TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP3 (Applicant): I think there is an issue about the reliability of those evidence.
AP3 (Applicant): I come then to the question, the focus of the government today was on the issue of security and the impossibility of return because of security issues.
AP3 (Applicant): And this is the question that Judge Pinto Albuquerque raised.
AP3 (Applicant): And of course, he's absolutely right to point out that IHL imposes an obligation on the parties to protect the victims of international armed conflicts.
AP3 (Applicant): There's no question about that.
AP3 (Applicant): What we say in response to that is if at a particular point in time it's impossible for security reasons to allow return, well, first of all, there are a whole series of other steps that are and have always been possible.
AP3 (Applicant): The right to compensation, there is no reason why, we've heard nothing again today from the government, why it would not be possible to set up a system to compensate people in the Sargsyan's position.
AP3 (Applicant): There are many, then, particular steps that could and should have been taken that lead to either compensation or indeed return, establishing a proper regime of property ownership, publicizing those details to everyone, establishing independent institutions and mechanisms to assess and enforce property claims.
AP3 (Applicant): Again, we've heard nothing about that from the government.
AP3 (Applicant): As to why that has not been done, why it's not been possible, this court has had similar, has struggled with similar issues in Ex-Inidis, Orestes, and Dimopoulos, as we've mentioned.
AP3 (Applicant): It's also possible that it would have been possible to negotiate staged returns.
AP3 (Applicant): In 20 years of the conflict, 12 years since ratification, we say that the positive obligations also require all those steps, legal, political, diplomatic, judicial.
AP3 (Applicant): And that could include negotiation of staged returns.
AP3 (Applicant): This is dealt with in the conciliation resources report that's in your papers that talks about the example of Dayton, talks about, for example, establishing a zone of separation in a particular region, armies retreating from the zone, creating a demilitarized area under the authority of an international peacekeeping force.
AP3 (Applicant): And that zone becomes the first place where returns take place.
AP3 (Applicant): We've heard nothing from the government on any of this today, again, other than reference to a 1991 order in relation to private exchanges.
AP3 (Applicant): So there's nothing since they ratified the convention in 2002.
AP3 (Applicant): We say it's utterly deficient in relation to its positive obligations.
AP3 (Applicant): We've heard again about domestic remedies from the government.
AP3 (Applicant): We just reiterate briefly that in the seven years this case has been before communicated to the government, they've been able to refer to two specific cases.
AP3 (Applicant): And those two cases are wholly irrelevant to the position of someone in the Sargsyan's situation.
AP3 (Applicant): We heard today about the alleged destruction of houses.
AP3 (Applicant): It was said that there was a reference to his own house being destroyed.
AP3 (Applicant): Well, we've dealt with that in the witness statements very, very clearly.
AP3 (Applicant): His father's house in the village was destroyed in the attack.
AP3 (Applicant): Indeed, his mother died in the attack.
AP3 (Applicant): He tried to go back to rescue her.
AP3 (Applicant): He wasn't able to.
AP3 (Applicant): Minos, his mother, died in a conflagration of his father's house.
AP3 (Applicant): No question about that.
AP3 (Applicant): The statements we've got from other villages confirm some of them, as they were leaving the village at the time, saw that Minos' house was still standing.
AP3 (Applicant): It hadn't been destroyed.
AP3 (Applicant): And there's quite a lot of other evidence.
AP3 (Applicant): The statements from villagers, the photos, sorry, the statements from villagers about the general condition of the village show that there are substantial numbers of buildings still intact.
AP3 (Applicant): The government today talked about complete destruction.
AP3 (Applicant): That's not what the evidence shows.
AP3 (Applicant): The statements from the villagers, the 22 photographs submitted by the Nagorno-Karabakh officer show a number of buildings perfectly intact.
AP3 (Applicant): The satellite report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that in 2005, there were 36 properties still intact.
AP3 (Applicant): The map that was shown you today confirms that.
AP3 (Applicant): You can see properties that haven't been destroyed.
AP3 (Applicant): There's no particular evidence about Minos Sargsyan's house.
AP3 (Applicant): And we have the villagers' statement from 2010 saying that he saw the walls standing, had a dilapidated roof.
AP3 (Applicant): If you were to ask Minos and Lena whether they would return to their old house with the walls standing and whether they would repair the roof, the answer, I'm sure, though I can't ask them today, would have been yes.
AP3 (Applicant): In any event, of course, their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol 1, of course, subsists in relation to their land.
AP3 (Applicant): So even if it were established that his property was destroyed and destroyed prior to April 2002, which we say it hasn't been, his claim over land subsists.
