Source: http://attorneyindependence.blogspot.com/2014/04/
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 02:05:44
Document Index: 639500110

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4']

Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: April 2014
Once again on the necessity of full ratification of the International Covenant For Political and Civil Rights by the US
Here is a link to a Russian resource reporting 21 violations by Russia of Article 5 of the European Convention for Human Rights, as established by the European Court for Human Rights.
As a civil rights attorney who regularly feels frustration when the government and the court raise the innumerable doctrines to bar access of a civil rights plaintiff to the court and preclude any meaningful remedy for a victim of governmental abuse, I wonder what would statistics have been like had the U.S. allowed a private cause of action for its own citizens to sue the American officials in the United Nations for civil rights violations...
Right now I do not believe statistics of human right abuses in the U.S. by the state and federal government is even available, as the government, naturally would not be forthcoming with such statistics and private lawsuits, especially on conditions on detention. How many meritorious lawsuits on conditions of detention are nipped in the bud by the so-called Prison Reform Litigation Act, we do not even know.
The U.S. government created a haven for itself by requiring prisoners who want to complain of conditions of detention to first file a grievance within 15 days (!) of the occurrence of the incident that the prisoner wants to sue for.
And, as you might understand, those grievance forms are hard to get for the prisoners, and if they get them, prison may suddenly become a more dangerous place for them than it was before they filed that grievance.
With no possibility of an outside-of-the-country oversight, prisoners' rights remain unprotected in the United States.
Therefore, as much as I want to criticize my native country, Russia (and I do criticize it a lot, in a Russian blog called Snob.ru), for civil rights violations, here I must admit that Russia is ahead of the United States in providing an extraneous judicial remedy of European Court of Human Rights for violations of civil rights by Russian government against its citizen, a remedy that American citizens could have, but do not have because of "restrictions, understandings and declarations" (RUDs) with which the United States ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court which recently managed to duck the issue of unlawful detention of "troublemakers" by the U.S. Government, leaving the door wide open for abuses, which, no doubt, will be happening, and are happening as we speak, the Russian government, which is far from being an example of protector of civil liberties within its country, at the very least allowed its citizens lawsuits against itself in a tribunal outside of the country, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
What is the effect upon the citizenry of the availability of such a judicial remedy where a person can sue his own country for a violation of his civil rights?
I believe that having such a judicial remedy available builds confidence in the citizenry that your own government is accountable to you and may be made to pay by a power higher than the government at a country level.
That gives the citizenry empowerment and the sense of justice.
When the government, like American state and federal courts, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, erects barricades of doctrines to block people's access to justice and precludes them from resolving their grievances against the government, such actions destroy public trust in the integrity of the government in general and of the judiciary specifically.
Lack of public trust undermines legitimacy of the government and may ultimately lead to chaos, where people repeatedly fail to obtain judicial remedies of obvious constitutional violations through courts and may lose their faith in the rule of law.
For that reason, I believe it to be wise and prudent for the U.S. government to enhance respect to itself by its citizenry and allow a private cause of action against the U.S. Government for private citizens and foreigners with standing, in the United Nations.
Below I provide the list of cases which Russian citizens and immigrants to Russia won against Russia, and where in most cases non-pecuniary money damages were awarded against Russia by the European court of Human rights.
Such a record does not establish too high a statistic of civil rights violation, as it establish the statistic of remedying those civil rights violations, something that is completely lacking in the United States in view of barriers that is artificially created by federal courts in civil rights litigation in order to clear the court's busy caseloads.
You be the judge as to whether you would like to have such a remedy here in the United States, for the U.S. citizens against violations of civil rights by the U.S. government, which is currently unavailable because of restrictions in ratification of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the multitude of judicially created doctrines barring access to court and, mostly, the doctrine of judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity and sovereign immunity leaving victims of egregious constitutional violations completely without a remedy.
You can read the full case by clicking on the case names.
What would have been the outcome in the U.S.
