TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): In the date of the facts, it was applicable the Schengen border code whose articles 12 and 13 and recital 6 oblige all member states and precisely this is an European Union border and the Schengen border to prevent an authorized entry by any legal means.
GR1 (Government): And the internal regulation of security cops in charge of border control in Spain, which we have furnished with our observations before the chamber.
GR1 (Government): It is said that it is precisely the Guardia Civil who is in charge of this border control operation.
GR1 (Government): Of course, these operations have to be taken and driven with full respect of human rights and especially of Article 2 and Article 3, our constitution was made just at the same moment where we entered the Council of Europe and it has, it contains all the rights of the convention in the human rights part and it is an special body to interpret all laws according to Article 10.4
GR1 (Government): of the same constitution.
GR1 (Government): Regarding if Benin and Sahar is not accessible from Morocco, why?
GR1 (Government): What is the situation?
GR1 (Government): Well, we have already said it, all people in here, the CR, the United Nations, have said that there are, someone reports there is difficulty in Moroccan territory, but we are not to blame for that and we don't know if that is the case or not.
GR1 (Government): We only can find a logical explanation which is the lack of ground to request asylum.
GR1 (Government): Well, now we will go to the question posed by Judge Harutyun about are there mafias directing people to cross the border?
GR1 (Government): Well, it is not us who say that, we also say that and we have fairness proof, but it is Amnesty International in a report which was partially transcribed on paragraph 177 of our first submissions before the chamber that says, talks about the traffickers of human beings regarding migration and how they mistreat them and how they are fueled by enticing information they give them in their homeland about the possibilities of unlawfully enter precisely through malicious border.
GR1 (Government): But it is not only Amnesty International, but the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has recently made a global study on smuggling of migrants where you can see in detail how these mafias work.
GR1 (Government): So this is not Spain's invention unfortunately, but a real life situation which is quite despicable for all of us.
GR1 (Government): Concerning now the questions posed by Judge Sicilianos, well, we find that the answer to your very sensible question is that the international community has the global compact we have and it shows, says that where there is people that can pretend to seek refuge, he should have a legal venue to ask for it without paying a mafia.
GR1 (Government): That is the conclusion after an in-depth study on the matter.
GR1 (Government): And in fact, I have furnished you the data that people from Mali and people from Ivory Coast is coming to our embassies in their country requesting visas, not only transit visas, but also medium-term visas and long-term visas.
GR1 (Government): And once they are in lawfully in our country, they can request asylum if they so wish.
GR1 (Government): And in fact, the applicants in paragraph 16 of their submission have not had but to admit that these proceedings fully comply with the convention.
GR1 (Government): And that is the way, coming in a lawful way and requesting asylum in our territory without paying any mafia and without risking a dangerous travel to the Mediterranean or risking death in the Teneri Desert.
GR1 (Government): Now, we will go to the, also to the, sorry, I have forgotten one answer before, which was about the, which were the actual damage to civil guards in the border fence.
GR1 (Government): Well, we have furnished you data in our written submission because you asked about this.
GR1 (Government): And in 2004, 30 civil guards were hurt by bruises, cuts due to the use of knives, hooks, and sticks from the part of the migrants as in Annex 28 is shown.
GR1 (Government): And they have used fire to menace the agents as it is shown.
GR1 (Government): And for example, on 15 October 2014, a civil guard agent was made to be, to fall from three meters high and due to the aggression of one of the sub-Saharan who tried to entry.
GR1 (Government): He had very grave injuries and he had to stay in the hospital during several weeks.
GR1 (Government): But you have also and you will have in your eye this same August attack against the Felters Fence, which, of which several civil guards were injured and had to be taken care in hospital.
GR1 (Government): Well, coming back, sorry for having skipped that.
GR1 (Government): My colleague has advised me a lot and I thank him for it.
GR1 (Government): Now, we are going to the, I think the last question you posed regarding the question posed by Judge Potocki.
GR1 (Government): What happens if a person has not requested asylum?
GR1 (Government): Can he request the protection under Article 4 of Protocol 4?
GR1 (Government): Well, we think that you have already answered this in your case law, saying that if the exhaustion of available and effective possibility of alleging any legal cause for asylum is attributable to the culpable conduct of the person, then it is not possible to apply Article 4 of Protocol 4.
GR1 (Government): And in this sense, we have furnished you with evidence of not only one but three legal venues in which these people can come without risking harm and damage from the mafias.
GR1 (Government): So to conclude, we would like to say briefly that religious protection of the border is not a wall.
GR1 (Government): It's not a wall.
GR1 (Government): It is an integral system to orderly regulate migration.
GR1 (Government): It is formed by our net of embassies and consulates worldwide, by the fences, and by the authorized border crossings.