AP3 (Applicant): Two final points, Mr. President, if I may.
AP3 (Applicant): There was a reference to the 1958 village charter, which the government say is unsourced.
AP3 (Applicant): Well, you have the original Russian version of the 1958 village charter in your papers.
AP3 (Applicant): My colleague, Mr. Gregorian, obtained it
AP3 (Applicant): in the British Library.
AP3 (Applicant): It is official Soviet publication published in Baku.
AP3 (Applicant): We can give you the reference for the publication.
AP3 (Applicant): I'm not going to do that now, but we can give it to you.
AP3 (Applicant): It's an official document.
AP3 (Applicant): The government say it's unsourced.
AP3 (Applicant): It seems as if they haven't been able to locate it.
AP3 (Applicant): But there's no question about its authenticity.
AP3 (Applicant): Finally, Mr. President, we heard today from the government
AP3 (Applicant): several times about their commitment to the principle to the right to return and to restitution.
AP3 (Applicant): We're encouraged by that, and we think that could encourage this court to order return and restitution, and also to deal with return and restitution in their general measures under Article 46.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, that concludes the submissions
AP3 (Applicant): on behalf of the applicants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Leach. Who wants to take the floor?
GR1 (Government): I will turn to the comments by the intervening state and the applicants.
GR1 (Government): And then my colleagues will reply to the judge's question.
GR1 (Government): First, I'd like to touch upon the AAS report and the pictures which we asked the court to take away from the disclosing version of the report.
GR1 (Government): We've asked the court to do this because these pictures showed the military positions of Azerbaijani army outside the village, deep inside the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, even for 12 kilometers.
GR1 (Government): And for the military reasons, we did ask the court to do this.
GR1 (Government): This topographic map and the picture in the AAS report shows that the military position of the Azerbaijani army are outside the village.
GR1 (Government): There is no single place in the AAS report saying that the Azerbaijani army has its position in the village itself.
GR1 (Government): Even one trench showed on the figure 12, which is on the left from the village.
GR1 (Government): It is not the trench.
GR1 (Government): It is bank of the river.
GR1 (Government): There is a spring flowing to the Indiachai River.
GR1 (Government): And it is shown from the satellite image as a trench.
GR1 (Government): There is no reason to place the military trench on such a direction near the village.
GR1 (Government): We also submit that the military positions of the Armenian forces are to the southeast of the Indiachai River, which is not covered by the AAS report at all.
GR1 (Government): That is why even this image, figure 12, doesn't show the military positions of Armenia because they are situated within the woods, and there is no vision from the satellite.
GR1 (Government): As to the intervening government comment concerning that only ethnic Armenians were forced to leave their homes because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, I would like to state that because of this conflict, more than 200,000 Azerbaijanis left their homes from Armenia proper.
GR1 (Government): And about 800,000 of Azerbaijanis left their homes from Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories of Azerbaijan.
GR1 (Government): And the number of refugees from Azerbaijan, Armenian refugees, as far as I know, it's about 300,000.
GR1 (Government): I will turn now to Professor Sho to answer the judges' questions.
GR2 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President, members of the court.
GR2 (Government): Quick response to some of the questions posed.
GR2 (Government): Judge Gulumyan, her questions.
GR2 (Government): First of all, the question about Azerbaijani-populated villages in the same position as Gulistan.
GR2 (Government): It's important to understand that the line of contact is not one single straight line.
GR2 (Government): It is the area between two front-line positions.
GR2 (Government): Gulistan is between the two front-line positions.
GR2 (Government): This appears clearly from the AAAS report and, indeed, from Armenia's own pleadings.
GR2 (Government): I'm instructed to say there is no Azeri-populated village in the same position, i.e.
GR2 (Government): between the two front lines.
GR2 (Government): Secondly, the territory of Azerbaijan, which has been illegally occupied by Armenian forces, is, we believe, in the region of 16%.
GR2 (Government): And we take this from the CIA fact book.
GR2 (Government): Full references can be supplied if required.
GR2 (Government): Thirdly, since the judge raised this issue, can I apologize for not replying to her questions in Shiragov?
GR2 (Government): But as the learned judge well knows, the intervening state was not able to reply in the oral pleadings.
GR2 (Government): I turn to a couple of other comments from Mr. Leach.
GR2 (Government): First of all, the AAAS report concludes near total destruction of the village by 2005.
GR2 (Government): See page 22 to 23.
GR2 (Government): It is not true that the evidence shows, independent evidence shows, Azeri forces in the village.
