. The forwarding letter said that the applicant’s husband had been detained in Kirov-Yurt on 6 March 2002 by unidentified persons, and that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of military servicemen. 32. On 19 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office, instructing them to investigate the applicant’s complaint that her husband had been detained on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock in Kirov-Yurt village by servicemen of the 45th regiment, who had been stationed in Khatuni and who had used an APC with hull number 719. 33. On 22 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the NGO Human Rights Watch, who had intervened on the applicants’ behalf, that on 25 June 2002 investigation file no. 73023 had been forwarded to the Shali district military prosecutor. 34. On 15 August 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the preliminary investigation carried out by the district prosecutor’s office into the kidnapping of her husband had established the involvement of military servicemen of the 45th regiment. On 27 June 2002 criminal investigation file no. 73023-02 had been forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 in Shali, where all further requests should be directed. 35. In August 2002 Musa Akhmadov’s disappearance was reported by Anna Politkovskaya in the Moscow-based Novaya Gazeta in an article, ‘Disappearing People’. 36. On 7 October 2002 a lawyer practising in Moscow wrote, on the first applicant’s behalf, to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 in Khankala. He inquired if a criminal case had been opened into Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping by the military servicemen, and asked for copies of any procedural decisions taken in the case. 37. On 11 October 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the OSCE mission in Chechnya about progress in several kidnapping cases, including that of Musa Akhmadov. The letter stated that “on 18 June 2002 the [district prosecutor’s office] opened criminal investigation file no. 73039 under Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code. On 18 August 2002 the investigation was suspended under Article 208 part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code [failure to identify the culprits]”. 38. On 18 November 2002 the SRJI (Stichting Russian Justice Initiative), acting on the applicants’ behalf, requested the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 in Shali and the district prosecutor to inform them of progress in criminal case file no. 73023. 39. On 30 December 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that “on 18 June 2002 the district prosecutor opened criminal case file no. 73039 into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping. At present various steps are being taken in order to establish the whereabouts of the kidnapped person and to identify the culprits”. The letter also recommended the first applicant to send further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 40. On 17 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office wrote to the SRJI that information concerning the investigation was confidential and could be disclosed only to the supervising prosecutor. 41. On 25 March 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 forwarded the first applicant’s complaint “about the disappearance of her husband in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt village” to the district prosecutor’s office. The applicant was also informed that the search for missing persons was within the competence of the bodies of the Interior Ministry, where she should apply. 42. On 2 April 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office again informed the applicant that on 18 June 2002 the district prosecutor had opened case file no. 73039 into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping. On 18 June 2002 [sic] the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify the culprits. The letter further stated that on 17 December 2002 the building of the district prosecutor’s office had been shelled by an illegal armed group, and as a result of the ensuing fire the archives and all criminal case files had been destroyed. The letter concluded by saying that the prosecutor’s office continued to take all possible steps to restore criminal case file no. 73039 and to solve the crime. 43. On 11 April 2003 an investigator of the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior (ROVD) in Grozny issued a decision to grant the first applicant victim status in criminal case file no. 73023 instituted into her husband’s kidnapping. 44. On 17 April 2003 the SRJI asked the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 to inform them whether the first applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings concerning her husband’s kidnapping, and to forward them a copy of the relevant decision. 45. On 10 May 2003 the applicant wrote a detailed answer to the letter of 25 March 2003 from the military prosecutor. She stressed that her husband had not “disappeared in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt”, but that he had been detained by military servicemen at the roadblock. She gave them available information about the names and positions of the military and policemen who had been involved in his arrest and who had later confirmed to her the detention. She asked the prosecutor to obtain the lists of servicemen who were manning the roadblock at the time and to question them, to review the lists of the persons detained, to establish, with her help, the identity of the officers who had talked to her at the base in Khatuni and to question them, including Mr Andrey K., who worked as the senior investigator in the Leninskiy District Department of Interior in Samara, to question herself and other witnesses to her husband’s detention, and to inform her of her husband’s whereabouts. 46. On 3 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny, at the first applicant’s request, declared Musa Akhmadov a missing person. The first applicant and two witnesses, Alu S. and Mr. R. M., testified that on 6 March 2002 Musa Akhmadov had been taken out of a car by servicemen at the roadblock near Kirov-Yurt and taken away. He has not been seen since. The court noted that the criminal investigation into Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping by unknown persons had been pending and had declared him a missing person since 6 March 2002. 47. On 16 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 informed the SRJI that criminal case file no. 73023 related to Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping had not been received by that office. 48. On 8 August 2003 the SRJI again requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of the progress of the criminal investigation into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping and to grant the first applicant victim status in the proceedings. 49. On 1 September 2003 the criminal investigation department of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya informed the first applicant that criminal case no. 73039 concerning the kidnapping of Musa Akhmadov had been investigated by the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. 50. On 19 September 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor and asked him to take a number of steps aimed at solving the applicant’s husband’s kidnapping. The letter stated that it had been established that at the relevant time the base in Khatuni, where Mr Akhmadov had last been seen, had been manned by servicemen of the 45th airborne regiment from Moscow. The SRJI asked the prosecutor to obtain a list of servicemen who had served at the base at the relevant time and to question them about Mr Akhmadov’s whereabouts. The letter also suggested that a confrontation should be organised between the first applicant and other relatives and the servicemen of the regiment, in order to identify the persons who had talked to the relatives in the days following Mr Akhmadov’s arrest. The first applicant and other relatives would be prepared to travel to Moscow for such a confrontation. In addition, the SRJI again asked to question Mr Andrey K., who worked as the senior investigator in the Leninskiy District Department of the Interior in Samara. 51. As there was no reply to that letter, a similar letter was forwarded on 11 November 2003 to the Chechnya Prosecutor. The SRJI also requested the investigation to ask the commanders of the military base in Khatuni in writing whether Mr Akhmadov had been detained there. 52. On 18 November 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI that in December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had been attacked and burnt down, and that at present action was being taken to restore documents relating to the criminal case of Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping. 53. On 18 December 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 informed the first applicant and the military prosecutor of the Tula garrison of the following. After 19 December 2003 their office had carried out an inquiry into the first applicant’s statement, as a result of which it had been established that in March 2002 two regiments had been stationed in Khatuni, nos. 45 and 51. Servicemen of the military unit no. 28337 (45th airborne regiment) had not taken part in any special operations, they had not detained Mr Akhmadov and the military unit had no airborne combat vehicles (боевая машина десанта, BMD). The commander of military unit no. 28337, Lieutenant-Colonel V. T., and servicemen of the said military unit testified that in August 2002 (as in the text) Mr Akhmadov had not been detained or brought to the headquarters of the military unit in Khatuni, that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time; and that their unit did not have BMDs. As to the 51st airborne regiment, at the end of November 2003 it had been transferred from Chechnya to its permanent base in Tula, and thus its involvement in Mr Akhmadov’s detention could not be investigated. 54. On 28 January 2004 the first applicant submitted a letter to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alliance (UGA), asking to help her to obtain information from the servicemen of the 45th and 51st airborne regiments about the fate of her husband. 55. On 19 February 2004 the military commander of Chechnya requested the military commander of the Vedeno district, the district departments of the Interior and the FSB to investigate the facts as presented by the first applicant and to take steps to find Musa Akhmadov, who had been detained on 6 March 2002 at around 3 p.m. at the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt by servicemen of the 51st airborne regiment and taken to the military base in Khatuni in a BMD, hull number 719. 56. On 26 February 2004 the military prosecutor of the Tula garrison informed the military unit no. 2116 in Shali and the first applicant that their office had carried out an inquiry, with the following results. On 6 March 2002 servicemen of the 3rd inter-service team of the Ministry of Justice had detained a resident of Grozny, M. M. Akhmadov, as a person involved in illegal armed groups. With the assistance of servicemen of the regiment’s task team (military unit no 33842), whose names could not be established, the detained person had been transferred to the special field subdivision of the FSB (специальный полевой отдел ФСБ), located at the base camp of the regiment’s task force (базовый лагерь полковой тактической группы), and transferred to its servicemen. The letter concluded that since the special field subdivision of the FSB had been located in territory under the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116, this office should carry out further investigation. The letter listed eight pages of attachments, which were not copied to the first applicant. 57. On 2 April and 28 April 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 informed the first applicant that their office had found no information that servicemen of the military units under their jurisdiction had been involved in a crime. No special operations had been carried out at the relevant time, and no-one had been detained or delivered to the law-enforcement authorities by the military servicemen of the district. The applicant was advised to apply to the local bodies of the Interior Ministry. 58. On 15 May 2004 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the first applicant that the whereabouts of her husband and the identity of the persons who had kidnapped him could not be established. She was instructed to seek further information about the investigation from the district prosecutor’s office. 59. On 17 May 2004 the investigator of the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of her husband, who had been detained on 6 March 2002 at about 3 p.m. in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt by unknown military servicemen using a BMD. 60. On 4 June 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 informed the first applicant that on 6 March 2002 servicemen of the 3rd inter-service team of the Ministry of Justice had detained a resident of Grozny, M. M. Akhmadov, as a person involved in illegal armed groups. With the assistance of servicemen of military unit no 33842 the detained person had been transferred to the special field subdivision of the FSB, located in the base camp of the regiment’s task force in Khatuni, and transferred to its servicemen. However, it turned out to be impossible to identify the persons who had detained Mr Akhmadov or to whom he had been transferred. She was further instructed to apply to the local bodies of the interior responsible for searching for missing persons. 61. On 12 July 2004 the first applicant asked the head of the FSB to assist her in finding her husband, who had last been seen at the military base in Khatuni on 6 March 2002. 62. On 30 September 2004 the deputy head of the military counterintelligence department of the FSB informed the first applicant that the FSB had no information about the detention of Musa Akhmadov on 6 March 2002 in Kirov-Yurt. The letter further stated that the servicemen who had served in the said location in 2002 had either been transferred to other locations or dismissed from service, but that measures would be taken to identify and question them in relation to the first applicant’s husband’s fate. The first applicant would be kept informed of the results. 63. On 31 January 2005 the first applicant wrote to the President of Chechnya and asked him to find out how her husband’s name had been included in a list of persons involved in illegal armed groups, in the absence of any such involvement. 64. On 3 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General. She complained that the military prosecutor and the civil prosecutor had been transferring her complaints from one to the other and that no proper investigation had taken place. She complained that the military prosecutor’s office no. 20116 had failed to investigate the circumstances of her husband’s disappearance. 65. On 3 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the head of the military counterintelligence department of the FSB and asked him to help her find her husband, who had apparently been transferred to the military base in Khankala. 66. On 26 February 2005 the Chechnya military commander again instructed the Vedeno military commander to investigate the facts as submitted by the first applicant and to take measures in order to establish Mr Akhmadov’s whereabouts. 67. On 18 and 19 April 2005 the military prosecutor of the UGA instructed the military prosecutor of military unit no. 22116 to inform the applicants of progress in the case concerning Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping and to submit all the relevant documents. 68. On 22 April 2005 the FSB Department for Chechnya informed the head of the State Council of Chechnya that they had no information about Musa Akhmadov and that the latter had not been detained by the FSB. The letter also stated that the servicemen of the Department had been instructed to carry out a search for the missing man and that the first applicant would be informed of any progress. 69. On 6 May 2005 the prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 informed the first applicant that in order to identify the persons who had detained her husband on 6 March 2002, they had sent an information request to a “competent body”. The applicant would be informed if there was any progress. In the meantime, she should apply to the district prosecutor’s office where the criminal case was pending. 70. On 18 May 2005 the head of the criminal investigation department of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya informed the first applicant that they had taken a number of steps to find Mr Akhmadov; however, none of them had achieved any results. In particular, they had questioned the servicemen of the military units stationed in the district, forwarded requests for information to the district military commander’s office, the headquarters of the 45th airborne regiment, and the pre-trial detention centre in Chernokozovo. 71. On 17 July 2005 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the first applicant that the servicemen of the federal forces had not been involved in the kidnapping of her husband. The criminal investigation was pending with the district prosecutor’s office. 72. On 6 September 2005 the head of the Vedeno ROVD informed the first applicant that their office had opened a search file on 23 December 2004. They had conducted house-to-house enquiries in Kirov-Yurt in order to find witnesses to the kidnapping, distributed information about the missing man to their officers, and sent information requests to the local authorities. Actions aimed at finding her husband would continue. 73. On several occasions higher-ranking prosecutor’s offices forwarded the applicant’s complaints to the district prosecutor’s office and requested them to inform them and the applicant of the progress of the proceedings. 74. In November 2004 the first applicant submitted to the SRJI a written account of a public meeting which had taken place in June 2004 in front of the building of the Chechnya Government, attended mostly by women looking for their missing relatives. The first applicant submitted that on that day the gathering had been forcibly dispersed by the police and a number of participants, including herself, had been briefly detained. She had been questioned by several senior officers of the Chechen police, who had suspected her of organising the unauthorised rally and warned her that she should not continue the search for her husband. 75. On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on the same they had resumed investigation. 76. On 2 February 2006 the first applicant submitted a complaint about the inactivity of the investigative bodies to the Vedeno District Court. On 17 February 2006 the Vedeno District Court rejected the first applicant’s complaint, in her absence, because at that time the investigation was pending. The first applicant submits that she was not aware of the consideration of her claim until October 2006, when she inquired with the district court about the fate of her application. 77. On 11 April 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s letter addressed to the head of Chechnya Parliament. The letter stated that the investigation had established that on 6 March 2002 at about 3 p.m. at the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt unknown servicemen of the 51-st airborne regiment had detained and taken to an unknown destination Musa Akhmadov, born in 1951. His whereabouts have not been established. The investigation, pending with the district prosecutor’s office since 13 May 2002, had failed to identify the culprits or to find the first applicant’s husband. On 4 April 2006 the investigation had been resumed, because not all measures had been taken to solve the crime. The investigation was under supervision by the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. 78. On 7 September 2007 the Military Prosecutor of the UGA replied to the first applicant that their office had established that military servicemen had not been involved in the kidnapping of her husband. She should direct her queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 79. On 20 April 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been adjourned on 20 April 2007. 80. On 8 May 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant of the resumption of the investigation as of the same day. 81. The first applicant also submitted that her health had deteriorated. In May 2005 a doctor confirmed that she was suffering from hypertension and a heart condition. On 4 June 2004 the first applicant had been examined by a doctor who had noted high blood pressure and administered treatment. 82. In reply to the Court’s requests, the Government submitted the following information concerning the progress of the investigation. They did not submit copies of any of the documents to which they referred. 83. On 13 May 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation (file no. 73023) under Article 126, paragraph 2 (a) and (g), into the kidnapping of M. Akhmadov, upon receipt of information from the Vedeno ROVD. 84. At the same time, on 18 June 2002 the same district prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation (file no. 73039) on a complaint submitted by the first applicant about her husband’s kidnapping. 85. On 21 June 2002 the investigation of both cases was joined under file number 73023. 86. On 27 June 2002 the said case file was forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116. However, since no involvement of military personnel in the crime could be established, the case file was returned to the district prosecutor’s office on 13 July 2002. 87. On 13 July 2002 the investigation was adjourned under Article 208 part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 88. On 17 December 2002 the premises of the district prosecutor’s office was shelled by unknown persons and caught fire. As a result, a number of documents were destroyed, including criminal case no. 73023. A criminal case was opened into the incident, and measures have been taken to restore the destroyed documents. 89. On 26 February 2003 the investigation questioned Musa Akhmadov’s sister, Z. A., about the circumstances of the crime. 90. According to the Government, the investigator forwarded requests to the Vedeno and the Oktyabrskiy [Grozny] District Departments of the Interior, asking these offices to take measures to solve the crime. He also requested information about the possible detention of Musa Akhmadov from the district department of the FSB. The latter office replied on 24 March 2003 that they had not detained Musa Akhmadov and had not carried out any search and operative measures in respect of him. 91. On 3 March 2003, and later again on 11 November 2005, the investigation questioned R. A., another of Musa Akhmadov’s sisters, and a neighbour, M. T. On 14 November 2005 it questioned Mr Kh. M. The Government did not indicate what these witnesses had stated. 92. The Government also stated that no further information about the progress of the investigation was apparent from the case file. 93. On 12 May 2004 the acting district prosecutor reopened proceedings and informed the first applicant accordingly. On 13 May 2004 the investigation requested the district department of the FSB to take measures to identify persons responsible for Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping. 94. On 17 May 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 95. On 18 May 2004 the investigation sent information requests to all the district prosecutor’s offices in Chechnya, to the head of the UGA and to the military commander of the republic. The Government did not indicate the contents of these requests or whether any replies had been received. 96. On 12 June 2004 the investigation was adjourned, of which the first applicant was informed. 97. On 17 September 2004 the acting district prosecutor reopened proceedings and informed the first applicant. On 17 October 2004 the investigation was adjourned. 98. On 2 November 2005 the investigation was reopened. From 3 to 6 November 2005 new information requests were sent to the “competent bodies”. The Government did not give any further details about these requests. 99. In November 2005 the first applicant was questioned as a victim on two occasions. Seven other persons were also questioned, including Musa Akhmadov’s sisters and Mr Kh. M. The Government did not indicate what they had stated. 100. On 16 November 2002 the deputy district prosecutor repeated the decision of 21 June 2002 to join criminal investigation files numbers 73023 and 73039, because the original had been lost. 101. On 2 December 2005 the investigation was suspended, and on 18 January 2006 it was reopened. The first applicant was informed of the reopening. 102. On 18 January 2006 the investigation was reopened. The victim and witnesses were additionally questioned and information requests were forwarded to various law-enforcement and military services. However, no new information about the fate of Musa Akhmadov had been obtained. On 20 April 2007 the investigation was adjourned, and on 29 January 2008 it was again reopened. The Government did not indicate any other details about the investigative actions taken within this round of proceedings. 103. Despite specific requests made by the Court on three occasions, the Government did not submit any documents from the file in criminal case no 73023. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of documents disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses, and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others.