GR1 (Government): We have shown to you how it is possible by law and in practice to come through legal means to Spain and thus to the Sengen area and once inside lawfully to request for asylum.
GR1 (Government): And therefore, we would like to pose you a final question from our part.
GR1 (Government): What is preferable?
GR1 (Government): That anybody in need or in danger can pose a legitimate claim of entry through legal means or fuel unlawful actions for the sole benefit of hideous mafias and further suffering of migrants, EU residents, and border officers.
GR1 (Government): And that I leave it to your consideration.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): There were questions for the UNHCR.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I wonder whether Mrs. O’hara wish to comment,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): to offer some elements in reply to those questions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
TP1 (ThirdParty): We understood four questions to be in whole or in part addressed to us, and I will attempt as briefly as possible to respond to them.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Firstly, the questions that were raised amongst a set of questions by Judge Stadlmayer about potential contradiction or incoherence in the statistics that I had referred to, or my statement about the limitations of people's ability to access asylum procedures.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Just to be entirely clear about this, a number of different sets of statistics have been presented, either in written submissions and now subsequently in our oral interventions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And to be entirely clear, what I was referring to, and here I'm making a very clear distinction between the situation before December 2014, when indeed a border post was established at Benin-Nsar, and the situation since.
TP1 (ThirdParty): So just to be clear on that, I reiterate.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Our understanding based on statistics of the Spanish authorities indicate that 12,700 asylum seekers principally from Middle Eastern and North African countries have been registered by the Spanish authorities at Benin-Nsar border post since the end of 2014.
TP1 (ThirdParty): During the same period, and we were citing this for the sake of comparison to indicate trends and the realities of the situation, as far as we are aware, approximately only 35 asylum seekers from Sub-Saharan African countries were able to be registered in the same period, and our understanding is that most of them entered the enclave by means other than through Benin-Nsar.
TP1 (ThirdParty): If I just refer briefly to the data that was provided in the submission of the Kingdom of Spain with respect to the situation before August 2014, I mean, we would just note that in terms of numbers of a citation of 21 persons that were able to access some form of a procedure through the police station in Malia prior to the establishment of the Benin-Nsar border post.
TP1 (ThirdParty): We're speaking only of 21 cases here in the period between the 1st of the 1st 2014 and the 13th of the 8th 2014, of which only six were of Sub-Saharan African nationality.
TP1 (ThirdParty): So I don't think there is any discrepancy as such between the figures that have been presented.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In a second question, which we understood to be at least partially addressed to us, Judge El-Oeski asked about the reasoning behind, and as I heard it, UNHCR's rejection of the subsequent asylum claims in Spain.
TP1 (ThirdParty): To be clear on that, I would just like to underline that we have not, in our written submissions nor in what I have said here today, we've made it very clear that we were not commenting on the merits of the subsequent asylum applications in Spain.
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, since the question has been directly asked, let me just clarify that UNHCR's role within the Spanish asylum system is the provision, according to Spanish law, of a non-binding advisory opinion which takes place in the context of accelerated admissibility procedures.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And this can happen at two stages, with an initial report when the claim is submitted, and subsequently in a second report which can happen 48 hours later if the case is under review.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And we would just observe that the very nature of those type of procedures and our role in them, in our view, underlines precisely the argumentation and the reasons why we have concerns about the lack of any kind of even minimum screening procedures which took place in the context of this case.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Not everybody who claims that they have a right to asylum will necessarily ultimately receive it, but it is in our view fundamentally important to the integrity of asylum that there is an opportunity to express that need, whether it be an asylum claim or more broadly, as has been addressed by other interveners, claims to international protection which are not necessarily defined by the limited scope of asylum.
TP1 (ThirdParty): We understood also that the question from Judge Harutyunen on the whole question of observation of smuggling routes, we understood that to be also partially addressed to us, basically what is UNHCR's observations on the involvement of organized smuggling towards the EU.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I would just like to say in context that our observation overall, and this is borne out in our annual statistics on global and regional trends to do with asylum and claims for international protection, our observation in the first part is that the vast majority of persons who have been recognized as refugees or persons of concern to UNHCR, in their overwhelming majority these persons remain in regions of origin.