GR2 (Government): The AAAS report makes it clear that there are Azerbaijani positions in the area around the village, in various points, not within the village.
GR2 (Government): And that's the key point, because the property is situated within the village.
GR2 (Government): The rules of international humanitarian law, which he well knows, of course, various returns are possible to areas in positions of conflict.
GR2 (Government): But the point about Gulistan village is it's dangerous.
GR2 (Government): It is a dangerous spot.
GR2 (Government): This is not a question of whether or not an Armenian refugee should be returned to his or her alleged former home in Baku.
GR2 (Government): May I pass over now to Dr. Lansky.
GR3 (Government): Mr. President, esteemed members of the court, we have, as far as we understand, two more
GR3 (Government): questions not answered.
GR3 (Government): One concerning the resolution which has been quoted by us.
GR3 (Government): But Guillaumin was asking if that is the resolution which has been a contrabotum of all the Minsk chair countries and the Security Council members.
GR3 (Government): No, it's not this one.
GR3 (Government): We have been referring ourselves to the resolution number 66-283, adopted by the General Assembly on 3 July 2012, called Status of Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Chin Valley region in South Ossetia and Georgia.
GR3 (Government): More or less 30 countries voted in favor of this resolution.
GR3 (Government): Eight countries voted against it.
GR3 (Government): And under others, the United States of America also voted in favor of that resolution.
GR3 (Government): Concerning the question of Judge Gera, if there are specific normative regulations for regions like this line of contact, yes, there is, for instance, the presidential decree of August 2001, which orders in its paragraph, in section 3, that the State Committee for Refugees and local authorities are instructed of restoration of 1,400 buildings in two villages of the region.
GR3 (Government): And the Minister of Finance is instructed to care for the financial allocations of the repatriation, specific regulation for these regions.
GR3 (Government): And the practice of the civil courts in Azerbaijan would fulfill the special needs in cases of IDPs claiming restitution, who are not entitled to enter the country.
GR3 (Government): You can be represented in the courts of Azerbaijan, and there is no law which need personal presence if you go and claim in the civil courts in Azerbaijan.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. We have now come to the end of the hearing. I thank the parties for
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): their interventions and answers to the court's questions. The court will now deliberate on
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): the merits. The judgment will be delivered later. The parties will be informed of the
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): date of delivery. I declare the hearing closed.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Please be seated.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of S.M. versus Croatia.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 27 August 2014 under Article 34 of the Convention by a Croatian national, Mrs. S.M.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the first section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of the court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 9 February 2015.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 19 July 2018, a chamber of the first section delivered its judgment in the case.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): By a majority, it declared the application admissible and held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention in its procedural limp.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 19 October 2018, the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): And the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 3 December 2018.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 6 February 2019, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, GRETA, to submit written comments in the proceedings as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 4 March 2019, the president also granted leave to submit written comments in the proceedings as third parties to, first, Clinique Doctorale de Trois Internationales des Trois de l'Homme de la Faculté de Trois d'Aix-en-Provence.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Second, the research center, l'Altro Dirito, from the Department of Theory and History of Law of Florence University.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): And third, to the group of researchers, Mrs. Bénédicte Bourgeois from the Michigan University,
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Marie-Xavier Cato from the University of Paris 1
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Pontillon-Sorbonne, and Mr. Michel Herpelding
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): from the Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Ms. Štefica Stažnik, assisted by Mrs. Nikolina  Katić
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): and Mr. Krešimir Nikolić, advisors.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mrs. Sanja Bezbradica Jelavić
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives of the parties in the name of the court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I also welcome the following groups of judges who are on a study visit to the court, a delegation of judges and prosecutors from the European Judicial Training Network, a delegation of Russian judges, a delegation of Portuguese judges from the High Court of Auditors, and a delegation from the National School of Judges of Ukraine.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representative of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Jelavić for the applicant will speak first,
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): and then Mrs. Stažnik for the government.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of a group of judges from Russia attending this hearing.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): That interpreting is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Jelavić.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable President and honorable judges, members of the Grand Chamber, the position of this applicant, but also of other victims of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation after they have been identified as victims and during the court proceedings are very specific.
AP1 (Applicant): Victims do not enjoy effective protection from various forms in which such gender-based violence appears due to patriarchal patterns deeply rooted in the existing legal framework and particularly in practice.
AP1 (Applicant): I do not dispute the fact that in the past period, the national legal framework has been undergoing some positive changes aimed at protection of victims' rights in general, including the victims of human trafficking.