4. The applicants were born in 1954, 1954 and 1978 respectively and live in Tunceli and Istanbul respectively. 5. The first and the second applicants’ son and the third applicant’s brother, Önder Babat, was a fourth-year student at the Law Faculty of Istanbul University. Önder Babat had been the subject of disciplinary investigations at the University and at the time of the events had criminal proceedings pending against him for participating in an illegal demonstration. The applicants maintained that he was Kurdish, Alawite, and had strong left-wing political views. 6. According to the witness statements given to the public prosecutor on 22 March 2004 by Mr E.Ö., Mr B.Y. and Ms P.A., the events unfolded as follows: On 3 March 2004 Önder Babat and his three friends went to watch a documentary film at the French Cultural Centre at Istiklal Street in Taksim, Istanbul. Afterwards they visited the office of the Devrimci Hareket Dergisi (Revolutionary Movement Magazine), a magazine with left-wing political views located in Imam Adnan Street right next to Istiklal Street. Immediately after they left the office, at approximately 6.50 p.m., Önder Babat suddenly collapsed in the street bleeding heavily from the head. His friends, with the help of other people, took him to Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where Önder Babat died. He was twenty-five years old. 7. According to a report drafted by two police officers and signed by Mr B.Y., one of Önder Babat’s friends, the police received information about the incident at 7.20 p.m. and arrived at Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where, after taking oral statements from Önder Babat’s friends, the police, with Mr B.Y., returned to the scene of the incident. They noted blood trails on the ground. The police were told by people in the vicinity that they had not witnessed anything unusual and that the injured person had been taken to the hospital by his friends. 8. At approximately 8.10 p.m. a second group of police officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters arrived at the scene of the incident to make a preliminary investigation on behalf of the public prosecutor, who had been notified of the incident by telephone. A sketch was made of the scene of incident and seven sets of photographs were taken. The police noted a 10 x 10 cm stone on the floor approximately 1.80 metres from the blood trail. They considered that the stone might have caused his death by falling on his head from one of the surrounding buildings. They collected the stone and blood samples for the criminal laboratory. In the report drafted by the police the weapon is stated as unidentified. The police left the scene at 9.40 p.m. The officers in charge of the preliminary investigations issued an incident report. It was noted in this report that a hole of 5 cm x 5 cm was found on the upper left side of Önder Babat’s head and an ecchymotic lesion of 2 cm was observed around his right eyebrow. 9. On the same date between 8.00 p.m. and 8.40 p.m. officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters took statements from Önder Babat’s three friends who had been with him at the time of the incident and from a waiter who worked at a nearby café. They all affirmed that they had no idea what had caused Önder Babat’s injuries. 10. On 4 March 2004 at 11.30 a.m. Önder Babat’s cousin gave a statement to officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters, where he stated that Önder Babat did not have any enemies. 11. On the same day a post-mortem examination was carried out on Önder Babat’s body. The doctor concluded that an autopsy had to be carried out to determine the cause of death. 12. On the same date an autopsy was carried out on Önder Babat’s body on the orders of the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. In the autopsy report drafted on 1 April 2004 and signed by four doctors from the Forensic Medicine Institute, a bullet entry hole was observed on the left front parietal region and a 9 mm calibre cartridge was found in the right cerebellum. The doctors indicated that the cause of death was a fracture of the cranium and cerebral haemorrhage due to the gunshot wound, and that the gun had been fired at long range. 13. On 8 March 2004 the Istanbul provincial criminal police laboratory carried out a ballistic examination of the cartridge found in Önder Babat’s head. The experts concluded that the bullet had been fired from a 9 mm Parabellum-type pistol. 14. On 9 March 2004 the police superintendent (Başkomiser) at the Beyoğlu police headquarters informed the Beyoğlu public prosecutor that the cartridge could not be matched with bullets fired from other weapons which had been used in previous criminal incidents involving unknown perpetrators, and that since the bullet was not deformed it was highly unlikely that it had ricocheted off any other target. 15. On 22 March 2004 the public prosecutor heard evidence from Mr E.Ö., Mr B.Y. and Ms P.A. Two of them stated that they had heard a sound which they considered to be probably the sound of Önder Babat’s collapse on the street but that they had not heard any gunshots. 16. On 6 May 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor put a question to the Forensic Medicine Institute as to whether the findings of the autopsy report could shed light on the angle and the distance of the shot. 17. On 24 September 2004 the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report concerning the public prosecutor’s question, in which they declared that the shot had been fired from a long distance, namely further than 35‑40 cm. They did not, however, state an opinion as to the angle from which the shot had been fired, as such a finding was medically impossible due to the mobile nature of the target in question. 18. In the meantime, on 12 July 2004 the applicants lodged an application with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. They claimed that they had received an anonymous call from a police officer who had alleged that during the ballistic examination carried out at the criminal police laboratory the cartridge found in Önder Babat’s head had been discovered to have been defaced and scraped in an attempt to render the weapon used in the incident unidentifiable. These findings had not however been included in the ballistic report. The applicants requested an in-depth investigation regarding this allegation. 19. On 15 December 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor ordered the Forensic Medicine Institute to examine the cartridge in accordance with the applicants’ request. 20. On 5 January 2005 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report where they held that the microscopic examination of the cartridge had not revealed any traces of defacement or scrapings as alleged by the applicants. 21. In the meantime, on 3 August 2004 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the officials carrying out the preliminary investigation into Önder Babat’s death, and requested that the persons responsible be charged with breach of duty. The applicants claimed in particular that the authorities had attempted to cover up the real cause of Önder Babat’s death by insisting that the death had been caused by a stone that fell on his head, that they had not drawn up a proper sketch plan of the scene of the incident, and that they had not sought witness statements from, or questioned persons in the vicinity of, the crime scene. They claimed that certain officials had even gone so far as to tell them that there was nothing suspicious in Önder Babat’s death which would necessitate informing the public prosecutor or which would require the performance of an autopsy. The applicants moreover alleged that the investigation had been limited to a comparative study with evidence in other “unknown perpetrator killings”, but no match had been attempted with any weaponry which had been recorded as being in the possession of the law enforcement officers or other licensed users. 22. On 8 November 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor, referring to the steps undertaken in the preliminary investigation and to the fact that the investigation was ongoing, issued a decision not to prosecute (takipsizlik kararı) due to a lack of evidence indicating a breach of duty. 23. On 24 December 2004 the applicants objected to the public prosecutor’s decision. 24. On 2 February 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicants’ objection. 25. On 17 March 2005 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor instructed the Beyoğlu police headquarters to pursue its investigation and to arrest the suspects or, if it was unable to do so, to issue a progress report every three months. 26. According to the information in the case file, the investigation into Önder Babat’s death is still pending. The case file reveals much correspondence between the prosecutor and the police regarding the investigation.

5. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Comrat. She acts on behalf of her deceased husband, Mr Petru Grădinar (“G.”). 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. G. was in conflict with a number of officers of the Comrat police and was allegedly persecuted by those officers for criticising them and helping alleged victims of police abuse. In 1993 G. was allegedly abducted by the local police and a ransom was requested. Having been kept for 15 days in the woods, he was released and on 24 December 1993 lodged a complaint against several officers of the local police, including D., the Deputy Chief of the Comrat police. A criminal investigation was opened but was discontinued for lack of evidence. 8. On 11 March 1995 M., a subordinate of D., made a complaint against G. for resisting the legitimate orders of the police. On the same day G. made a complaint against D., M. and another officer for abusing their power by beating him up at his home and requested the opening of a criminal investigation. The judge examining the two cases closed the first one for lack of evidence. The criminal investigation into G.’s complaint was discontinued some time later. 9. On 4 May 1995 the personnel of the local police station wrote a letter to various authorities in support of the three officers and against D.C. (one of the three accused in the present case). The Prosecutor General found that many of the statements by the police officers in that letter were unfounded and tendentious and contained gratuitous accusations against G., D.C. and the prosecutor who had opened the criminal investigation. There was mention of talk among the officers about possibly resorting to “illegal methods of fighting” the suspects. 10. On 16 September 1995 a burnt-out car was found in a forest near Comrat. The police found the remains of a person in the boot of the car. A criminal investigation was opened and led to the conclusion that the victim was D. Three persons became the prime suspects: the C. brothers (D.C. and G.C.) and G. 11. According to the prosecution, the following events led to the murder of D. on the night of 15 to 16 September 1995. In 1994 D. had opened a criminal investigation against G.C. for “aggravated hooliganism”. The C. brothers and G. were in serious conflict with D. On 15 September 1995 D. visited a bar in Comrat, where he met with the C. brothers and G., was insulted by them and was hit outside the bar. They agreed to meet at around 4 a.m. at a roundabout to finish the dispute. 12. When they met at 4 a.m., the C. brothers and G. beat D. and then forced him into the back of his police car and drove to a forest, followed by G. in his own car. In the forest, they continued beating D. and then loaded him into the boot of his car, sprayed petrol all over it and set the car on fire. The applicant disputed this version of events. 13. On 20 May 1997 the Chişinău Regional Court acquitted all three suspects. On 21 October 1997 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. 14. On 5 December 1997 a bomb exploded near G.’s house but nobody was hurt. G. lodged a complaint and requested measures of protection. The criminal investigation initiated at his request could not identify the bombers and was closed in February 1998. The Ministry of the Interior refused to apply measures of protection to him because he had not received any threats and there was no reason to expect a repeat of the bombing. 15. On 12 January 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower courts’ judgments of 20 May and 21 October 1997 and ordered a full rehearing of the case. 16. On 11 June 1999 G. and his son were killed in their car by gunmen. The criminal investigation subsequently launched did not reveal the identities of the killers. On 6 July 1999 the applicant insisted on the continuation of her late husband’s retrial in order to prove his innocence. She was recognised as his legal representative and was allowed to make submissions to the courts in addition to those made by the lawyer whom she had appointed. 17. On 16 September 1999 the Chişinău Regional Court (“the first-instance court”), the only one which examined the witnesses in the case directly (except for P.O., the prison hospital doctor), found the following facts: (a) Administrative proceedings against D.C. and G. 18. On 17 September 1995 D.C. was taken to the local police station and questioned as a witness about the events of the night of 15 to 16 September 1995. On 18 September 1995 G. was taken to the same police station and also questioned as a witness about the same events. 19. They were not informed of their rights and were not assisted by lawyers. They were handcuffed while questioned. After the questioning, administrative files were opened on the basis of their alleged insults to D. at the bar and a judge ordered their arrest for ten days as an administrative sanction. During the administrative arrest further questioning took place and other procedural steps were taken, resulting in evidence later used in the criminal case against them. In particular, during this period (18-22 September 1995), G. and D.C. confessed to having murdered D. 20. The court found that the initial reports which had served as a basis for the administrative arrest had been filed in breach of the proper procedures. There had been no grounds for the administrative arrest because the two men were suspects in a criminal case and any detention should have been ordered on that basis. 21. On 19 September 1995 G. and D.C. were taken to a remand centre in Chişinău, where they were questioned again until 21 September 1995 as witnesses and without legal assistance. They made statements accepting their guilt during the questioning. 22. On 21 September 1995 they were, for the first time, interviewed as suspects (as opposed to witnesses), still without having their rights explained and without access to a lawyer. (b) Alleged ill-treatment 23. On 9 October 1995 both D.C. and G. were questioned for the first time in the presence of their lawyers and each confessed to having committed the crime. However, when signing the record of the questioning, each wrote that he did not accept any guilt. The same happened on 7 November 1995 in respect of G.C., who had been arrested in Russia and extradited to Moldova. In his statement G.C. mentioned that G. and D. had fought in the woods and had both fallen to the ground before D. was immobilised and burned in his car. D.C. noted that after taking C.S. to the hospital where she worked after 3 a.m., they had driven back by the police station building and towards the roundabout. However, the court found that this was contradicted by the officer P.V., who had been in a police car parked next to the police station and who had not seen any car drive past the station at that time. 24. In early October 1995 G. lodged two complaints about ill-treatment by the police. On 15 December 1995 the investigating judge requested the prosecutor to investigate the allegations. On 1 March 1996 the prosecutor answered in respect of one complaint that the facts had not been confirmed but did not attach any documents from the investigation as required by law. There was no evidence of any investigation of the second complaint. 25. In October 1995 G. was admitted to a hospital for detainees, where he was examined by Dr P.O. on 13 October 1995. Dr P.O. testified in court that G. had complained to him of ill-treatment by the police, but because there were no visible signs, this had not been recorded in the medical report. The court noted that the medical report had been drawn up almost a month after the alleged ill-treatment, which prevented the verification of the allegations. However, G.’s medical file showed that he had complained of pain in the kidneys and broken chest bones and that he had been treated for injuries to his head and leg (“post-traumatic neuritis of the right leg”). Dr P.O. testified that such damage to the leg normally appeared as a result of blows or contusions to that area. The doctor’s conclusion that no chest-bone fractures had been found was not backed up by X-ray evidence as required by law. Subsequent X-ray pictures were of too poor a quality to establish whether the bones were intact. 26. On 20 March 1996 another medical examination of G. was carried out at the request of the investigator. While no signs of ill-treatment were found, the diagnosis was “mild consequences of craniocerebral trauma with hypertonic syndrome” and G. was advised to undergo in-patient treatment. He refused, but in May 1996 he had to be admitted to the hospital as a result of the head injuries and neuritis in the leg. He stayed at the hospital until December 1996. 27. The court also found that, owing to various violations of the rules on criminal procedure, including the use of ill-treatment for the purpose of obtaining a confession, the self-incriminatory declarations made by the third suspect, G.C., who had been arrested in Russia, could not be accepted as evidence. No proper request had been made by the Moldovan authorities to their Russian counterparts to question G.C. and he could not properly be questioned by the Russian authorities because he was not a Russian citizen. 28. The court found that in all the statements made by the suspects there was no fact of which the prosecution had not already been aware before the questioning. Furthermore, G.’s complaint that he had been shown a video of D.C.’s statements, including those made during the crime scene investigation, had been made at a time when he was still a witness and had no right of access to the case file; he was not even supposed to have known of the existence of that video recording. The court concluded that the only way for G. to have known about the recording was by having seen it, which confirmed his claim that he had been shown it in order to ensure that his confession concurred with those of D.C. 29. On the basis of all the evidence, the court found that the statements made by the suspects during questioning had not been given voluntarily but had been taken from them illegally under duress and could not constitute valid evidence. (c) Witness statements 30. The court then turned to the witness statements. The witnesses had given evidence on three matters: (i) the quarrel at the bar; (ii) the existence of unfriendly relations between the accused and D. (motive for the crime); and (iii) the events at around 4 a.m. at the C. brothers’ parents’ house (alibi for G.). (i) Witness statements regarding the quarrel at the bar 31. The court examined a number of witnesses whose written statements made at the police station about the events at the bar apparently confirmed that the accused had initiated the fight and been aggressive towards D. A number of those witnesses declared in court that they had been threatened or otherwise forced by the police to sign witness statements, whereas they had not witnessed the events described in the statements. One of these witnesses was C.E., who stated that under pressure from the police he had signed a false witness statement about having seen the accused’s car being driven in the direction of the roundabout at about 3 a.m. on the date of the crime. 