TP1 (ThirdParty): So they are not the majority of people that you will necessarily find in smuggling routes.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It has however been in our experience, and we have observed as many others have and this has been documented, the involvement of quite ruthless entities smuggling or trafficking that are involved in this business.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And we as UNHCR have consistently in positions that we have taken around these issues pointed out that the extreme lack of alternative legal pathways is in our view one of the factors that fuels the recourse of persons in need of international protection to these quite ruthless groups that were referred to.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And lastly, and I will finish with this, we understood that also at least in part Judge Siciliano's questions, his set of questions were directed to us in the context of asking a question about our understanding of the link between expulsion and non-refoulement.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The question was framed in reference to the draft articles of the International Law Commission and the observations there too that non-admission or extradition considerations would not apply.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Our understanding, and I'm looking here and quoting from Article 9 of those draft articles on the prohibition of collective expulsion where Article 9.2 says the collective expulsion
TP1 (ThirdParty): of aliens is prohibited and then goes on in Subsection 3 to say that a state may expel uncommittedly the members of a group of aliens provided that the expulsion takes place after and on the basis of an assessment of the particular case of each individual member of the group in accordance with the present draft articles.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And our understanding as UNHCR of the legitimacy of a link or the relevance of our concern about these matters, the link between expulsion and non-refoulement precisely goes to the comments we have made today about the risk of a person with a legitimate claim to international protection not being able to express that concern or avail of the protection that might attach to them if there is not in fact some minimal way of them being able to express it.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And it's precisely because of our concern about the effectiveness of non-refoulement in the context of international refugee law having real content and effect that we believe that there is a need for some type of minimum at least possibility of persons to express that concern before they would be subjected to the risk of collective expulsion as was presented in the context of this case.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I leave it at that.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mrs. O’hara.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I thank the parties and the third parties who have assisted the Court with their submissions and answers to the Court's questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The Court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Svinarenko and Slyadnev against Russia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case originated in two applications lodged with a court under Article 34 of the Convention by two Russian nationals, Mr. Aleksandr Sergeyevich Svinarenko
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Mr. Valentin Alekseyevich Slyadnev
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): on 5th of May and 2nd of July, 2008, respectively.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applications were allocated to the first section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 11th of December, 2012, the first section decided to join the applications, declared them partly admissible, and found that there had been violations of Article 3 and 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 7th of March, 2013, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request on the 29th of April, 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Georgy Matyushkin, representative
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Mr. Nikolay Mikhaylov,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Pavel Smirnov, and Ms. Olga Ocheretyanaya, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The first applicant, Mr. Svinarenko, is represented
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): by Mr. Valerii Palchinskii, counsel.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The second applicant, Mr. Slyadnev, is represented
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): by Mr. Evgenii Plotnikov and Ms. Victoria Taysaeva, counsel.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome a delegation from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, delegations of judges from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Russia, as well as a delegation of judges and prosecutors from the European Judicial Training Network.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Palchinskii, Mr. Plotnikov, and Ms. Taysaeva
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): for the applicants will speak first, and then Mr. Matyushkin for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting from Russian will be provided for the applicants' representatives, Mr. Palchinsky and Mr. Plotnikov,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): who have been authorized in accordance with Rule 34, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court to use the Russian language in their oral pleadings.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Furthermore, an active interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of the delegation of judges from Russia and into Turkish for the delegation from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, who are on a study visit to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Palchinskii.
AP1 (Applicant): Господин Президент и члены Большой Палаты, я, адвокат Второй Магаданской областной коллегии адвокатов, Пальчинский Валерий Григорьевич, представляю интересы заявителя Свинаренко Александра Сергеевича.
AP1 (Applicant): Внимательно ознакомившись с доводами Российской Федерации о необходимости пересмотреть постановление суда от 11 декабря прошлого года, хочу заявить, что мы считаем позицию России в данном вопросе ошибочной.
AP1 (Applicant): Хочу высказать нашу позицию по поводу аргументов Российской Федерации.
AP1 (Applicant): В суду, который 11 декабря прошлого года выносил постановление по жалобам заявителей, было хорошо известно, в чем они обвинялись.
AP1 (Applicant): Пункт 68 постановления.
AP1 (Applicant): Обвинения в совершении разбоя и бандитизма, на которые делает упор Россия, были изначально надуманными и совершенно несостоятельными, что подтверждается тремя оправдательными приговорами в отношении заявителя Свинаренко.
AP1 (Applicant): Относительно того, что заявители не являются публичными фигурами, хочу заметить, что человеческое достоинство имеют не только публичные фигуры.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы представили в Большую Палату в качестве дополнительных материалов копию листов материалов уголовного дела, где перечислены жители города Магадана, которые вызывались и являлись в суд в качестве кандидатов в присяжных заседателей.
AP1 (Applicant): Кроме того, мы представили копию постановления о назначении судебного заседания по итогам предварительного слушания от 26 декабря 2003 года, в котором указан список жителей поселка Сенегорья и других населенных пунктов Магаданской области, вызванных в суд в качестве свидетелей.
AP1 (Applicant): По нашему мнению, представленные материалы позволяют говорить о том, что процесс посещался широкой публикой, и заявители демонстрировали с металлической клетки большому количеству граждан, в том числе и жителей поселка Сенегорья, в котором они проживали.