AP1 (Applicant): However, application of law, especially of standards arising from international treaties, requires further work since the respondent state, as we speak, and I quote, does not meet even the minimum standards of human rights protection required by those treaties.
AP1 (Applicant): Working as an attorney at law representing victims and also as expert associate of non-governmental organization that focus their work on improvement of legal frameworks and practices, one can notice a significant difference between, on one hand, the principles of constitution of the respondent state and the conventions they are subject to this procedure, and on the other hand, the practices of professional which arise from this deeply rooted conscience that doesn't acknowledge the gender-based violence in its true sense.
AP1 (Applicant): This is why in the criminal proceeding conducted in the applicant case, sexual exploitation wasn't recognized as a form of human trafficking despite all these grave consequences for this victim.
AP1 (Applicant): As a victim of human trafficking for purpose of sexual exploitation, the applicant was subjected to abuse of her position of vulnerability, details of which are visible in the file of the case, and is strongly marked by experienced traumas and her former way of life.
AP1 (Applicant): Due to humiliation, infirmality, and interpersonal violence she experienced, the applicant, as well as other victims, trust in people is gravely disrupt.
AP1 (Applicant): She did not trust the system either, and that's why she did not file criminal charges earlier to protect herself.
AP1 (Applicant): She reached because a new fear and threats to her sister and her family from TM.
AP1 (Applicant): It was necessary to build a relationship of trust with this victim in order to provide her with the desired legal assistance during this proceeding in the national court.
AP1 (Applicant): This is the duty of a victim legal representative, but also of the state authorities as a part of their positive obligation arising from Article 4 of convention, as well as other treaties regarding human trafficking.
AP1 (Applicant): Once the state authorities receive information that triggers suspicion of human trafficking, which is in the applicant case, was the moment when she came to the police station, the conduct of professional in the police, the state attorney office, and at the courts towards this victim was shaped by conscious or unconscious stereotypes and prejudice that are related to sexual exploitation and exploitation of prostitution.
AP1 (Applicant): This prejudice often leads to absence of any criminal proceedings, less degree incrimination, or absence of effective investigation, which leads to suspension of investigation or acquittals, like in applicant's case.
AP1 (Applicant): Besides prejudice associated with prostitution, the victim trauma is revealed in a way that it becomes another victim disadvantage.
AP1 (Applicant): When reading the descending opinion, the new positions of the government, and allegations made by third parties, the applicant considered it is essential to debate on three important points of this hearing, first being the applicability of Article 4, second being the applicant activity in the national proceedings, and third being the impact of trauma on the testimony of this applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the applicability of Article 4 to the present case, the applicant states that responded state explicitly acknowledge that the applicant had, in her statement of fact, evoke a violation of Article 4.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, in paragraph 60 of the same observation from 2015, the government pointed out that domestic authorities had granted the applicant the status of victim of human trafficking.
AP1 (Applicant): The government explicitly stated that grant of this status indeed mean an acknowledgment that there has been a violation of Article 4.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the government, the application was inadmissible precisely because the respondent state had already acknowledged the violation of applicant's right under Article 4.
AP1 (Applicant): It was the further course of this proceeding, precisely the descending opinion of Honorable Judge Costello, that led to a new and essentially altered position of the government in this issue.
AP1 (Applicant): This calls for a need to clearly state the following.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant first invoked a violation of Article 4 when she filed a criminal report in the police station, precisely when she was describing the events which triggered the police to suspect of human trafficking.
AP1 (Applicant): Due to this suspicion, the police identify the applicant as a victim of human trafficking.
AP1 (Applicant): Then, when the applicant was describing what she had gone through in the state attorney's office and later before the domestic court, she repeatedly described the violation of Article 4.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant invoked a violation of Article 4 for the fourth time in her application to this court, precisely in point 2 of her statement of facts.
AP1 (Applicant): The court followed by giving this a legal qualification in accordance with the principles of its earlier decisions, such as Radomirja versus Croatia.
AP1 (Applicant): The criminal proceedings which initially arise from the suspicion of human trafficking was nevertheless conduct for the pandering, as well as ended with acquittal.
AP1 (Applicant): This is all due to the fact that neither the prosecution authorities nor the judicial authorities had fulfilled their positive obligation or which the applicant spoke in a legal argumentation of her application, and particularly in her observations from 2015.
AP1 (Applicant): In its new observation to the grand chamber questions, the government significantly changed the argumentation.
AP1 (Applicant): They redrew its acknowledgment from previous submissions to the court regarding the effect that identifying a person of a victim of human trafficking has.