32. The statements taken from seven other witnesses by the police in 1995 were read out in court, including that of M.E. who had been with C.E. and had confirmed his statement (see the preceding paragraph). They referred mostly to the events at the bar. Since these witnesses were uncontactable abroad and the accused could not confront and properly challenge them, and in virtue of guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention, the court rejected their statements as evidence. 33. Another witness, a former colleague of D. who had been accused by G. of beating him up in 1995, confirmed his earlier statements attributing the initiation of the fight to the accused. He had gone with D. to the police station and, rather than talking about subsequently returning for any further meeting, they had agreed to go home after visiting the police station. The witness C.S. declared in court that she had seen part of a quarrel at the bar between the accused and D. but that later (at around 3.30 a.m.), when she had been taken to work by the accused in their car, they had been calm and had not spoken about the policemen. 34. The court concluded that not a single witness, including D.’s colleagues, had confirmed the prosecution’s version that D. and the suspects had agreed after the incident at the bar to meet at a later time near the roundabout to continue the dispute. 35. Some of the police officers declared that G.C. had threatened D. with violence because of the administrative file opened against him. The court failed to see why in such circumstances and after allegedly being threatened that same night by the suspects, D. would have agreed to return for a fight, alone and without warning anyone, including the officer on duty at the police station, and without taking his weapon from the safe. 36. D.’s colleague, a police officer who was present during all the events at the bar, had not informed his superiors of any such meeting even though he would have been obliged to report anything suspect. Indeed, he did not confirm that such an agreement had taken place. Moreover, having called his wife from the police station, he had gone outside to be taken home by D. in his car but had not seen D. or his police car. He had run down the street hoping to see him, but passing by the roundabout several minutes later, he had not seen D. or anyone else there. 37. The court’s conclusion was that the incident at the bar, to the extent that it had happened, had ended there. (ii) Witness statements regarding the existence of unfriendly relations between the accused and D. (motive for the crime) 38. Other witness statements related to the alleged motives for the crime, for example, that relations between the suspects and D. were hostile on account of the criminal file opened against G.C. and that D. was worried about vengeance on their part. However, the court found no objective confirmation of such fears. On the contrary, D. had declared during questioning in the case in which G. had accused him of abduction in 1993 that he was on good terms with G. 39. In addition, while D. had opened a criminal investigation in respect of G.C. on 16 June 1994, he had not taken any measures in relation to him before handing the case to another investigator on 1 July 1994. There was no evidence in the file suggesting that G.C. had seen the materials in the file and thus found out about D.’s involvement in the case, and the case had been closed by another investigator in December 1994 following G.C.’s admission of having committed hooliganism. The court thus did not find any reasonable motive for revenge by G.C. based on that investigation. 40. Other witnesses called by the prosecution not only denied the allegation that G.C. had told them about killing D. while they were travelling in Russia, but declared that they had seen G.C. being beaten to obtain a confession from him. The court likewise rejected the evidence of a former officer from the police station in Comrat where D. had worked to the effect that he had been told by G.C. about the murder and its details. The court found that the witness was not impartial. (iii) Witness statements regarding the events at around 4 a.m. at the C. brothers’ parents’ house (alibi for G.). 41. Another group of witnesses testified about the events at the house of the C. brothers’ parents. These witnesses (not only the parents) stated that they had butchered and processed a pig for about two hours and then taken the meat to the market at about 5.30 a.m. Two of them declared that they had been made to sign statements which did not entirely correspond to what they had witnessed, in particular being pressed by the police to indicate that the butchering had begun at a different time and to declare that G. had not been present. A meat seller at the market confirmed that at about 5.30 a.m. he had received meat from G.C. and that, judging by its weight, the butchering had taken between one and a half and two hours. 42. Considering all the above witness statements, the court found that at around 4 a.m., the time of the murder according to the prosecution, the suspects had been at C. brothers’ parents’ house and could not have been in the woods to commit the crime as alleged. (d) Minutes of the crime scene investigation 43. The report of the crime scene investigation, together with a video recording of the investigation, depicted each of the accused showing the place and the manner in which they had allegedly committed the crime. According to the testimony of one of the police officers who had taken part, the investigation had been carried out on 18 September 1995. 44. The court found a number of violations of the rules on criminal procedure in the investigation of the crime scene. In particular, the report had been signed and annexed to the case-file only at a much later stage, whereas by law, it should have been signed during or immediately after the investigation. The witnesses to the crime scene investigation confirmed that they had signed the report but that they had not been allowed near the crime scene and had seen the burnt-out car only from a distance. Contrary to legal requirements, they had not had any explanation of their rights and obligations as witnesses, they had not seen what the police had found on the scene and they had not seen the video recording of the event before signing the report and map. 45. In addition, while a car tyre print had been found at the crime scene, a copy had not been made. D.’s documents, found intact and “conspicuously displayed” nearby, had not been examined for fingerprints, even though they had a plastic cover that could have retained prints. 46. A piece of fabric found on a bush had been described but not located on the map and not subjected to expert analysis. The analysis of the suspects’ clothes which they had worn on that night did not reveal any element suggesting that they had been at the crime scene. A petrol tank found at the scene had likewise not been analysed by the experts. 47. The prosecution had not produced to the court the video recording of the crime scene investigation. The map drawn did not indicate the exact position of a number of items and marks noted in the report as having been found at the crime scene. This made it impossible for the court to verify whether what the accused had indicated at the crime scene coincided with the map and the traces found. 48. The report of the investigation described the finding of a plastic tube in September 1995, but no details or measurements were given. It was only on 28 February 1996 that the investigator had presented as evidence a piece of plastic tubing which had allegedly been found at the crime scene and had been used for taking fuel from D.’s car in order to set the car on fire. The court rejected that evidence, along with the result of a forensic experiment that merely showed the possibility of evacuating fuel from the car’s tank in that manner. 49. In the light of these findings, the court excluded the crime scene report as a whole from the evidence on account of the serious procedural violations. (e) An unexplored alternative lead 50. The court examined additional facts determined during the investigation. A witness testified that he worked as a security guard in a café near the roundabout and had seen a police car and another car stopping there and a fight taking place between their occupants. They had then all got back into their cars and shots had been heard. One car had left, followed by the police car, in the direction of Chişinău. He had not seen either of the two cars return in the direction of the wood where the burnt-out car was later found. 51. Other witnesses confirmed in court that they had heard shots that night but could not confirm their location. 52. The defence claimed that, after a brief initial investigation of the shooting, including a ballistics report, the relevant evidence had been withdrawn and examined in a new criminal case, in order to prevent the examination of alternative leads in the accused’s case. The court found no evidence of any ballistics report, but noted the presence of records of interviews of witnesses who had heard the shots. Moreover, a cartridge case was found in D.’s car, the origin of which had not been explained. The court concluded that initially there had been another lead in the case which had not been fully investigated. 53. The court also examined the evidence relating to the identification of the human remains found in the car and decided that the identity of the victim had not been established. 54. The court also found, from the statements of a number of witnesses, including police officers, that the assumption that the three suspects had committed the crime had emerged immediately and remained not just the main scenario under consideration, but in fact the only one examined during the entire investigation. In the court’s view, this was confirmed by the failure to examine in any detail the established fact of the shooting in the area of the roundabout. 55. The court also noted the general attitude of the local police officers towards the suspects displayed in their letter of 4 May 1995 (see paragraph 9 above), which had led it to conclude that the local police had formed a strongly negative attitude towards the suspects even before the crime had been committed. Added to that was the loss to the police station in the form of the police car that had been destroyed. The court concluded that that police station should not have been involved at all in the investigation of the crime. Nonetheless, most procedural steps in the initial phase of the investigation of the case had been performed by officers from that police station. (f) Expert reports 56. The court examined the expert reports on various items found in and around the car. It concluded that most of those reports had been filed in serious breach of the rules on criminal procedure (notably, the presumed identity of the human remains found in the burnt-out car had already been written on the materials presented to the experts, who were under the impression that the fact had already been established) or had been seriously undermined by the improper manner in which samples had been obtained during the crime scene investigation. 57. The court concluded that these reports neither confirmed, nor denied the identity of the victim. The objects found in the car and identified as belonging to the alleged victim were not inseparable from him and could have been placed there. Moreover, the prosecution had given no explanation as to why those who had committed the crime, having taken measures thoroughly to destroy all traces, had left D.’s personal documents untouched in an open space nearby, “conspicuously displayed” with his picture attached. (g) Overall conclusion of the Chişinău Regional Court 58. The court considered that credibility could be attached to the statements by the accused that illegal forms of pressure had been used on them and to those made by some witnesses about being forced by the police to give false statements. 59. The court also found that the investigation had been unilateral and biased against the suspects. It found that it had not been proved that the remains in the burnt-out car belonged to the alleged victim. While it had been proved that a crime had been committed by burning the car and an unidentified person inside it, there was no evidence to show that the suspects were the perpetrators of the crime. Most of the evidence gathered was unreliable owing to breaches of criminal procedure and could not serve as a basis for a conviction. On the basis of its findings, the court acquitted all three suspects. 60. On 31 January 2000 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court and adopted a new one, convicting D.C., G.C. and G. It did not sentence G. because of his death in 1999. 61. The court recounted in detail the sequence of events as submitted by the prosecution. It then examined the parties’ submissions and the material in the case file and examined one witness (Dr P.O.). The court noted the contents of the interviews of each of the accused during the investigation (of G.C. on 1 and 7 November 1995, of D.C. from 17 to 20 September, 9 October and 10 November 1995 and of G., without specifying any specific date in his case but rather stating that he had given genuine confessions “throughout the investigation”). 62. It found that the three suspects had on a number of occasions made genuine and consistent confessions in the presence of their lawyers and that G.C. had written one of his confessions himself. D.C.’s confession of 19 and 20 September 1995 had been filmed. 63. The court considered that all of the above precluded the possibility of ill-treatment and that the suspects’ confessions had incorrectly been excluded from the evidence by the first-instance court. The suspects had changed their statements towards the end of the investigation only to avoid criminal responsibility. 64. In the court’s opinion, there was no evidence of any ill-treatment of the accused. The officers questioned in that regard all denied having applied such treatment and G.’s personal medical file from his hospital treatment in October 1995 did not establish any evidence of ill-treatment. Dr P.O. did not confirm the ill-treatment. 65. The officer who had questioned G.C. after arresting him in Russia testified to the fact that G.C. had been lawfully questioned and that he had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment. Because G.C. had a Russian residence visa in his passport for 1995, the Russian investigating authorities had treated him as a Russian citizen and there had thus been no need for a special request by any Moldovan authority to that effect. 66. The court noted that all three suspects had made similar statements, differing only as regards their respective roles in committing the crime. The court considered that their subsequent denial of committing the crime and the slight variations in their versions of events was an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility. 67. The crime scene investigation had been conducted in the presence of witnesses and G.’s lawyer and was filmed. Both D.C. and G. had been able clearly to indicate the place and the manner of D.’s killing. 68. D.’s wife had identified the objects found in the burnt-out car and declared that the accused had often threatened her husband and family because of a criminal investigation opened by her husband against G.C. On 17 September 1995 the local police had called to inform her that her husband’s corpse had been found burned in the woods, together with his keys and documents. The court found that D. had indeed opened a criminal investigation against G.C. on 16 June 1994. 69. The car found at the crime scene belonged to the local police station. Blood samples from around the car coincided with the D.’s blood group. Moreover, no other disappearances had been reported during the relevant period in the region. There was no doubt in the view of the Court of Appeal that the corpse found in the car was D. 70. The court stated, without giving any further details, that a number of witnesses had “directly and indirectly shown that the accused were connected to the crime”. The statements of two other witnesses, excluded from the evidence by the first-instance court, were declared admissible by the Court of Appeal, although it did not specify why, or what those statements included. 71. Moreover, the witness statements of M.F. and S.P. had been read in court but unlawfully excluded from the evidence by the first-instance court. 72. The court also found that the first-instance court had not given reasons for its decision to reject from the file several types of evidence. The court rejected as unproven, without giving any explanation, all the other evidence taken into account by the first-instance court in favour of the accused. It found each of the accused, including G., guilty as charged and decided to discontinue the proceedings against G. because of his death. 73. On 30 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 74. The court first recounted in detail the prosecution’s version of events, the findings of the lower courts in the case and the arguments raised by the defence, including an alibi for the accused. 75. The court declared that it accepted only lawfully obtained evidence as the basis for its judgment, evidence which it found “sufficient to confirm the guilt of the accused [G.C.], [D.C.] and [G.] in having committed the acts of which they are accused”. It referred to the contents of the self-incriminating statements made by the accused on 9 October and 7 November 1995 and noted that these statements had been made in the presence of their lawyers. It confirmed the Court of Appeal’s acceptance of the self-incriminating statements as the “decisive evidence” in the case. The accused had made similar statements; the discrepancies relating to the role of each in committing the crime were the result of their attempt to transfer most of the guilt to the others. 76. The court also found that the accused had not withdrawn their statements until 6 March 1996, when they declared that they had been ill-treated. The first-instance court: “gave credibility to the accused’s declarations, even though they had not been proved, while deciding, without any basis, that witnesses who testified that there had been no ill-treatment were interested persons and should thus have their testimony excluded.” 77. The court also noted the statements of several witnesses who confirmed that the quarrel at the bar had taken place, that the accused had initiated it and that they had left for the hospital, while D. had left for the police station after 3 a.m. The testimonies largely coincided, as to the time and sequence of events, with the initial statements by the accused. 78. The witness C.S. confirmed that the accused had driven her to the hospital after 3 a.m. and confirmed the quarrel at the bar. Her statements largely coincided with those made by D.C. on 17 September 1995. The witnesses C.E. and M.E. stated that they had seen the accused in their car and the police car driving towards the roundabout shortly after 3 a.m. 79. The officer who had been on duty that night at the police station noted that D. and his colleague M. had come to the station at around 3.22 a.m. and that minutes later D. had left in the car. 80. Officer M. (se paragraph 8 above), remembered one of the accused shouting in the Gagauz language “I will burn you”. The officer did not speak that language but remembered the word and had later found out its meaning. 81. The court noted that D. had opened a criminal investigation against G.C., which might have constituted a motive for revenge. 82. The court examined various pieces of evidence which proved, in its view, that the human remains found at the crime scene were those of D.: an expert report had found that the corpse was, in all probability, that of a man; the blood stains found coincided with D.’s blood group; and items found in and around the car, such as keys and documents, belonged to D. and had been recognised by his wife. 83. Lastly, the court declared that the above and “other evidence taken into account by the Court of Appeal” proved the accused’s guilt. No further details were given.