Ryabikin v. Russia (2008)
Russia violated Article 5 of European Convention in denial of judicial review pertaining to detention;
Awarded EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
awarded EUR 8,299 (eight thousand two hundred and ninety-nine euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
No money damages – sovereign immunity
There is no concept in the U.S. of the government paying to the victim of its misconduct non-pecuniary damages, or damages for emotional pain and suffering
No judicial review outside of the country – RUDs to International Convention for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) preclude review of claims of U.S. citizens against the U.S. in the United Nations
No meaningful judicial review inside the country: see, for example, that U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to review the issue of unlawful detentions, see also the list of judicially created bars to federal civil rights litigation
Schebet v. Russia
Ismoilov et al v. Russia (2008)
2. Holds by six votes to one that in the event of the extradition orders against the applicants being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds unanimously that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention;
7. Holds by six votes to one
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) the following amounts in respect of the legal representation:
Mr Alimov: EUR 1,545 (one thousand five hundred and forty-five euros);
Mr Ismoilov: EUR 1,694 (one thousand six hundred and ninety-four euros);
Mr Kasimhujayev: EUR 1,259 (one thousand two hundred and fifty-nine euros);
Mr Rustamhodjaev: EUR 1,165 (one thousand one hundred and sixty-five euros);
Mr Makhmudov: EUR 1,381 (one thousand three hundred and eighty-one euros);
Mr Usmanov: EUR 1,304 (one thousand three hundred and four euros);
Mr Muhamadsobirov: EUR 1,304 (one thousand three hundred and four euros);
Mr Muhametsobirov: EUR 1,235 (one thousand two hundred and thirty-five euros);
Mr Ulughodjaev: EUR 1,370 (one thousand three hundred and seventy euros);
Mr Sabirov: EUR 1,292 (one thousand two hundred and ninety-two euros);
Mr Naimov: EUR 1,221 (one thousand two hundred and twenty-one euros);
Mr Hamzaev: EUR 1,367 (one thousand three hundred and sixty-seven euros);
Mr Tashtemirov: EUR 1,377 (one thousand three hundred and seventy-seven euros);
(iii) EUR 195 (one hundred ninety-five euros) to Mr Alimov in respect of postal expenses;
(iv) any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts;
Comments will be added
Khudiakova v. Russia
Declares the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending extradition and the courts’ failure to examine speedily her application for release admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Eminbeyli v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and the judicial review of his detention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
Muminov v. Russia (2008)
1. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaints about a risk of ill-treatment in the event of his being expelled to Uzbekistan and the unlawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and rejects them;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the alleged risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the alleged inefficiency of the domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint of a risk of ill-treatment, the unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and the unavailability of judicial review of his detention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s expulsion to Uzbekistan;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to afford the applicant an effective and accessible remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the unavailability of any procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan;
7. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7;
8. Holds that there has been no breach of the respondent State’s obligation under Article 34 of the Convention;
9. Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision;
(a) reserves the question;
(b) invites the Russian Government and the applicant to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;
Fursenko v. Russia (2008)
1. Holds that the applicant’s mother has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 14 April to 14 May 2001, from 18 June to 24 September 2001, from 26 February to 26 March 2002, from 25 June to 6 August 2002 and 30 January to 14 February 2003;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 14 to 23 May 2001, from 23 May to 18 June 2001, from 24 September 2001 to 26 February 2002, from 26 March to 25 June 2002, from 6 to 8 August 2002, and from 8 August 2002 to 30 January 2003;
5. Holds that it is unable to consider the merits of the applicant’s complaint concerning the failure to examine his complaint of 25 April 2001, as it has been lodged out of time;
6. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the alleged failure to examine the applicant’s complaints lodged between 13 July and 21 November 2001;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure to examine “speedily” his complaint of 28 February 2002 and to deliver a final judicial decision in this respect, as well as the failure to examine “speedily” his appeal against the decision of 12 July 2002;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant’s mother, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 (two hundred and fifty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
The complainant – the mother of the person detained – would have been denied standing in the U.S.