AP1 (Applicant): Что касается сомнений России относительно посещения судебного процесса родственниками и знакомыми обвиняемых, хочу сообщить, что на протяжении всех трех судебных процессов родственники и знакомые обвиняемых практически постоянно присутствовали в зале суда.
AP1 (Applicant): По поводу криминальной истории Свинаренко хочу заметить, что постановление от 11 декабря прошлого года выносилось судом с учетом криминальной истории заявителя, пункт 68 постановления.
AP1 (Applicant): На момент рассмотрения уголовного дела заявителей Свинаренко имел непогашенную судимость по приговору от 15 июня 2001 года, которым был осужден к условной мере наказания.
AP1 (Applicant): Указанные обстоятельства, по нашему мнению, свидетельствуют в пользу заявителя, поскольку суд, оставив его на свободе, практически признал, что он не представляет общественной опасности.
AP1 (Applicant): Относительно того, что слушание дела не освещалось в средствах массовой информации, хочу сообщить, что это вовсе не так.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы представили в Большую палату дополнительные материалы, из которых видно, что средства массовой информации проявляли к судебному процессу определенный интерес.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы представили копию листов протокола судебного заседания от 13 февраля 2004 года, где указано, что судом рассматривалось ходатайство представителей средств массовой информации о разрешении производства видеосъемки судебного заседания.
AP1 (Applicant): Также мы представили в качестве дополнительных материалов запрос адвоката Плотникова о 27 мая нынешнего года на имя руководителя государственного телеканала Колыма Плюс и ответ на указанный запрос.
AP1 (Applicant): Из содержания этих документов видно, что средства массовой информации освещали судебный процесс в отношении заявителей.
AP1 (Applicant): Относительно того, что свидетели и потерпевшие опасались мести со стороны заявителей, хочу обратить внимание суда на следующее.
AP1 (Applicant): Как я указал выше, заявитель Свиновенко оправдан полностью по всем пунктам обвинения тремя составами суда присяжных.
AP1 (Applicant): Суд установил, что он никаких преступлений не совершал, возникает вопрос, о каких потерпевших и о каких свидетелях идет речь.
AP1 (Applicant): Поскольку не было преступлений, то не было и потерпевших, не было и свидетелей.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы утверждаем, что заявители не представляли никакой опасности для общества и их помещение в металлическую клетку в зале суда перед присяжными заседателями не преследовало цели безопасности, а являлось инструментом подавления их воли к сопротивлению, а также являлось инструментом воздействия на суд присяжных.
AP1 (Applicant): Как отметил Европейский суд постановления ОШОД Харатюнян против Армении, посторонний наблюдатель мог легко предположить, что перед судом находится крайне опасный преступник.
AP1 (Applicant): Пребывание в таком виде перед публикой, включая родственников и друзей, должно было унижать и вызвать чувство неполноценности, одновременно умаляя способность контролировать ситуацию.
AP1 (Applicant): Умаляя способность концентрации и сосредоточению при разбирательстве разрешающим вопросы уголовной ответственности.
AP1 (Applicant): Такая строгая и унизительная мера, неоправданная реальной угрозой безопасности, составляет унижающее достоинство обращения.
AP1 (Applicant): Особо хочу обратить внимание суда на постановление судима Голландского областного суда Лапшина от 8 февраля 2005 года, которое направлено нами в Большую палату в качестве дополнительных материалов.
AP1 (Applicant): Этим постановлением было возвращено прокурору, и в отношении всех обвиняемых была избрана мера пресечения в виде подписки о невыезде, которая действовала на протяжении длительного периода времени, на протяжении 10 месяцев, с 8 февраля по 6 декабря 2005 года.
AP1 (Applicant): Это обстоятельство свидетельствует о том, что и суд, и сторона обвинения, которая не обжаловала меру пресечения в виде подписки о невыезде, понимали, что обвиняемые никакой реальной опасности для общества не представляют.
AP1 (Applicant): Относительно нарушения статьи 8 конвенции.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы не разделяем позицию России и утверждаем, что вмешательство в частную жизнь человека, который не совершал никаких преступлений со стороны публичных властей по надуманным обвинениям на протяжении длительного времени является нарушением права на уважение частной жизни.
AP1 (Applicant): Три оправдательных приговора в отношении заявителя Свинаренко позволяют нам утверждать, что изначально отсутствовали допустимые статьей 8 конвенции случаи для такого вмешательства.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы утверждаем, что допущенное публичными властями вмешательство в частную жизнь заявителя не было вызвано интересами общественной безопасности, а являлось произволом властей.
AP1 (Applicant): Относительно позиции России, что заявитель Свинаренко не может быть признан жертвой нарушения статьи 6 конвенции в связи с длительностью судебного разбирательства, хочу заявить следующее.
AP1 (Applicant): Считаем позицию России в этом вопросе ошибочной.