5. The applicant is a Greek citizen of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1978 and lives in Salonika. 6. On 23 December 2001, at approximately 10.15 p.m., the applicant was walking towards a cafeteria in Ano Toumba, a district of Salonika, when he saw a police patrol carrying out an identity check on the passengers of a car. The applicant, who knew the passengers, proceeded to ask one of them, Mr Giorgos Kalaitsidis, what was going on. i. The applicant's version 7. The applicant submitted that a police officer, who was subsequently identified as Police Sergeant Apostolos Apostolidis, flashed his torch on him and asked him to identify himself. The applicant replied that he wanted to know whether his friend had a problem. The applicant was then asked by another police officer, later identified as Police Constable Zaharias Tsiorakis, to produce his identity card. The applicant replied that he did not have his identity card with him and suggested that they all go to the nearby police station for an identity check, as his identity card had been issued there. Then, allegedly, one of the police officers asked him whether he was “being the tough guy”. The applicant submitted that, seconds later, Tsiorakis wrapped his handcuffs around his fist and then punched him in the mouth. The applicant alleged that this made him feel dizzy and that, as he was falling down, Tsiorakis kicked him twice in the chest and abdomen. 8. The applicant asserted that he managed to leave the scene when another acquaintance of his, Dimitrios Kalaitsidis, headed towards the police officers, asking them to stop beating the applicant on the head as the latter was suffering from a head problem. The applicant contended that by that time he had heard three to four gunshots being fired. According to the testimony of Police Officer Apostolidis, the latter fired three warning shots in the air “in a safe way” with the intention of intimidating the applicant as he was escaping from the scene. The applicant then proceeded to the nearby police station, located at a distance of approximately forty metres from where the incident had taken place. On his arrival there, he complained to two policemen about his ill-treatment. The two police officers seized him and dragged him inside the police station. They then handcuffed him and started beating and kicking him in various parts of his body. The applicant asserted that the police officers who had carried out the initial road check were among those ill-treating him. According to the applicant, this went on for approximately thirty minutes, until the officers realised that a high-ranking officer was coming. Upon hearing this, a police officer grabbed a dirty mop and wiped the blood off the floor and the applicant's face, repeatedly uttering the word “drop dead” (ψόφος). 9. The applicant passed out and was transferred by ambulance to Aghios Dimitrios Hospital in Salonika, where he remained until 28 December 2001. 10. Four other individuals of Kazakh origin, acquaintances of Mr Zelilof, who were also involved in the event, were arrested that night and taken to the police station where the applicant was detained. Among them, Dimitrios and Charalambos Kalaitsidis were charged with assaulting police officers. In their defence pleadings, dated 23 January and 2 April 2002, they stated that they had been the victims of a discriminatory attitude due to their ethnic origin. In particular, Dimitrios Kalatsidis stated that while being transferred and once inside the police station the police officers had repeatedly shouted at him “F... Russia, you are mafia, you come over here and you think you are tough, you bastards, if you don't leave town or if we see you again in the cafeteria, we will f... you, f... your Christ and Virgin Mary”. Charalambos Kalaitsidis stated that police officers had shouted at him while he had been inside Toumba police station: “You dirty Russians, you will never work again in your lives, you fuckers, you bastards. I f... your mothers”. ii. The Government's version 11. The Government maintained that the identity check on the passengers of the car had been almost complete when the applicant, who was passing by, headed towards the police officers. The police officers initially warned him not to come close to the car so as to be able to complete the check unobstructed and not expose the passengers to public view. 12. Despite their initial warning the three police officers were ignored by the applicant, who approached the car and started talking to the passengers. Police Officer Apostolidis asked the applicant to identify himself. The latter refused to obey and shoved the police officer abruptly with his arm. Apostolidis fell to the ground after being hit in the face by the applicant. Officers Hamopoulos and Tsiorakis ran to their colleague's assistance and tried to handcuff the applicant. The latter resisted strongly by punching and kicking the above-mentioned officers. 13. In the meantime Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitsidis had appeared from a nearby café and got involved in the argument between the applicant and the three police officers. While the police officers were trying to handcuff the applicant and arrest him, Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitsidis violently shoved the police officers with their arms and struck them with their arms and legs. By doing so, they managed to prevent them arresting the applicant, who fled from the scene. Apostolidis fired a shot in the air in order to scare his assailants away. 14. Due to the fact that the incident had been taking place close to Toumba police station, as soon as Officer Apostolidis had fired the shot, another group of police officers ran to their assistance. A number of persons who had either actively participated in or just observed the incident ran away into the café. Charalambos and Dimitrios Kalaitsidis and Panagiotis Galotskin were arrested and driven to Toumba police station. The applicant was arrested later the same day. He was also taken to Toumba police station, where he was charged with resisting lawful authority, releasing a prisoner and causing unprovoked bodily injury. He was kept at the police station just the time strictly necessary for the preparation of the case file and then taken to hospital. Neither he nor his acquaintances were ever abused by police officers while at the police station. 15. According to the hospitalisation information note issued by the hospital on 2 January 2002, the applicant bore contusions on his thorax and breast bone and a contusion on his left cheek bone, and had an infraorbital haematoma in both eyes. The applicant also had wounds on his head and back that required stitching. He was diagnosed as suffering from “head and thorax injury, and slight brain concussion”. The note also stated that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 24 December 2002 and discharged on 28 December 2002. 16. On 29 January 2002 the applicant was summoned by the prosecutor's office to undergo a medical examination by a forensic doctor. According to the prosecutor's order, the Forensic Department was asked to send the forensic report to the prosecutor's office at the earliest opportunity. 17. According to the forensic expert's medical examination, dated 29 January 2002, the applicant bore a contusion in the chest area, a wound on the part of the head covered with hair, an intumescence and an ecchymosis on his left cheek bone. He also had an infraorbital haematoma in both eyes. The dental examination revealed that the applicant's crown on his lower left canine tooth was fractured and that part of his jaw was dislocated. The forensic expert found that “... Zelilof suffer[ed] from a medium-intensity bodily injury, caused by blunt instruments, and – barring any unforeseen complication – [would] probably recover within 18-21 [days].” 18. According to the hospitalisation information note issued by the hospital on 24 December 2001, Hamopoulos was diagnosed with “a bruise on his left tibia”; Apostolidis bore “heavy bruises on the outer part of both his hands; and Tsiorakis bore “heavy bruises on the fingers of his right hand and his right wrist”. The hospitalisation note stated that the police officers were admitted to the hospital on 23 December 2002 and discharged on 24 December 2002. 19. Police Officers Hamopoulos, Apostolidis and Tsiorakis were not subjected to a medical examination by a forensic doctor. 20. On 8 January 2002 Salonika police headquarters ordered an administrative investigation in order to ascertain the exact circumstances in which the three police officers had been injured and whether they were liable for any disciplinary offence. The administrative investigation was assigned to an officer serving at the police's sub-directorate of administrative investigations. As part of the investigation the investigating police officer summoned as witnesses the three police officers who had been involved in the incident. The various witness statements available were studied but no further inquiry was conducted regarding the gunshots fired or the general legitimacy of the initial identity check. It was observed in the report of the administrative investigation issued on 9 August 2002 that “persons involved in the incident refused to comply with the police officers' orders and, furthermore, one of them [Zelilof] had intended to “control” the police officers who were performing the identity check, considering arbitrarily and cheekily that he had an inexistent right .... Taking into account also the unprovoked, violent and disproportionate assault by other individuals on the police officers, it is concluded that the police officers properly assessed the relevant circumstances and acted correctly. The brawl between the police officers and the individuals in question was inevitable. The police officers used necessary physical force against the civilians, mainly in order to defend their physical integrity that was under imminent threat. There was a clear danger that the police officers' firearms would be snatched by the individuals concerned in the context of a disproportionate assault by ten to fifteen of them on the police officers. Thus, apart from the injuries inflicted on the police officers, which could easily have been more serious, there was an imminent danger that firearms would be used by civilians in an extreme way (fatal shooting of the police officers, etc.)”. 21. As regards the alleged ill-treatment on the premises of the police station, the report observed, among other things, that “the violent behaviour of the police officers transpired from the testimonies of the persons who had provoked the illegal acts. Even if these testimonies could not be rejected as such, their accuracy and objectivity could not be taken for granted. Testimonies such as those made by Kalaitsidis and Kampanakis – cousin and friend respectively of the accused – undoubtedly concern personal opinions and assessments that will be of assistance to the accused during the trial. ... Not all the testimonies have been proven; on the contrary, the police officers (involved in the events) have denied them. The latter insisted in their testimonies that there was no violence in the police station and that all the injuries sustained by the civilians were provoked before their transfer to the police station”. It continued as follows: “At this point reference should be made to the allegations of individuals concerning unprovoked ill-treatment inflicted by 'mean' police officers against those who just 'happened' to be there or were unrelated to the incident. These [testimonies] could not be taken seriously, nor could they be considered objective. On the contrary, they had to be considered as defence tactics by their friends/acquaintances, who faced serious criminal charges and whose depositions aim to cast the police officers in a bad light”. 22. Finally, the report noted that both the applicant and the police officers had failed to submit to an examination by the forensic doctor. It stated that “As they failed to undergo the forensic exam (not one of the victims went to the forensic doctor to be examined), the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the individuals cannot be accurately assessed. This fact shows an intention to prevent the disclosure of new evidence that would have facilitated the investigation of the case. ... The same considerations could be applied to the police officers. According to the investigating police officer, this omission was due to negligence on the part of the police officers. ... The disciplinary liability that derived from that omission was obvious in the present case, but was of minor importance in the context of the case as a whole. Thus, no such intention could be attributed to the police officers”. 23. The report did not make any reference to the applicant's forensic medical examination of 29 January 2002. 24. On 24 December 2001 charges were brought against the applicant for resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer and causing grievous bodily harm. On 13 January 2004 the applicant appeared before the investigating judge in order to testify with regard to the charges against him. The applicant contended that Police Officer Apostolidis had submitted his criminal record to the investigating judge in order to establish his “criminal and socially deviant character”. Apostolidis contended that the files relating to the applicant's criminal record had been compiled by the police department in which he served. The applicant contended that the information about his criminal record as submitted by Apostolidis was inaccurate and not up to date. 25. On 14 January 2004 the investigating judge granted the applicant bail for 587 euros. 26. On 14 January 2005 the Salonika Court of First Instance sentenced the applicant to fourteen months' imprisonment under Article 167 § 1 of the Greek Criminal Code for resisting lawful authority. The first-instance court established that Police Officer Apostolidis had asked the applicant to identify himself and that the latter had refused to obey and had shoved him violently with his arm and then violently pushed Officers Hamopoulos and Tsiorakis with his arms and feet. It further considered that Police Officers Apostolidis, Hamopoulos and Tsiorakis had been assaulted by Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitsidis, who had appeared from a nearby café in the meantime and tried to help the applicant escape. The court accepted that the three police officers had feared for their physical integrity as a group of almost fifteen persons had hindered them, either physically or verbally, in their task of carrying out a normal police control. Finally, the court did not accept that the aggravating circumstances described in Article 167 § 2 of the Greek Criminal Code could be applied in the applicant's case (judgment no. 683/2005). 27. The case is currently pending before the domestic courts. 28. On 14 January 2002 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Salonika Public Prosecutor's Office. The complaint was lodged against the police officers who had been involved in the incident described above and concerned the alleged ill-treatment both during the course of his arrest and during his detention on 23 December 2001. The applicant further complained that he had not been given time to apply to Salonika General Police Directorate for a copy of the police officers' criminal and disciplinary records, whereas Police Officer Apostolidis had been able to submit the applicant's criminal record to the investigating judge in order to establish his “criminal and socially deviant character”. 29. On 2 July 2002 the Prosecutor at the Salonika Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's criminal complaint as “factually unfounded”. The prosecutor endorsed the conclusions reached in the administrative investigation on the basis of the depositions of the police officers. No witnesses were questioned personally by the prosecutor. Furthermore, the prosecutor contended that Police Officer Apostolidis had not acted improperly in submitting the applicant's criminal record to the investigating judge. He concluded that the investigating judge had legitimately taken those documents into account (decision no. 30/2002). 30. On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Prosecutor at the Salonika Court of Appeal. On 16 November 2002 his appeal was declared inadmissible (decision no. 240/2002). 31. On 22 November 2002 the applicant lodged a fresh appeal with the Prosecutor at the Salonika Court of Appeal. On 29 November 2002 his appeal was dismissed as “factually unfounded” again. In particular, the prosecutor confirmed the conclusions of decision no 30/2002 without personally questioning the witnesses. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were considered to be false and the prosecutor concluded that there was no need to launch an in-depth judicial investigation into the incident. Lastly, the prosecutor confirmed the conclusions of the Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance as to the admissibility of the files which had been compiled by Police Officer Apostolidis from the applicant's criminal record and submitted to the investigating judge (decision no. 246/2002).

6. In 1994 – in the context of a much wider criminal investigation involving many suspects – a preliminary judicial investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) was opened against the applicant, who was suspected of participation in a criminal organisation. On 6 March 1995 the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) of the Middelburg Regional Court (rechtbank) authorised the Middelburg public prosecutor to issue a garnishee order (conservatoir beslag) against the applicant in the context of this investigation, the scope of which had been extended to offences under the Opium Act (Opiumwet). Also in this context, a house in Rotterdam owned by the applicant's daughter was searched on 21 March 1995, during which the front door, the alarm installation and bedroom furniture were damaged. This search took place under the direction of the Rotterdam investigating judge and on the basis of an authorisation issued by the Middelburg Regional Court. A number of objects found during this search were seized under the garnishee order, including two cars: a Jeep and a Mercedes. The Jeep was returned to the lease company that owned it on 28 June 1995. The applicant was charged with various offences under the Opium Act and the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). 7. By judgment of 5 June 1997, the Middelburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of various charges brought against him and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment and payment of a fine of 100,000 Netherlands guilders (“NLG”). The applicant lodged an appeal. 8. The Mercedes car seized on 21 March 1995 was sold at a public auction on 11 July 1997. 9. On 9 February 1998, the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague accepted the appeal filed by the applicant, quashed the judgment of 5 June 1997 and acquitted the applicant of all charges, finding that they had not been lawfully and convincingly proven (niet wettig en overtuigend bewezen). 10. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim with the Court of Appeal of The Hague under Article 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering), seeking the reimbursement of an amount of more than NLG 200,000 for costs and expenses incurred by him in the course of the criminal proceedings. 11. On 29 June 1998 the Court of Appeal of The Hague awarded the applicant NLG 100,000 for costs and expenses incurred, and rejected his claim under Article 591a for the remainder. No further appeal lay against this decision. 12. On 3 March 1999, the proceeds of the sale of the Mercedes car plus accrued statutory interest were paid to the applicant. 13. On 13 July 1999, considering that the criminal proceedings taken against him had not only entailed the incurring of legal costs and expenses but had also caused him and his daughter pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the applicant and his daughter brought civil proceedings against the Netherlands State before the Regional Court of The Hague. Alleging a wrongful act (onrechtmatige daad) within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), the applicant and his daughter claimed that a body for whose acts the State was liable had acted in a wrongful manner towards them by having brought criminal proceedings against the applicant, and by using criminal investigation tools (search and seizure) on the basis of a suspicion that had been unfounded from the outset. 14. The applicant claimed compensation in the amount of NLG 1,500,000 for non-pecuniary damage and NLG 475,055.30 for pecuniary damage (loss of profits, extra accountants' and financing costs, costs incurred in relation to the two cars seized). The applicant's daughter claimed compensation of NLG 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and NLG 7,760 for pecuniary damage caused to her house and furniture in the course of the search of 21 March 1995. 15. In its judgment of 11 July 2001, the Regional Court rejected the applicant's claims. It considered that, according to the relevant case-law under Article 6:162 of the Civil Code, the institution of criminal proceedings or use of criminal investigation tools could only be regarded as wrongful when such proceedings had been brought or such tools used in breach of the law or with disregard of fundamental requirements (in strijd met de wet dan wel met verontachtzaming van fundamentele vereisten), or where it appeared retrospectively from the criminal investigation – either from the final decision or otherwise – that the suspicion on the basis of which the criminal proceedings had been brought or the criminal investigation tool used had been unjustified (dat de verdenking ten onrechte heeft bestaan). It held that the first situation did not arise in the applicant's case as, during the preliminary judicial investigation against the applicant, the investigating judges of Middelburg and Rotterdam and the Middelburg Regional Court had given an affirmative answer to the question whether there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and that consequently it had to be assumed that a reasonable suspicion had existed at the time. Furthermore, in its judgment of 9 February 1998, the Court of Appeal had found that the criminal investigation methods used in the applicant's case had not been illicit. The Regional Court found that the second situation did not arise in the applicant's case either, as it did not follow from the applicant's acquittal or from the contents of the criminal case-file as made available to the court that the applicant had not carried out the acts of which he had been suspected. Consequently, and absent an automatic right to compensation for lawful acts on the part of the State in the context of the criminal investigation against him, the only possibility for the applicant to obtain compensation in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against him and the use of criminal investigation methods in this investigation was to avail himself of the possibilities provided under Articles 89, 90, 591 and 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. As regards the applicant's daughter, the Regional Court found no indication that there had ever been any suspicion of her involvement in the facts on which the charges brought against the applicant were based. Consequently, it found that the damage suffered by her – caused by criminal investigation methods directed against her father – should not be borne by her. On the basis of the elements before it, the Regional Court assessed this damage at NLG 3,000 and ordered the Netherlands State to pay this amount to the applicant's daughter. It rejected the remainder of both plaintiffs' claims. 17. On 30 August 2001, the applicant and his daughter lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal of The Hague. The Netherlands State lodged a cross‑appeal (incidenteel beroep). 18. In its judgment of 11 November 2004, the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 11 July 2001 but only in respect of the compensation award to the applicant's daughter, which it reduced to 750 euros, rejecting the remainder of her claim for lack of substantiation. It upheld the impugned ruling for the remainder. Referring to the constant case-law of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), the Court of Appeal held, in so far as relevant, as follows: “2.2. ... The Regional Court has rightly declined to consider the acquittal by the criminal court to be of decisive importance but instead considered whether the criminal investigation – the final judgment or otherwise – demonstrated that [the applicant] had not committed the crimes with which he had been charged. According to the consistent case-law of the Supreme Court this does not contravene the presumption of innocence of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Convention case-law cited by [the plaintiffs], which does not substantially differ from the Convention case-law taken into account by the Supreme Court in its consistent case-law, does not shed any different light on the case. Nor can allegation that the criminal case file is inaccessible, if correct, cannot lead to the conclusion that the cited criterion is applicable. 2.3. To the extent that [the plaintiffs] also wish to argue that [the applicant] has been prosecuted without justification because, as they state, no reasonable suspicion of guilt of a criminal offence in his respect existed, the Court of Appeal notes the following. For the search and the garnishee order permission was granted by the Middelburg Regional Court and the investigating judge, respectively. In the present proceedings it cannot be successfully argued that these judicial authorities in so doing took an incorrect decision. That would, after all, imply that it was for the civil court to examine whether the criminal court had taken a correct decision and this is incompatible with the closed system of legal remedies (gesloten system van rechtsmiddelen) [in the Netherlands legal order]. It has not been argued, nor is it apparent, that there are special circumstances which might justify making an exception to this principle. 2.4. The argument that [the applicant] has been prosecuted without justification because a reasonable suspicion of guilt was lacking has hardly at all been substantiated by [the applicant], whereas in the case at hand the onus of proof lies with [the applicant] and not the State. [The applicant] has only submitted that the suspicion in this case rested solely on the fact that [the applicant] knew the co-suspect F. and on some meaningless taps. This is however insufficient, given the contents of the [items of evidence set out in the judgment of 7 June 1997 by the Middelburg Regional Court as submitted by the defendant in response to the plaintiffs' summons in the present proceedings] which could give rise to the suspicion that H. and F. were involved in trafficking hashish ... and that [the applicant] had regular – business – contacts with F. and H. 2.5. The Court of Appeal agrees with the Regional Court that the criminal investigation – the final judgment or otherwise – does not show that [the applicant] was innocent (onschuldig) of the crimes charged. The Court of Appeal notes that such a conclusion can only be drawn if the suspect's innocence is reasonably obvious (de onschuld van de verdachte met enige evidentie naar voren komt). This is not the case here given – on the one hand – the items of evidence [as set out in the judgment of 7 June 1997] and – on the other – the absence from the criminal case file, in so far as made available [in the present proceedings], of convincing disculpatory material (overtuigend ontlastend materiaal). There is no need to consider, as the Regional Court did, whether the evidence relied on points in a different direction [i.e. to the applicant's guilt].” 19. The applicant and his daughter lodged an appeal on points of law (cassatie) – limited to points of law and procedural conformity – with the Supreme Court. On 16 June 2006, referring to Article 81 of the Judicial Organisation Act (Wet op de Rechterlijke Organisatie) and without stating any further reasons, the Supreme Court rejected this appeal in cassation as not prompting a determination of legal issues in the interest of legal unity and legal development.