Popov v. Russia (2006)
1. Declares the complaints concerning the
fairness of the proceedings, the conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow, the conditions of detention in disciplinary cells and lack of medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul, and the interference with the right of individual petition, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Starokadomsky v. Russia (2008)
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in Moscow remand centre no. 77/1;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's transport to and confinement at the Moscow City Court;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as regards the applicant's detention on 1 and 2 July 2002;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 15,500 (fifteen thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and EUR 785 (seven hundred eighty-five euros) in respect of legal costs, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, both sums to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Moiseyev v. Russia (2009)
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Lefortovo remand prison;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s transport between the remand prison and the courthouse;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s confinement at the Moscow City Court;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Moscow City Court;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention;
9. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
10. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of unjustified restrictions on family visits;
11. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of unjustified restrictions on the applicant’s correspondence;
(i) EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) EUR 3,973 (three thousand nine hundred and seventy-three euros) in respect of costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
13. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Lebedev v. Russia (2007)
1. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objections concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status;
2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s unauthorised detention between 31 March and 6 April 2004;
3. Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 3 July 2003 to 28 August 2003;
4. Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the delays in the review of the detention order of 26 December 2003 by the Moscow City Court;
5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the delays in the review of the detention order of 6 April 2004 by the Moscow City Court;
6. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the absence of the applicant from the detention hearing on 8 June 2004;
7. Holds unanimously that the temporary inability of the applicant to meet one of his lawyers did not amount in the circumstances to a failure by the State to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention the following amounts, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(ii) EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) in respect of his legal costs;
9. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Bakhmutskiy v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares admissible unanimously
(a) the complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
(b) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly appalling conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention;
(c) the complaint under Article 5 § 1 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 12 February 2002 to 17 May 2004;
(d) the complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention;
(e) the complaint under Article 5 § 4 concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the applicant’s detention;
(f) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
(g) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time;
2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his pre-trial detention;
4. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 12 February to 1 July 2002;
5. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 to 17 May 2004;
6. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
7. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
8. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant;
9. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings;
10. Holds by five votes to two
(i) EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the lawfulness of one period of detention, the length of the applicant’s detention, the delays in the examination of his appeals against detention orders and the length of the criminal proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in relation to the detention order of 2 June 2006;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and EUR 300 (three hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Matyush v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaint concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 8 March 1999 to 21 April 2003 in detention facility no. IZ-55/1, the unlawfulness of her detention after 1 July 2002, the excessive length of her detention on remand and the failure of the domestic authorities to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of her detention in the final instance no earlier than 25 October 2002 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 to 17 April 2003;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 17 to 21 April 2003;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
7. Holds that there is no call to award the applicant just satisfaction.
Gubkin v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares admissible
(b) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly appalling conditions of the applicant’s detention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 12 February to 1 July 2002;
5. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 to 17 May 2004;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Yudayev v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 5 to 22 January 2004 and the alleged violation of his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the period from 5 to 22 January 2004;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 30 April 2003;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal proceedings against the detention orders of 4 August and 9 September 2003;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Alekhin v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s detention, the alleged violation of his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention and the absence of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in violation of the requirements of Article 5 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Ananyin v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaint concerning the inhuman conditions and excessive length of the applicant’s detention and the alleged failure to examine speedily the appeal of 14 April 2005 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
Lamazhyk v. Russia (2009)
1. Decides to join to the merits the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the excessive length of his detention after 24 December 2003 and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 24 September to 24 December 2003, the excessive length of his detention, the failure of the domestic authorities to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of his detention from 24 September to 24 December 2003 and the length of the criminal proceedings against him, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 24 to 25 September 2003;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 25 September to 24 December 2003;
8. Holds that there is no call to award the applicant just satisfaction.
Nazarov v. Russia (2010)
1. Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4, as well as the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention between 4 and 16 August 2004 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's unlawful detention between 4 and 16 August 2004;
(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon;
(ii) EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to the applicant's representatives, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
Isayev v. Russia (2009)
1. Declares the complaints alleging the ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers, the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the incident, the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 6 November 2003 to 9 January 2004 and the domestic courts' failure to examine speedily his applications for release between October 2003 and April 2004 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment by the police;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to investigate effectively the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 6 November 2003 to 6 January 2004;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 6 to 9 January 2004;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts' failure to examine speedily the applicant's applications for release lodged in October and November 2003;
7. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the “speediness” of the review by the domestic courts of the application for release lodged on 17 March 2004;
(ii) EUR 2,424.16 (two thousand four hundred and twenty-four euros and sixteen cents) in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court;
Posted by Tatiana Neroni at 7:29 PM No comments:
Once again on the necessity of full ratification o...
The dismissal of the Segarra retaliation lawsuit -...
What exactly constitutes the practice of law in Ne...
How to eliminate those big-mouth civil rights atto...
Let's start experimental deregulation of the marke...
Is it proper for a judicial "extern" who "drafts r...
The conundrum of thoughts your New York attorney f...
Is it time to impeach judge Carl F. Becker of the ...
To pay $359 to "Learn Civil Court Judges' Individu...
Is universal public legal education in order?
It's time for the U.S. legislators to abolish judi...
Will New York ever allow peremptory challenges of ...