14. At the time of the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an autonomous region (oblast) of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Azerbaijan SSR”). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at the time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Armenian SSR”), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, the district of Lachin being the shortest distance between them, including a strip of land often referred to as the “Lachin corridor”, less than 10 km wide. 15. According to the census of the USSR of 1989, the NKAO had a population of approximately 189,000, consisting of 77% ethnic Armenians and 22% ethnic Azeris, with Russian and Kurdish minorities. 16. In early 1988 demonstrations were held in Stepanakert, the regional capital of the NKAO, as well as in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, to demand the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. On 20 February the Soviet of the NKAO appealed to the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR and the USSR that the NKAO be allowed to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. The request was rejected by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 23 March. In June it was also rejected by the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan, whereas its counterpart in Armenia voted in favour of unification. 17. Throughout 1988 the demonstrations calling for unification continued. The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks. The clashes led to many casualties, and refugees, numbering in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, flowed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. As a consequence, on 12 January 1989 the USSR government placed the NKAO under Moscow’s direct rule. However, on 28 November, control of the region was returned to Azerbaijan. A few days later, on 1 December, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno‑Karabakh regional council adopted a Joint Resolution on the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. 18. In early 1990, following an escalation of the conflict, Soviet troops arrived in Baku and Nagorno-Karabakh and the latter was placed under a state of emergency. Violent clashes between Armenians and Azeris continued, however, with the occasional intervention by Soviet forces. 19. On 30 August 1991 Azerbaijan declared independence from the Soviet Union. This was subsequently formalised by the adoption of the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 18 October 1991. On 2 September the Soviet of the NKAO announced the establishment of the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”), consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the Shahumyan district of the Azerbaijan SSR, and declared that it was no longer under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. On 26 November 1991 the Azerbaijani Parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by Nagorno-Karabakh. In a referendum organised in Nagorno-Karabakh on 10 December 1991, 99.9% of those participating voted in favour of secession. However, the Azeri population boycotted the referendum. In the same month, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Soviet troops began to withdraw from the region. Military control of Nagorno‑Karabakh was rapidly being handed over to the Karabakh Armenians. On 6 January 1992 the “NKR”, having regard to the results of the referendum, reaffirmed its independence from Azerbaijan. 20. In early 1992 the conflict gradually escalated into a full-scale war. By the end of 1993, ethnic Armenian forces had gained control over almost the entire territory of the former NKAO as well as seven adjacent Azerbaijani regions (Lachin, Kelbajar, Jebrayil, Gubadly and Zangilan, and substantial parts of Agdam and Fizuli). 21. On 5 May 1994 a ceasefire agreement, known as the Bishkek Protocol (“the Ceasefire Agreement”) was signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan and the “NKR” following Russian mediation. It came into force on 12 May 1994. 22. According to a Human Rights Watch report (“Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh”, December 1994), between 1988 and 1994 an estimated 750,000 to 800,000 Azeris were forced out of Nagorno‑Karabakh, Armenia and the seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. According to information from the Armenian authorities, 335,000 Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan and 78,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs – from regions in Armenia bordering Azerbaijan) have been registered. 23. According to the Armenian Government, the “NKR” controls 4,061 sq. km of the former NKAO. While it is debated how much of the two partly conquered districts is occupied by the “NKR”, it appears that the occupied territory of the seven surrounding districts in total amounts to 7,500 sq. km. 24. Estimates of today’s population of Nagorno-Karabakh vary between 120,000 and 145,000 people, 95% of whom are of Armenian ethnicity. Virtually no Azerbaijanis remain. 25. No political settlement of the conflict has so far been reached. The self-proclaimed independence of the “NKR” has not been recognised by any State or international organisation. Recurring breaches of the Ceasefire Agreement along the borders have led to the loss of many lives and the rhetoric of officials remains hostile. Moreover, according to international reports, tension has heightened in recent years and military expenditure in Armenia and Azerbaijan has increased significantly. 26. Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed. Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and its so-called Minsk Group. In Madrid in November 2007, the Group’s three Co-Chairs – France, Russia and the United States of America – presented to Armenia and Azerbaijan a set of Basic Principles for a settlement. The Basic Principles, which have since been updated, call, inter alia, for the return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control; an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-governance; a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh; a future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding referendum; the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence; and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation. The idea is that the endorsement of these principles by Armenia and Azerbaijan would enable the drafting of a comprehensive and detailed settlement. Following intensive shuttle diplomacy by Minsk Group diplomats and a number of meetings between the Presidents of the two countries in 2009, the process lost momentum in 2010. So far the parties to the conflict have not signed a formal agreement on the Basic Principles. 27. On 24 March 2011 the Minsk Group presented a “Report of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ Field Assessment Mission to the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh”, the Executive Summary of which reads as follows. “The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the seven occupied territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) from October 7-12, 2010, to assess the overall situation there, including humanitarian and other aspects. The Co-Chairs were joined by the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and his team, which provided logistical support, and by two experts from the UNHCR and one member of the 2005 OSCE Fact-Finding Mission. This was the first mission by the international community to the territories since 2005, and the first visit by UN personnel in 18 years. In traveling more than 1,000 kilometers throughout the territories, the Co-Chairs saw stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the failure to reach a peaceful settlement. Towns and villages that existed before the conflict are abandoned and almost entirely in ruins. While no reliable figures exist, the overall population is roughly estimated as 14,000 persons, living in small settlements and in the towns of Lachin and Kelbajar. The Co-Chairs assess that there has been no significant growth in the population since 2005. The settlers, for the most part ethnic Armenians who were relocated to the territories from elsewhere in Azerbaijan, live in precarious conditions, with poor infrastructure, little economic activity, and limited access to public services. Many lack identity documents. For administrative purposes, the seven territories, the former NK Oblast, and other areas have been incorporated into eight new districts. The harsh reality of the situation in the territories has reinforced the view of the Co‑Chairs that the status quo is unacceptable, and that only a peaceful, negotiated settlement can bring the prospect of a better, more certain future to the people who used to live in the territories and those who live there now. The Co-Chairs urge the leaders of all the parties to avoid any activities in the territories and other disputed areas that would prejudice a final settlement or change the character of these areas. They also recommend that measures be taken to preserve cemeteries and places of worship in the territories and to clarify the status of settlers who lack identity documents. The Co-Chairs intend to undertake further missions to other areas affected by the NK conflict, and to include in such missions experts from relevant international agencies that would be involved in implementing a peace settlement.” 28. On 18 June 2013 the Presidents of the Co-Chair countries of the Minsk Group issued a Joint Statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. “We, the Presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries – France, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America – remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement. We express our deep regret that, rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests, the parties have continued to seek one-sided advantage in the negotiation process. We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over the last four years must be the foundation of any fair and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. These elements should be seen as an integrated whole, as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution. We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace, stability, and reconciliation, opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation. The use of military force that has already created the current situation of confrontation and instability will not resolve the conflict. A renewal of hostilities would be disastrous for the population of the region, resulting in loss of life, more destruction, additional refugees, and enormous financial costs. We strongly urge the leaders of all the sides to recommit to the Helsinki principles, particularly those relating to the non-use of force or the threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We also appeal to them to refrain from any actions or rhetoric that could raise tension in the region and lead to escalation of the conflict. The leaders should prepare their people for peace, not war. Our countries stand ready to assist the sides, but the responsibility for putting an end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains with them. We strongly believe that further delay in reaching a balanced agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace is unacceptable, and urge the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to focus with renewed energy on the issues that remain unresolved.” 29. The applicant, an ethnic Armenian, states that he and his family used to live in the village of Gulistan in the Shahumyan district of the Azerbaijan SSR. He claims to have had a house and outhouses there. 30. Geographically, Shahumyan shared a border with the NKAO and was situated to the north of it. The region did not form part of the NKAO, but was later claimed by the “NKR” as part of its territory (see paragraph 19 above). According to the applicant, 82% of the population of Shahumyan was ethnically Armenian prior to the conflict. 31. In February 1991 Shahumyan was abolished as a separate administrative region and was formally incorporated into the present-day Goranboy region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 32. In April and May 1991 the USSR internal forces and the special‑purpose militia units (“the OMON”) of the Azerbaijan SSR launched a military operation with the stated purpose of “passport checking” and disarming local Armenian militants in the region. However, according to various sources, the government forces, using the official purpose of the operation as a pretext, expelled the Armenian population from a number of villages in the Shahumyan region, thus forcing them to leave their homes and flee to Nagorno‑Karabakh or Armenia. The expulsions were accompanied by arrests and violence towards the civilian population. In 1992, when the conflict escalated into a full-scale war, the Shahumyan region came under attack by the Azerbaijani forces. 33. The parties’ positions differ in respect of the applicant’s residence and possessions in Gulistan. (a) The applicant 34. The applicant maintained that he had lived in Gulistan for most of his life until his forced displacement in 1992. In support of this claim he submitted a copy of his former Soviet passport issued in 1979, from which it can be seen that the applicant was born in Gulistan. He also submitted his marriage certificate, which shows that he and his wife, who was also born in Gulistan, got married there in 1955. In addition, the applicant asserted that, having grown up in Gulistan, he left for some years to complete his military service and to work in the town of Sumgait. A few years after his wedding, he returned to Gulistan where he lived until June 1992. 35. The applicant submitted a copy of an official certificate (“technical passport”) when he lodged the application. According to that document, dated 20 May 1991, a two-storey house in Gulistan and outhouses of a total area of 167 sq. m and 2,160 sq. m of land were registered in the applicant’s name. Furthermore, he submitted a detailed plan of the main house. 36. According to the technical passport, of the 167 sq. m on which the house stood, 76 sq. m were occupied by the main house and 91 sq. m by various outhouses, including a cowshed. Of the 2,160 sq. m of land, 1,500 were a fruit and vegetable garden. The document also contains information of a technical nature (for instance, the building materials used) concerning the main house and the outhouses. 37. The applicant explained that he had obtained the land by permission of the village council to divide his father’s plot of land between him and his brother. The decision was recorded in the village council’s register. With the help of relatives and friends, he and his wife built their house on that plot of land between 1962 and 1963. Their four children grew up in the house and he and his wife continued to live there until they had to flee in June 1992. Furthermore, the applicant explained that he had been a secondary school teacher in Gulistan and had earned his living partly from his salary and partly from farming and stockbreeding on his land, while his wife had been working at the village’s collective farm from the 1970s. 38. In addition to the technical passport and the plan of the house mentioned above, the applicant submitted photos of the house and written statements dating from August 2010 by two former officials of the village council, Ms Khachatryan and Mr Meghryan. The former states that she was the secretary of the village council from 1952 to 1976. She confirms that the village council allowed the applicant to divide his father’s plot of land between himself and his brother. Both Ms Khachatryan and Mr Meghryan, who states that he was a member of the Board of the village council for some years in the 1970s, claim that entries regarding the allotment of land to villagers were made in the registration book of the village council. A number of further written statements from May 2010 by family members (including the applicant’s wife, two of their children and his son-in-law), former neighbours and friends from Gulistan provide a description of Gulistan and confirm that the applicant was a secondary school teacher and had a plot of land and a two-storey house in the village. They also confirm that a number of outhouses and a fruit and vegetable garden belonged to the applicant’s house, where he and his family lived until June 1992. 39. The applicant described that the Shahumyan region was subjected to a blockade by the Azerbaijani government in the early 1990s. In 1992 the armed forces started attacking the region. In June 1992 Gulistan came under direct attack by Azerbaijani forces. From 12 to 13 June 1992 the village was heavily bombed. The population of the village, including the applicant and his family members, fled in fear for their lives. The above-mentioned statements by a number of witnesses also provide a description of the blockade of the Shahumyan region during the conflict, of the attack on the village and the flight of its inhabitants. 40. The applicant and his family fled to Armenia. Subsequently, the applicant and his wife lived as refugees in Yerevan. In 2002 the applicant obtained Armenian citizenship. He was seriously ill from 2004 and died on 13 April 2009 in Yerevan. (b) The Government 41. The Government submitted that it could not be verified whether the applicant had actually lived in Gulistan and had any possessions there. For the period from 1988 to the present date, the relevant departments of the Goranboy region did not possess any documentation concerning the plot of land, house or other buildings allegedly owned by the applicant. Moreover, certain archives of the former Shahumyan region, including the Civil Registry Office and the Passport Office, had been destroyed during the hostilities. No documents relating to the applicant are available in the Goranboy regional archives today. 42. In support of their position, the Government submitted a number of documents, namely: a statement, dated 22 July 2007, by Colonel Maharramov, Head of the Goranboy Regional Police Department, confirming that the archives of the Civil Registry Office and of the Passport Office of the former Shahumyan Region had been destroyed during the conflict; a letter from the State Registry Service for Immovable Property of 31 July 2007 according to which the relevant Regional Department’s Archives did not contain any document concerning the applicant’s alleged property rights; a statement dated 5 March 2012 by Mr Mammadov, Chairman of the State Land and Mapping Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, according to whom only the Executive Committee of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of Districts and Cities had been empowered to allocate land under the Land Code of the Azerbaijan SSR. 43. The parties’ positions also differ in respect of the current situation obtaining in Gulistan. The Armenian Government, as a third-party intervener, also made submissions on the issue. 44. Regarding the situation in Gulistan, the applicant asserted that Azerbaijan had control over the village and, in particular, that they had positions in the village itself and on its outskirts. In his view, there was nothing to prove that Gulistan was on the Line of Contact (LoC) between Azerbaijani and “NKR” forces as claimed by the Government. 45. In the proceedings prior to the admissibility decision, the applicant submitted a written statement from an anonymous senior officer of the “NKR” armed forces dated 11 August 2010, according to whom Gulistan was under the de facto control of Azerbaijani military forces (see paragraphs 51 and 58 below). Moreover, the applicant asserted that fellow villagers had tried to return to Gulistan on several occasions but had been unable to enter the village as they would have risked being shot at by Azerbaijani forces. (b) The Government 46. The Government accepted throughout the proceedings that Gulistan was located on the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan. 47. In their submissions prior to the admissibility decision, the Government asserted that Gulistan was physically on the LoC between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces, which had been established by the Ceasefire Agreement. The village was deserted and the LoC was maintained by the stationing of armed forces on either side and by the extensive use of landmines. It was thus impossible for the Government to exercise any control over the area or to have any access to it. 48. In their submissions after the admissibility decision, the Government stated that they did not exercise sufficient control over the village. Referring to the statements of a number of military officers who had served in the Goranboy region and had made statements on the situation in Gulistan (see paragraph 62 below), they submitted in particular that the village, situated in a V-shaped valley on the northern bank of the River Inzachay, was on the LoC, meaning that it was surrounded by armed forces of Azerbaijan on one side (in the north and east) and of Armenia on the other side (in the south and west). Armenian forces held strategically advantageous positions on a steep, forested slope south of the river, while Azerbaijani positions on the north bank of the river were situated in lower, relatively open territory. The Government asserted that, as a matter of fact, Gulistan was not under the effective control of either side. It was a contested area and constituted a dangerous environment. The village and its surroundings were mined. Violations of the Ceasefire Agreement occurred frequently. There were no safe buildings in the area as the village had been destroyed and deserted. 49. In their pleadings at the hearing of 5 February 2014, the Government emphasised that Gulistan was exposed to fire from Armenian military positions situated across the river on a steep slope. In addition, they referred to the AAAS report (see paragraphs 74-75 below), noting that it confirmed, apart from the fact that Gulistan was on Azerbaijani territory, that the area around Gulistan was mountainous and was the object of sustained military activity and that the village had been destroyed. They maintained that the area was mined and inaccessible to any civilian. (c) The Armenian Government, third-party intervener 50. The Armenian Government maintained throughout the proceedings that the respondent Government had full, effective control over Gulistan. 51. At the hearing of 15 September 2010, they had contested the Government’s assertion that Gulistan was on the LoC. Referring to the written statement of 11 August 2010 by an anonymous senior officer of the “NKR” armed forces serving near Gulistan which had been submitted by the applicant, the Agent of the Armenian Government had declared that he had been personally present when the statement had been made and confirmed its correctness. On the basis of this statement, the Armenian Government asserted that, in the area in issue, the dividing line between the “NKR” and Azerbaijani armed forces was a gorge through which the River Indzachay flowed. Gulistan was situated north of the riverside and was under the control of Azerbaijani armed forces who had military positions in the village itself and on its outskirts, while “NKR” forces were stationed on the other side of the gorge. They also referred to the DVD containing footage of the village submitted to the Court by the applicant in 2008 (see paragraph 56 below) claiming that the person who can be seen walking between the houses was an Azerbaijani soldier. The Armenian Government maintained that it was impossible for “NKR” forces or any Armenians to have access to the village. 52. In their submissions following the admissibility decision, the Armenian Government disclosed the identity of the senior “NKR” officer at the Court’s request. The officer in question is Colonel Manukyan of the “NKR” Defence Army. Moreover, the Armenian Government submitted that their Agent, Mr Kostanyan, had obtained permission from the “NKR” authorities and therefore visited the territory near Gulistan in May 2012. He had obtained DVD material and recorded interviews with three “NKR” officers describing the situation on the ground in and near Gulistan (see paragraph 71 below). The Armenian Government also replied to the Court’s question concerning their assertion made at the hearing of 15 September 2010 that the man walking between the ruins on the DVD submitted by the applicant in 2008 was an Azerbaijani soldier: while stating that they were not in a position to comment on that man’s identity, they referred to statements of the “NKR” military officers according to whom there were Azerbaijani military positions in Gulistan, while there was no presence of civilians. 53. At the hearing of 5 February 2014, the Armenian Government repeated their description of the situation pertaining in Gulistan. Moreover, they asserted that Azerbaijani military presence in the area had also been confirmed by the AAAS report. 54. The parties have submitted extensive documentary material in support of their respective positions. The following paragraphs contain a short description of the main items of evidence. (a) The applicant (i) Map of Gulistan 55. A map of Gulistan and its surroundings: It appears to be a copy of an official map with names in Azeri, showing the entire village on the north bank of a river (Indzachay). The alleged positions of the Azerbaijani forces are indicated as follows: one is in the middle of the village, a few more are on its northern edge, others are also spread out on the north bank of the river but are further away, most of them apparently on the heights around the village. (ii) DVDs 56. A DVD, submitted with the applicant’s observations of 21 February 2008, containing footage of Gulistan and its surroundings. The village is situated on a hillside. Many of the houses are in ruins, while a few still have intact roofs. Smoke is rising from some chimneys. At one point a man walking between the ruins appears. On a hillside situated some distance from the village, constructions are to be seen which appear to be firing positions. (iii) Statements by “NKR” officials and by former villagers of Gulistan 57. A letter by the Minister of Defence of the “NKR” of 14 February 2008 describing the situation on the ground in Gulistan and claiming in particular that the Azerbaijani armed forces had several posts and shooting points right in the village. 58. A statement dated 11 August 2010 by a senior officer of the “NKR” forces serving in a military position near the village of Gulistan since 2005 (see the summary of the statement at paragraph 51 above). The statement was accompanied by a hand-drawn map of Gulistan and its surroundings and a number of photos showing the area. The officer, who had initially remained anonymous, is Colonel Manukyan from the “NKR” Defence Army. A statement by Mr Aloyan, assistant to the representative of the applicant, who recorded the statement by the “NKR” officer on the spot, namely at the military unit near Gulistan, confirming the contents of the officer’s statement and that the photos had been taken from the “NKR” military position. A statement by Mr Kostanyan, Agent of the Armenian Government, in whose presence the senior “NKR” officer made his statement at his military unit close to Gulistan. 59. Statements dated March 2012 from three former villagers of Gulistan who claimed that they had unsuccessfully tried to return to Gulistan between 2002 and 2004. They claim to have approached the area on the “NKR” side of the ceasefire line; two of them state that they were able to look down on the village from the height of Napat, but were prohibited from moving any further by the “NKR” soldiers accompanying them due to the risk of sniper fire from the opposing forces. One of them states that, with the aid of binoculars, he was able to see a number of entrenchments in the village and a soldier standing there. (b) The Government (i) Maps 60. A map of Gulistan and its surroundings. The map shows the entire village on the north bank of the River Indzachay, the Azerbaijani military positions are also on the north bank of the river mostly on the heights around the village. The “NKR” positions are on the south bank of the river, the closest being right opposite the village. A map of Nagorno Karabakh submitted by the Armenian Government in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia ([GC], no. 13216/05, ECHR 2015). The map shows Gulistan on the very border of the “NKR” to the north of a river. A map of Azerbaijan published in 2006 by the State Land and Cartography Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The map shows Gulistan on the very border of the area occupied by the “NKR”. On the map the occupied areas are shaded and surrounded by a red line; Gulistan is on that red line but outside the shaded area, to the north of a river. (ii) DVDs 61. Two DVDs containing footage of Gulistan and its surroundings, submitted in September 2008 and July 2012, respectively. The first shows the village in a hilly landscape, with most houses in ruins, plus some buildings on the crest of a hill which appear to be firing positions. The second again shows the village (houses in ruins and destroyed farming machinery) and the surrounding landscape and is accompanied by a text explaining in particular that there is no habitation in the village, that the Armenian positions are on a forested slope and control the village with large-calibre guns, while Azerbaijani positions are at a distance of some 2.5 km and can only visually control the village. (iii) Statements by Azerbaijani military officers, officials and villagers from neighbouring villages 62. Statements made in March 2012 by six Azerbaijani army officers: Colonel Babayev, who served in a military unit in the Goranboy region from 1994 to 1997, and Lieutenant colonels Abdulov, Mammadov, Ahmadov, Abbasov and Huseynov, who served in military units in the Goranboy region for various periods between 1999 and 2009 and describe the situation on the ground in Gulistan as follows. – Gulistan is on the north bank of the River Indzachay. – Azerbaijani military positions are on the north bank of the river in the east and north-east of the Gulistan settlement, situated in the lowlands, at distances between 1 and 3 km from the destroyed village. – Armenian military positions are on the south bank of the river in the west and south-west of the Gulistan settlement, situated on strategically better upland positions (steep slopes covered with forest). The estimates given by the officers in respect of the distance at which the nearest Armenian positions are located vary between 200 and 300 m and 1 km. – Ceasefire violations by the Armenian forces are frequent. – They contest the Armenian Government’s assertion that some of the houses in the village have been repaired and are being used as military positions by the Azerbaijani forces. – The Azerbaijani positions and the village itself are within shooting range of the Armenian positions (fire with large-calibre machine guns); military staff can therefore not move freely in the area but only on designated routes. – There are no civilians in the village. – Most of the buildings (some 100 houses) in the village were destroyed during the hostilities. As the village has been deserted since 1992, houses have decayed, roofs have collapsed and trees are now growing inside the destroyed buildings. There are currently no habitable buildings left; after the hostilities, Armenian forces mined the territory of the settlement, these mines are sometimes triggered by animals. – Lieutenant colonel Abdulov claims to have observed movements of Armenian military in the ruins in the south part of the Gulistan settlement and Lieutenant colonel Mammadov claims to have seen Armenian military servants moving from their positions towards the river. Lieutenant colonels Abbasov and Huseynov state that they observed Armenian military forces destroying buildings and using the material for their fortifications. 63. Information from the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence covering the period from 2003 to 2010 on ceasefire violations indicating an increase from 2008 (twenty in 2008, thirty-five in 2009 and fifty-two in 2010) and on casualties in the area of Gulistan as a result of mine explosions (five soldiers killed on 5 August 2003) or violations of the ceasefire (one soldier killed on 25 February 2005). 64. A letter by the Director of the National Agency for Mine Action dated 12 July 2010 stating that the village of Gulistan in the Goranboy region was “defined as a territory with an extensive mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination”. 65. Statements made in March 2012 by eight villagers living in neighbouring settlements, the village of Meshali and the town of Yukhari Aghjakand. They describe Gulistan as being deserted and state that the surroundings are mined and regularly come under fire from the Armenian positions. (iv) Press releases 66. Two press releases from October 2006 from an Armenian source relating to an OSCE mission monitoring the border line between Nagorno‑Karabakh and Azerbaijan near Gulistan. 67. Numerous press releases from the Azeri Press Agency issued between June 2010 and May 2012 mentioning ceasefire violations in various areas including the area of Gulistan. The text most frequently used by these press releases reads as follows: “Armenian armed forces fired on the opposite Azerbaijani Armed Forces from posts near Gulistan village” or “... from posts in the nameless upland near Gulistan” or “enemy units fired on the positions of Azerbaijani armed forces from the posts ... near Gulistan in Azerbaijan’s Goranboy region”. One of these press releases, dated 3 March 2012, reports that “Azerbaijani lieutenant Gurban Huseynov has struck a mine in Gulistan on the frontline of the Goranboy region. Consequently, he lost his leg”. 68. A statement by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines dated 20 September 2013 expressing concern about the increased placement of anti-personnel landmines by the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities along the Armenian-Azerbaijani LoC east and north of the disputed territory. (c) The Armenian Government, third-party intervener (i) Map 69. A map of Gulistan and its surroundings, which shows the entire village on the north bank of the River Idzachay. The Azerbaijani positions are also on the north bank of the river and very close to the village (to the east and west of it and on its northern edge), while the “NKR” positions are on the south bank of the river, the closest being just opposite the village. (ii) DVDs 70. A DVD, submitted in July 2012, containing footage of Gulistan and its surroundings and interviews taken on the spot by Agent of the Armenian Government, Mr Kostanyan, with three “NKR” army officers serving in the military unit near Gulistan (for their contents see paragraph 71 below). It shows the village, with most houses in ruins, and the landscape around it. Towards the end of the video, a herd of sheep and some people can be seen moving behind the destroyed village. (iii) Statements by “NKR” military officers 71. Transcripts of the interviews recorded in May 2012 with Unit Commander Sevoyan, Sergeant Petrosyan and Officer Vardanyan, serving in the “NKR” military unit located near Gulistan. They describe the situation on the ground as follows. – The Azerbaijani military forces have positions in the village and sometimes perform combat duties there, but their permanent location point is in the rear. – There are no civilians in the village. – There are no mines in the village itself but the area surrounding it has been mined by the Azerbaijani forces (they have noticed that from time to time animals trigger a mine). – Sometimes there are ceasefire violations by the Azerbaijani side; if they are negligent they risk being shot at from the Azerbaijani positions. – Several times, former villagers of Gulistan came to the area wishing to visit their village. Due to dangers from snipers and combat weapons’ fire from the Azerbaijani side, they did not allow them to approach the village. 72. On 12 September 2013 the Court requested that the AAAS, in the framework of its “Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Programme”, provide a report on the following issues: the location of military positions, such as trenches and fortifications in and around the village of Gulistan, for the period between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Azerbaijan (15 April 2002) and the present, and on the state of destruction of buildings in the village and of its cemeteries at the time of the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Azerbaijan. 73. The AAAS submitted its report to the Court in November 2013. On the basis of the interpretation of high‑resolution satellite images from 2005, 2009 and 2012 obtained from public sources, the report provides the following information. 74. In respect of military structures it notes that there are trenches and revetments in the village and adjacent to it in the 2005 and 2009 images, a build-up having taken place in the intervening period, while after 2009 trenches seem to have fallen into disuse, as is shown by the fading visual signature of these trenches in the 2012 image. In the area surrounding Gulistan, military activity was apparent. Military build-up between 2005 and 2009, concerning trenches, revetments, military buildings, vehicles and vehicle tracks was followed by continued military development in the region between 2009 and 2012, but of a different type, in that trenches and revetments fell into disuse, while military buildings and vehicle presence continued to increase. 75. In respect of the destruction of buildings, the report indicates that most of the approximately 250 houses in the village are destroyed, the term “destroyed” meaning that they are no longer intact. The report notes that building degradation and vegetation overgrowth obscured building footprints and made structure counts difficult. While in 2005 some thirty-three buildings remained intact, there were only seventeen in 2009 and thirteen in 2012 left. For most of the destroyed buildings, outer and interior walls have been preserved while roofs have collapsed. While the state of the buildings suggests fire as a possible cause of destruction, the report emphasises that the cause of destruction could not be determined via satellite imagery, and, in particular, it was not always possible to state whether or not buildings had been destroyed deliberately. No cemeteries were identifiable on the satellite imagery. The report suggests that this might be due to vegetation overgrowth. 76. Prior to their accession to the Council of Europe, Armenia and Azerbaijan gave undertakings to the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly committing themselves to the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (see Parliamentary Assembly Opinions 221 (2000) and 222 (2000) and Committee of Ministers Resolutions Res(2000)13 and Res(2000)14). The relevant paragraphs of Parliamentary Assembly Opinion 222 (2000) on Azerbaijan’s application for membership of the Council of Europe read as follows. “11. The Assembly takes note of the letter from the President of Azerbaijan reiterating his country’s commitment to a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict and stressing that Azerbaijan’s accession to the Council of Europe would be a major contribution to the negotiations process and stability in the region. ... 14. The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the letters from the President of Azerbaijan, the speaker of the parliament, the Prime Minister and the chairmen of the political parties represented in Parliament, and notes that Azerbaijan undertakes to honour the following commitments: ... 14.2. as regards the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: a. to continue efforts to settle the conflict by peaceful means only; b. to settle international and domestic disputes by peaceful means and according to the principles of international law (an obligation incumbent on all Council of Europe member states) resolutely rejecting any threatened use of force against its neighbours;” Resolution Res(2000)14 by the Committee of Ministers on the Invitation to Azerbaijan to become a member of the Council of Europe refers to the commitments entered into by Azerbaijan, as set out in Opinion 222 (2000), and the assurances for their fulfilment given by the Azerbaijani Government.

6. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Ferzikovo in the Kaluga Region. 7. Between 24 August 2001 and 27 December 2002 the applicant served a sentence for theft in detention facility ZhH-385/5 (hereinafter referred to as “ZhH-385/5” or “the prison”) in the village of Lepley in the Republic of Mordovia. 8. During his imprisonment the applicant was detained in the following units of the prison: (i) from 24 August 2001 to March 2002 in unit no. 6; (ii) from March to August 2002 in a high-security unit; (iii) from September to December 2002 in unit no. 2. 9. The parties’ descriptions of conditions in ZhH-385/5 differ on a number of counts. 10. The applicant stated that unit no. 6 measured 336 sq. m, which included a dormitory, a storage room, a dining room and a common room. The unit housed approximately 200 inmates, and since there were not enough sleeping places the applicant had to sleep in the common room on several stools put together. The unit was equipped with only five washbasins, sometimes with no water in them. 11. Unit no. 2 measured 280 sq. m, which included a dormitory, a storage room, a dining room and a common room. The unit housed approximately 200 inmates, and since there were not enough sleeping places the applicant was again given a sleeping place in the common room, consisting of several stools put together. The unit was equipped with only five washbasins. 12. The toilet facilities, consisting of five cubicles, were shared by four units (nos. 2, 6, 7 and 9) which housed about 700 inmates in total. 13. There were no water-heating facilities in the units that inmates could access. 14. The water in the shower was usually lukewarm; the inmates had to wait for hours for their turn to take a shower. The inmates did not have enough space for their personal belongings and had to dry their washed clothes in their living premises as well, resulting in constant stuffiness and an unpleasant smell. The living premises and canteen were shared with inmates suffering from tuberculosis, and this caused outbreaks of the disease. The authorities did not comply with the prison regulations on food supply and the provision of clothing and toiletries. The inmates had pearl‑barley mush three times a day for months, but received no vegetables, fish or meat at all and sometimes no tea for several weeks. The applicant was provided with a mattress, two sheets and a sweater, but the prison authorities failed to provide him with a blanket, towels, underwear, other clothing, shoes or toothpaste. 15. During his detention the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell on several occasions. In the disciplinary cell his head was shaved weekly, and when being inspected by the warder he had to stand up facing the wall holding his hands up with the palms turned outwards. 16. In support of his allegations about conditions in the facility the applicant submitted a number of written statements by other inmates of ZhH-385/5, dated 2-4 November 2002, which had been produced for the domestic proceedings (see subsection 3 below). In so far as relevant these statements may be summarised as follows. 17. Mr Kh. wrote that, starting in December 2001, he had been detained in unit no. 10. The unit contained 170 inmates of whom some, including Mr Kh. himself, were infected with tuberculosis and some were not; inmates were allowed about 1.4 sq. m of personal space. Only six washbasins were available for all the inmates of the unit; the kitchen measured 2 sq. m; there was a common room, but it was also turned into a dormitory because of overcrowding. Mr Kh. later repudiated these submissions (see his statement of 2004 among the documents submitted by the Government, subsection 2 below). 18. Mr I. alleged overcrowding in unit no. 7, claiming that inmates were allowed no more than about 0.5 sq. m of personal space. 19. Mr N., who was detained in unit no. 10, wrote that the inmates of two units (that is, about 320 people in total) had to share toilet facilities comprising only eight cubicles and that the number of washbasins was insufficient (about 40 inmates per washbasin). He also alleged severe overcrowding, the presence of inmates infected with tuberculosis in the communal units and poor catering. 20. Mr B. submitted that unit no. 6, which housed about 200 inmates, had only six washbasins. The inmates of units nos. 2, 6, 7 and 9 (about 600 people in total) had to share toilet facilities comprising only seven cubicles, making it difficult to get access to them. He also alleged overcrowding in unit no. 6, claiming that inmates were allowed less than 1 sq. m of personal space, and complained about the extremely poor supplies. 21. Mr S., who was detained in unit no. 10, referred to extremely poor catering, a failure to supply him with any clothes or shoes and a scarcity of toiletries. He also alleged overcrowding, claiming that inmates were allowed about 1.4 - 1.5 sq. m of personal space and that inmates infected with tuberculosis were accommodated together with the other prisoners. He contended that the unit of over 170 inmates had only seven washbasins and that the toilet facilities shared by two units (about 350 inmates) had only eight cubicles. The shower facilities were also scarce, so that five or six inmates had to use one shower-head at a time. Mr S. later repudiated these submissions (see his statement of 2004 among the documents submitted by the Government, subsection 2 below). 22. The Government stated that on admittance to ZhH‑385/5 on 24 August 2001 the applicant had been placed in unit no. 6. The dormitory of the unit measured 336 sq. m. It was intended for 183 detainees but was used by no more than 180 inmates. According to the certificate issued by the prison governor in 2005, it was equipped with six taps, and there were seven more taps in a heated washstand in the yard. Another certificate issued by the prison governor in 2007 stated that the unit was equipped with 14 taps. 23. Between March and August 2002 the applicant was placed in a high‑security unit measuring 98 sq. m, intended for 49 detainees. However, only 21 inmates were held there. 24. Between September and December 2002 the applicant was held in unit no. 2. The dormitory of the unit measured 280 sq. m. It was intended for 140 detainees but was used by 125 inmates; each detainee was thus allowed 2.24 sq. m. According to the certificate issued by the prison governor in 2005, it was equipped with seven taps, and there were seven more taps in a heated washstand in the yard. Another certificate issued by the prison governor in 2007 stated that the unit was equipped with six taps. 25. The water was supplied from four artesian wells which produced 120 cubic metres of water per hour. The average consumption of ZhH-385/5 was 63.35 cubic metres per hour. Cold water was always available in the taps except on three occasions, on 25 June, 20 July and 21 October 2002, when it was cut off for several hours for maintenance; during these times drinking water was provided from other sources. 26. Every unit had facilities for boiling water. Inmates had free access to such facilities. Once a week they took hot showers. The units had toilets in outhouses with sumps. The inmates of units nos. 2, 6 and 7 shared access to 13 toilet cubicles. 27. Every unit had a room for drying clothes and a dining room equipped with food storage facilities, tables and stools. 28. The applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed, bedding and clothes in accordance with prison regulations. According to the prison records, on 25 August 2001 the applicant received two sheets, one pillow and one pillowcase, and on 29 August 2001 he received a mattress, a winter coat and a set of clothes. He was also offered a pair of boots but he signed a form refusing them. The meals provided to the inmates included meat, fish, milk, cereals and vegetables. The nutritional value met the required standards. The prison authorities had received no complaints concerning the quality of the catering. 29. The applicant never shared accommodation with inmates infected with tuberculosis. Detainees who had undergone treatment for tuberculosis were placed separately, in unit no. 10, and they were always catered for separately. 30. Owing to numerous breaches of prison discipline the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell a number of times. In particular, he was in the disciplinary cell in December 2001, February 2002 and November 2002. According to the prison regulations, when an official entered a disciplinary cell the detainee had to stand up holding his hands behind his back. Since the applicant had shown a tendency to self-harm he was also required to turn his palms upwards so that the inspector could see that he was not hiding any objects that could be used for causing injuries. All inmates were required to keep their hair cut short. Only those suffering from head lice were advised to shave their hair. However, this was not the applicant’s case and he did not have to have his head shaved. 31. On 17 November 2004 the Government questioned Mr S., who repudiated his 2002 statement, saying that he had written it at the applicant’s request and that any allegations he had made in it about unsatisfactory conditions of detention were untrue. On the same day they questioned Mr Kh., who stated that he had not written the statement submitted by the applicant dated 2002, claiming that the handwriting and the signature on it were not his. 32. Following his release on 27 December 2002, the applicant sent a complaint to the Chief Penitentiary Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 17 February 2003 in which he set out, inter alia, the shortcomings in the conditions in ZhH‑385/5. He also addressed similar complaints to the Prosecutor General and to the Speaker of the State Duma, both of which were forwarded to the Penitentiary Directorate. 33. On 26 March 2003 and on 5 May 2003 the Penitentiary Directorate sent replies to the applicant dismissing his complaints; however, it acknowledged that there had been certain shortcomings with regard to the conditions in ZhH‑385/5. The latter reply stated, in particular, that “the shortcomings in catering, the irregular water supply in the units and the breaches of sanitary regulations were due to [external reasons] related to the excessive number of inmates and have now been overcome”. 34. On 15 September 2003 the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the administration of ZhH-385/5, alleging poor conditions in the facility, unlawfully imposed disciplinary measures and degrading treatment in the disciplinary cell, including regular head shaving; he also alleged that he had sustained damage to his health and complained about the refusal to deliver one of his parcels in May 2002. The Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court scheduled a hearing for 11 November 2003. 35. On 1 November 2003 the applicant asked for the hearing to be postponed on account of a medical emergency. On 12 November 2003 the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court stayed the proceedings pending the applicant’s recovery. 36. On 12 February 2004 the proceedings in the case were stayed again on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees or submit any documents justifying a fee waiver. The applicant was given until 10 March 2004 to pay the fees or request a fee waiver and provide the supporting documents. The applicant did not pursue these proceedings. 37. The applicant submitted that during his detention in ZhH-385/5 he had been examined several times by medical specialists who failed to diagnose his tuberculosis. 38. Immediately after his release, on 4 January 2003, the applicant underwent a medical examination at the local clinic. Among other ailments he was diagnosed with “infiltrative pulmonary tuberculosis in the destructive phase”. 39. The Government submitted that, on 16 August 2001, the applicant had undergone an x-ray of his heart and lungs which showed no anomalies. 40. On arrival in ZhH-385/5 the applicant underwent a medical examination. His state of health was found to be satisfactory, and the checks for tuberculosis, skin diseases, scabs and lice did not reveal any such conditions. 41. On 11 September 2001 he underwent another x-ray of his heart and lungs which also showed them to be normal. 42. On 6 February 2002 another x-ray was made, and the applicant was sent for a further medical examination because of suspected tuberculosis. Further x-rays on 26 February 2002 and clinical tests on 27 February 2002 revealed some pathology in the lungs, but the tuberculosis specialist found that there was no tuberculosis. He recommended monitoring the applicant’s condition with an x-ray every 6 months. 43. From 26 February 2002 to 12 March 2002 the applicant was placed in a medical institution for prisoners in order to undergo examination for tuberculosis and other diseases. 44. On 11 March 2002 a further two-projection x-ray revealed changes in the pattern of the lungs and pleural thickening. However, the phlegm test did not confirm tuberculosis. 45. From 13 March 2002 to 3 April 2002 the applicant was in the medical ward of ZhH-385/5 for treatment of a duodenal ulcer, hepatitis, gastritis and furunculosis. 46. On 6 June 2002 the applicant was sent for a regular medical check‑up which included an x-ray and gave results similar to those of February 2002, showing no clear indications of tuberculosis. On 14 June 2002 the tuberculosis specialist concluded that there was no evidence of tuberculosis. 47. On 28 September 2002 the phlegm test for tuberculosis proved negative. 48. In December 2002 the applicant’s next regular check-up was due, but he was released on parole before the scheduled date. 49. The applicant stated that on 28 December 2001 he had been placed in a disciplinary cell. Handcuffs were put on his hands behind his back and locked to a water pipe about 40 cm above the floor. On the following day he was beaten up by the officers on duty. His request to have his injuries recorded by medical personnel was refused. 50. On 6 February 2002, when the applicant was detained in the disciplinary unit, a search was conducted in ZhH-385/5. The applicant claimed that a special forces’ squadron (OMON) had been brought in for this purpose. He was severely beaten during the search and allegedly received injuries including bruises and abrasions on his left side. However, immediately after the incident the applicant was refused permission to see a doctor. 51. The applicant also claims that a foreign body was found in his left side and was extracted later. 52. The applicant submitted that on 10 February 2002 he had lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office about having been beaten during the search of 6 February 2002. In February-March 2002 other inmates of ZhH‑385/5 wrote statements to the prosecutor’s office in support of the applicant’s complaint; these may be summarised as follows. 53. Mr L. wrote that on 10 February 2001 he had seen in the shower that the applicant had bruises on his left side, loin and buttock. He also alleged that the applicant had repeatedly asked the prison authorities to have the traces of beating recorded. 54. Mr A. wrote that during the search of the disciplinary unit on 6 February 2002 he had heard cries and sounds from which he concluded that the applicant was being beaten. He also stated that on 10 February 2001 he had seen in the shower that the applicant had bruises on his left side, loin and buttock. Mr A. later repudiated these submissions (see his statement of 2004 among the documents submitted by the Government, subsection (2) below). 55. Mr K. wrote that on that day he had seen the applicant in the prison medical ward and noticed traces of beating on his left side and traces of handcuffs. He also alleged that the applicant had repeatedly requested the medical personnel to record the traces of beatings. Mr K. later repudiated these submissions (see his statement of 2004 among the documents submitted by the Government, subsection (b) below). 56. Mr G. wrote that on the same day he had been in the disciplinary cell and had seen bruises on the applicant and traces of handcuffs. 57. The applicant submitted that on 11 November 2002, when he was again in the disciplinary cell, he had felt sick and demanded to be seen by a doctor. The warders ignored him at first, but then came into his cell and beat him up. His request for medical assistance for his injuries was refused and he was left in the cell, handcuffed. 58. On 30 November 2002, still in the disciplinary cell, the applicant refused to go to work because he had not been provided with winter shoes. The warders threatened him and then beat him up while the head medical officer was present. 59. The Government contended that the applicant had not been beaten or otherwise ill-treated in ZhH-385/5. Although he was regularly examined and treated in hospital for various diseases, none of his ailments had been caused by any injuries other than self-inflicted ones. 60. Owing to numerous breaches of prison discipline the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell a number of times. 61. The applicant was handcuffed on two occasions, first on 28 December 2001 and then on 11 November 2002, as described below. 62. On 28 December 2001 when he was brought before a prison official for a breach of prison discipline, the applicant broke a window and with a splinter of glass made several scratches on his left forearm. He was therefore handcuffed for three hours from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. After the handcuffs had been removed, he was placed in a disciplinary cell. The governor of ZhH-385/5 investigated the incident and concluded that the injuries were self-inflicted and were not the result of any criminal act. On 4 January 2002 the prosecutor’s office endorsed the decision not to conduct a criminal investigation into the incident. 63. Between 26 February 2002 and 12 March 2002 the applicant was held in a medical institution for prisoners, and was then transferred, until 3 April 2002, to the medical ward of ZhH-385/5 for further treatment of a duodenal ulcer, hepatitis, gastritis and furunculosis. There are no records of any injuries dating from this period. 64. On 18 May 2002 the applicant inflicted a slash wound on his left forearm and was provided with medical aid. 65. On 6 June 2002 the applicant underwent a medical examination in the medical institution for prisoners. He was diagnosed with a hernia and was admitted to hospital. On 5 July 2002 the applicant underwent a surgical operation for the hernia. At the same time a foreign body was found in his left side and was removed. 66. On 11 November 2002, when the applicant was being held in a disciplinary cell, he made a written statement threatening to injure himself as a protest against the authorities’ refusal to place him in a medical institution for treatment of his “worsening disorders”. To restrain him, the prison warder handcuffed him between 11.30 a.m. and 6 p.m. On 13 November 2002 the governor of ZhH-385/5 investigated the incident and concluded that the handcuffing had been lawful and justified in the circumstances. 67. On 30 November 2002 the applicant was in the disciplinary cell. No force or special restraint measures were used against him on that day. 68. On 17 November 2004 the prison authorities questioned 13 inmates of ZhH-385/5 who had been serving their sentences at the same time as the applicant about the acts of ill-treatment alleged by the applicant. Two of the inmates questioned, K. and A., were those on whose earlier statements the applicant had relied. The statements submitted by the Government may be summarised as follows. 69. Mr S. wrote that he knew the applicant personally and that relations between them had been friendly. The applicant often revolted against the prison regulations and discipline. Mr S. had never heard that the applicant had been beaten in the facility, or that other inmates had been ill-treated in any way. 70. Mr K. stated that he had not written the statement of 26 February 2002, and that the handwriting and the signature on it were not his. He had never seen any injuries on the applicant, although he had met him in the medical ward when they were held in the same unit for one day. 71. Mr Kh. stated that he had not written the statement dated 2002 submitted by the applicant, claiming that the handwriting and the signature on it were not his. He had not seen any injuries on the applicant. 72. Mr A. wrote that he had had friendly relations with the applicant and that the latter had often disobeyed the lawful orders of the prison authorities and breached discipline. The applicant was placed in the disciplinary cell, but even then continued to disobey. In February 2002 Mr A. was detained in a disciplinary cell next door to the applicant, but he had not heard evidence of any violent acts against him. In the shower, he had not seen any traces of beating on the applicant. He repudiated his 2002 statement, pointing out that he had written it at the applicant’s request because of their friendly relations. 73. Mr Shch. wrote that in February 2002 he had been placed in the disciplinary unit. During his detention there a search was conducted, but no force was applied. He did not hear any cries or other violent sounds during the search, although audibility in the unit was very high. He met other detainees from the disciplinary unit during walks, but nobody mentioned any beatings or other use of force against inmates. He did not know the applicant personally. 74. According to the Government, similar submissions had been written by Mr Ya.; however, they did not attach a copy of his statement. 75. Mr Sh. wrote that he knew the applicant but did not have a personal relationship with him. In February 2002 he was detained in a disciplinary cell next door to the applicant, but did not hear him being beaten, though audibility in the disciplinary unit was very high. In the shower, he had not seen any traces of beating on the applicant. He did not hear the applicant complaining about having been beaten. 76. According to the Government, similar submissions were written by Mr Ab. and Mr V.; however, they did not attach a copy of their statements. 77. The Government also referred to statements made by Mr T. and Mr R., who submitted that they did not know the applicant and could not provide any relevant information, and by Mr Kr., who submitted that he knew the applicant but had had no contact with him. No copies of these statements were made available to the Court. 78. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Dubravnyy district prosecutor’s office, alleging that on 28-29 December 2001 he had been ill-treated. On 10 February 2002 he also lodged a complaint alleging that he had been beaten during the search on 6 February 2002. The latter complaint was accompanied by four statements from his fellow inmates, summarised above (see paragraphs 52-56 above). 79. On 31 May 2002 the applicant complained to the Zubovo‑Polyanskiy District Court concerning his alleged ill-treatment and the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him by the authorities of ZhH-385/5. He claimed damages in the amount of 45,000 roubles. He sent an additional complaint to the court on 22 June 2002. The complaints were received by the court on 10 July 2002. 80. On 16 July 2002 the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court declined to accept the applicant’s complaints for consideration, having found that they had been submitted neither through the prison postal service nor through an authorised representative outside the prison, and were therefore in breach of Article 91 of the Penitentiary Code. Its decision was based on Article 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant received this decision on 6 August 2002, but did not lodge an appeal against it. Instead he filed numerous petitions with various judicial bodies requesting the quashing of the decision of 16 July 2002 in supervisory review proceedings. None of the petitions was successful. 81. On 17 July 2002 the prosecutor’s office decided not to conduct a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of 28-29 December 2001 and 6 February 2002, having found the complaints unsubstantiated. It was noted, in particular, that during his detention in the disciplinary cell between 28 December 2001 and 12 January 2002 the applicant had not applied to the medical unit in order to have any injuries recorded. As regards the alleged ill-treatment of 6 February 2002, the prosecutor’s office questioned three other inmates (A., L. and V.) who had been detained in the same disciplinary unit as the applicant, and two prison officers. They all stated that “nobody from OMON [had] threatened to murder [the applicant]” during the search. The prosecutor’s office therefore concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were not supported by any evidence and that no further investigation was necessary. 82. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 17 July 2002, claiming that the failure to investigate the events of 6 February 2002 had been unlawful. He supported his complaint by written statements from inmates L., G., K. and A. confirming that several days after the search of 6 February 2002 they had seen bruises on his body and abrasions left by handcuffs on his wrists and that inmate A. had heard the applicant being beaten and crying for help. 83. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the alleged ill-treatment of 30 November 2002. On 13 February 2003 the prosecutor’s office declined to institute criminal proceedings, having found the allegations of ill-treatment unsubstantiated. 84. On 18 April 2003 the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court examined a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 17 July 2002. At the hearing the public prosecutor referred to the investigation conducted into the allegations of ill-treatment which had turned out to be unsubstantiated as there were no witnesses and no record of the applicant’s supposed requests for medical aid or his complaints in this respect. Three officials who had been implicated were questioned in court and denied the allegations. Statements by inmates L. and A. were produced, asserting that they had never written any statements concerning the alleged beating of the applicant and that they had neither seen any bruises on him nor heard any cries from his cell on the relevant date. Neither the applicant nor any other inmates were present in the courtroom. The court dismissed the complaint and found the decision by the prosecutor’s office not to conduct a criminal investigation to be lawful and reasonable. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. 85. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged before the court the alleged failure of the prosecutor’s office to register his complaint of ill‑treatment on 30 November 2002. On 20 February 2004 the Zubovo‑Polyanskiy District Court examined the claim and found that not only had the complaint been registered with the prosecutor’s office, but an official decision had been taken on 13 February 2003 not to conduct a criminal investigation into the allegations. The applicant had been informed of it. Having noted that the applicant had not challenged the merits of the latter decision, the court rejected the claim. No appeal was lodged against this decision. 86. On 26 August 2004 the applicant brought new proceedings for damages against the authorities of ZhH-385/5. He alleged ill-treatment in the prison and in the disciplinary cell and complained of unlawfully imposed disciplinary measures and damage to his health. 87. On 31 August 2004 the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court stayed the proceedings until 27 October 2004 and ordered that the applicant comply with the formal requirements for lodging a claim by attaching the originals or copies of the documents he referred to in his complaints and paying the full amount of the court fee, or providing reasons justifying a fee waiver. The applicant did not pursue these proceedings. 88. On 19 November 2004 the applicant lodged a new claim with the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court, similar to that of 31 August 2004. On 24 November 2004 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicant had again failed to pay the court fee or file a waiver application, and to attach copies of the relevant documents and the required number of copies of his writ. The applicant was given until 13 December 2004 to rectify the shortcomings. The applicant did not pursue these proceedings. Apparently he lodged a new claim of similar content, failing once again to pay the court fee or request a waiver and to provide the required copies. On 11 January 2005 the Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court stayed the proceedings and gave the applicant until 10 February 2005 to comply with these requirements. The applicant did not pursue these proceedings either. Likewise, he did not appeal against the stay of any of the above-mentioned proceedings.

4. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tallinn. The first set of proceedings 5. The applicant's father died in 1989. On 16 March 2001 a lawyer carried out the distribution of the estate, the applicant and his brother being its beneficiaries. 6. On 17 September 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against his brother with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) contesting the distribution. 7. On 8 October 2001 the court requested the applicant to supplement his application for a summons to be issued. It urged the applicant to give further particulars of his claims and the circumstances on which they were based and to indicate the evidence that he wished to present and what each piece of evidence was intended to prove, as required by Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken, 4/1734 with later amendments). The court further referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code, noting that in case of failure to comply with the request, the court could declare the action inadmissible or dismiss it. 8. The applicant filed two submissions, dated 22 October 2001 and 2 April 2002. 9. On 7 March 2003 the court sent the applicant another request, finding his submissions to be so incomplete and unclear that the defendant would not be able to respond to his action in an appropriate manner. 10. The applicant filed two submissions, dated 31 March and 17 April 2003. 11. On 23 July 2003 the defendant filed with the court his response to the action. He requested that it be declared inadmissible or dismissed stating, inter alia, that he was unable to respond to the claims due to the obscurity of the applicant's submissions. 12. On 8 August 2003 the court requested the applicant to submit a detailed statement in reply to the defendant's pleading. It further urged the applicant to consider employing the services of a lawyer. 13. The applicant filed five submissions between 18 August and 7 September 2003. 14. On 9 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant's action was inadmissible as his submissions to the court were so incomplete that they could not form a basis for the proceedings. The court referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure in that connection. 15. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). In its decision of 1 July 2004 the appellate court stated, inter alia, that the applicant's application for a summons and his supplementary submissions thereto were confused in several parts and difficult to understand. However, it could be deduced from his submissions that his claims concerned an alleged advance on the inheritance received by his brother and compensation due to the applicant for his own work in the interests of the estate. The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained those circumstances which formed the grounds for his action and that he had even submitted monetary claims with accompanying explanations. The court concluded that the District Court should not have ruled the action inadmissible and remitted the case to that court. It ordered the District Court to open the examination of the case of its own motion after one month had elapsed from the date when the Court of Appeal's decision had gained legal force. 16. On 3 February 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the defendant leave to appeal and the above decision became legally binding. 17. On 5 May 2006 the Helsinki District Court dismissed the applicant's action mainly for lack of evidence in support of his claims. 18. On 19 June 2007 the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal endorsing the lower court's reasoning for the most part. 19. On 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The second set of proceedings 20. The applicant's mother died in 1999. The distribution of the estate, of which the applicant and his brother were the beneficiaries, was carried out by a lawyer on 27 December 2001. 21. On 11 January 2002 the applicant lodged a civil action against his brother and the lawyer with the Helsinki District Court contesting the distribution. On 2 April 2002 he filed another submission regarding the same issue. 22. On 7 March 2003 the court ordered the applicant to supplement his application for a summons to be issued much in the same manner as in the two requests concerning the applicant's first action. 23. The applicant filed three submissions between 19 March and 17 April 2003. 24. The defendants submitted their responses to the court on 23 and 28 July 2003. They both requested that the action be declared inadmissible or dismissed stating, inter alia, that they were unable to respond to the subject matter due to the obscurity of the applicant's submissions. 25. On 8 August 2003 the court requested the applicant to submit a detailed statement in response to those pleadings. 26. The applicant filed three submissions between 18 August and 7 September 2003. 27. On 9 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant's action was inadmissible on similar grounds as in the case concerning his father's estate. 28. The applicant appealed against the inadmissibility decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal as regarded the claims against his brother. As to the lawyer, his appeal only concerned the costs and expenses incurred in the lower court proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the appellate court found that the applicant's action had not been so incomplete as to allow the District Court to declare it inadmissible. This case was also remitted to the District Court for examination on the merits. 29. On 3 February 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant's brother leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal's decision concerning remittal became legally binding. 30. On 5 May 2006 the Helsinki District Court dismissed the applicant's action mainly for lack of evidence in support of his claims. 31. On 19 June 2007 the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal endorsing the lower court's reasoning for the most part. 32. On 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

5. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Kansk, Krasnoyarsk Region. 6. On 19 March 2001 the applicant resisted a lawful arrest during a robbery and allegedly caused bodily harm to Mr F., officer of the Achinsk Department of the Interior, who was passing by with his wife. By a decision of 19 May 2001 an investigator of the Investigations Unit of the Achinsk Department of the Interior ordered the applicant's arrest. 7. The applicant was arrested on 10 July 2002 and brought to the Achinsk police station (see also paragraph 13 below). It is unclear whether any investigative measures were taken during the initial period of his detention. On 24 July 2002 the applicant was charged with robbery. 8. On 26 July 2002 the Achinsk Town Court considered that the applicant's arrest and detention had been unlawful because there had been deficiencies in the arrest record, in particular because he had not been informed of the above decision dated 19 May 2001; the applicant had not been brought before a court within the statutory time-limits. The applicant was released and ordered not to leave his place of residence. On 22 August 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the Town Court's order and ordered a re-examination of the matter. On the same date, the applicant was charged with the assault of officer F. 9. On 3 September 2002 the applicant was served with a copy of the indictment. On 4 September 2002 he was arrested. On 5 September 2002 the judge extended the applicant's detention and listed the case for trial on 26 September 2002. On 28 February 2003 the trial judge extended the applicant's detention until 4 June 2003. On 3 June 2003 the judge extended the applicant's detention until 4 September 2003 with reference to the gravity of the charges against him, his previous criminal record and attempts to flee justice. On 15 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld that order. 10. The applicant pleaded not guilty. At a court hearing on 19 August 2003 the prosecutor dropped the charges of assault because the case had been investigated, in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Department of the Interior where the victim, officer F., was employed. By a decision issued on the same day, the Town Court terminated the proceedings concerning the charge of assaulting F. By a judgment of 20 August 2003, the Town Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. On 2 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld the aforementioned judgments. 11. In separate proceedings, by a judgment of 28 October 2005 the Town Court recognised the applicant's right to compensation on account of the dropped charges. However, the court refused to award compensation, given the factual basis of the dropped and pursued charges. 12. The applicant was released in 2006. 13. On 10 July 2002 several police officers arrived at the applicant's flat. In the presence of his wife and child, officer B. struck him several times on the back and insulted him and his wife. 14. The applicant was then taken to the Achinsk police station, where he was beaten up by officer F. for nearly one hour. The officer inflicted blows to the applicant's chest, abdomen, legs and head. Such actions were due to the animosity of the officer toward the applicant after the events in 2001 and in order to extract a confession for the robbery. The applicant was forced to sign unspecified documents. 15. Instead of being placed in a standard cell, the applicant was kept alone for ten minutes in a tiny cell. While he was examined by medical assistant M., his former neighbour, M. refused to record any of the injuries to his body. On the same day, he was transferred to the remand centre. According to the applicant, the transfer did not exceed ten minutes and was supervised by at least five convoy officers. 16. The applicant was not brought before a court after his arrest (see paragraph 8 above). He alleges that by failing to draw a record of arrest and by failing to bring him before a court within the statutory time-limits the authorities attempted to cover up the alleged ill-treatment. 17. After his arrest on 10 July 2002, the applicant had been placed in the temporary detention centre (of the Achinsk police station). The bruises on his chest had been self-inflicted during his transfer from the temporary detention centre to the remand centre. 18. According to a note by the temporary detention centre, the applicant had been brought to the centre on 10 July 2002 at 5.30 pm and had had no injuries. 19. On the same day, he was transferred to the remand centre in Achinsk. As follows from the written report (акт медицинского освидетельствования) issued by the remand centre on the same day, the applicant was examined by a medical assistant of the remand centre, in the presence of the on-duty senior officer and the senior convoy officer. According to the report, the applicant displayed numerous bruises on his chest and explained that the injuries had been sustained during his arrest. 20. On 24 July 2002 the applicant was interviewed by investigator A. in relation to the criminal charges against him. A lawyer was present at the interview. The applicant made the following statement: “I was beaten up by police officers during my arrest on 10 July 2002. I cannot name them because they did not introduce themselves. They hit me on the chest, abdomen and back. The injuries were recorded in the remand centre. When brought to the police station, I was refused access to a lawyer and was not given any notice about my rights and the accusation against me. I had no interview with an investigator and consider that my detention for fourteen days was unlawful...” 21. Between 26 July and 4 September 2002 the applicant was at liberty. According to the applicant, he raised a complaint of ill-treatment at trial hearings held on 26 and 27 September 2002. However, the trial court refused to examine the complaint because no medical evidence had been adduced by him. 22. In reply to the applicant's request, by letter dated 1 April 2003, the Achinsk prosecutor's office informed him that the report of the remand centre dated 10 July 2002 had been kept in another file concerning the applicant. In September 2003 the applicant complained to the Achinsk prosecutor's office that he had been beaten up by officer F. and his colleagues. 23. According to the Government, the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of police officers was first raised by him at the national level on 9 March 2003. They subsequently submitted that it had first been raised on 22 September 2003. (b) Investigative measures and judicial review 24. The applicant complaint was dealt with by investigator P. of the Achinsk prosecutor's office. The investigator interviewed officer F., who stated that he had seen the applicant for a moment in the lobby of the police station on 10 July 2002 but had not had any encounter with him. 25. Officers B. and L. stated that there had not been any ill-treatment or use of force during the applicant's arrest in his flat on that date. 26. Medical assistant M. stated that she did not remember the events, as they dated back to 2002. Referring to the record, she affirmed, however, that she should have examined the upper part of the applicant's body and, as followed from the record, had detected no injuries. Nor had the applicant aired any complaint to her. 27. The investigator also interviewed F.'s wife, who recounted the circumstances relating to the applicant's arrest after the robbery in March 2001. 28. Later on, the applicant was also interviewed and stated that during his arrest in the flat officer B. had inflicted several blows to his back. In the police station, officer F. had kicked the applicant's chest, abdomen and legs; F. had also struck several blows to the applicant's head with his hand. 29. By a decision of 2 October 2003, the investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings. He stated in a summary manner that the applicant's allegations were refuted by the above statements made by B., F., his wife and M. 30. On 24 February 2004 the prosecutor annulled the decision of 2 October 2003 and ordered further enquiries. The investigator in charge of the complaint interviewed investigator A., who stated that she had indeed interviewed the applicant in the presence of his lawyer and that soon thereafter she had gone on sick leave and had transferred the case to another official. In reply to the investigator's request, the applicant's wife had refused to make a statement about the circumstances of the applicant's arrest. 31. By a decision of 3 March 2004, the investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings for the following reasons: “According to the medical report of 10 July 2002 issued by the temporary detention centre, the applicant had been in good health. However, according to the medical report issued after his transfer to the remand centre on the same date, he had displayed bruises on his chest. There is no evidence that the applicant sustained those injuries during his arrest.” 32. On 29 March 2004 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision of 3 March 2004. 33. On 23 April 2004 the prosecutor annulled the decision of 3 March 2004 and ordered an additional inquiry. The investigator then took a statement from a Mr Sh., who had been detained with the applicant on 10 July 2002 in the temporary detention centre. Sh. stated that the applicant had told him that he had been beaten up during the arrest. 34. It appears that the investigator asked a medical expert Z. to examine the available documents concerning the alleged ill-treatment. In reply to a question from the investigator, Z. made “written explanations” (объяснение) that when physical force was applied close to bone tissue, bruises could either become visible immediately or within several hours. She also replied that it was not practicable to determine the timing of the injuries caused to the applicant because the medical report of 10 July 2002 did not contain a morphological description of the bruises, such as details of their colour or a description of any oedema. 35. By a decision of 5 May 2004, the investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings because no evidence could be adduced that the applicant had sustained injuries during the arrest. In particular, the investigator established that the information contained in the medical reports and the arrest record had been insufficient to determine when the arrest had taken place and when the relevant injuries had been sustained. 36. By judgment of 4 June 2004, the Town Court annulled the decision of 5 May 2004. The court held as follows: “After his arrest, the applicant remained under the control of the police or convoy officers... Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that no one shall be subjected to torture... In the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, the European Court held that the Government should give a plausible explanation of how the detainee's injuries have been caused. The case file contains no evidence rebutting the applicant's allegations and the medical evidence or supplying any such plausible explanation.... The European Court pointed out in the Ribitsch judgment that any recourse to violence in respect of a person deprived of his liberty not made strictly necessary by the conduct of the detainees, is in principle an infringement of Article 3. In view of the above, the decision of 5 May 2004 is unlawful and lacks reasons explaining how the applicant's injuries had been caused.” 37. In June 2004 the administration of the remand centre decided to transfer the applicant to a prison, where he would serve his prison sentence. The applicant brought proceedings claiming that his transfer would impede the inquiry in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment. By letter of 1 July 2004, the Town Court informed the applicant that the above decision was not amenable to judicial review. 38. The investigator questioned a medical expert, Ms Kr., who interpreted in her “written explanations” the location of the injuries mentioned in the report of 10 July 2002 as meaning that the area had been accessible to the applicant's hands and thus could have been self-inflicted. Mr K., chief of the convoy section, stated that the applicant had been transported to the remand centre in a convoy van, in which detainees were not restrained and could thus inflict injuries upon themselves. It does not appear that K. participated in the applicant's transfer on 10 July 2002. 39. By a decision of 25 June 2004, the investigator concluded that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself “with the intention of avoiding prosecution for the criminal offence” during his transfer from the temporary detention centre to the remand centre. 40. By letters of 5 and 8 July 2004, the prosecutor informed the applicant that, due to his transfer to the prison, he would not have access to the inquiry reports and that he had already been provided with a copy of “the decision”. 41. By a judgment of 10 September 2004, the Town Court upheld the investigator's decision of 25 June 2004. Having heard the parties, the court considered that the investigating authority had carried out all practicable measures during the inquiries; all relevant testimonies and documentary evidence had been collected and assessed. On 19 October 2004 the Regional Court upheld the Town Court's judgment, endorsing its reasoning.

8. The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1956 and living in Florence. 9. The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to P.R. and A.R.Z. 10. In a registered letter of 7 June 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 15 December 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date. 11. On 8 June 1989, she served a notice to quit on the tenants, but they refused to leave. 12. In a writ served on the tenants on 21 October 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate. 13. By a decision of 20 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 27 November 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1990. 14. On 18 December 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself. 15. On 28 December 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. 16. On 22 January 1991, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1991. 17. Between 6 February 1991 and 27 February 2000, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. 18. On 15 March 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.