CASE OF ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
 
(Application no. 48787/99)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
8 July 2004
 
 
 

Contents
 
 
Introduction.............................................. 1
 
Procedure................................................ 2
1. The admissibility proceedings........................ 2
2. The proceedings on the merits....................... 3
(a)  Written observations of the parties...................... 3
(b)  The witness hearings................................ 4
(c)  The documentary evidence........................... 5
 
The facts................................................ 6
 
I. The applicants ..........................................6
 
II. Establishment of the facts................................ 6
 
III. General background to the case.......................... 8
 
A. The dissolution of the USSR and the Moldovan-Transdniestrian conflict over the break-away of Transdniestria               8
1. The dissolution of the USSR, the break-away of Transdniestria and Moldovan independence               8
2. The armed conflict (1991-92)....................... 11
3. Events after the armed conflict...................... 22
 
B. The presence of the army of the Russian Federation and its personnel in Transdniestria after the agreement of 21 July 1992                             26
1. ROG troops and equipment in Transdniestria......... 26
(a)  Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation  26
(b)  After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation. 30
2. Relations between the ROG and the “MRT”.......... 32
 
C. Economic, political and other relations between the Russian Federation and Transdniestria               33
1. Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation, on 5 May 1998               33
2. After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation               35
 
D. Moldovan-Transdniestrian relations.................... 37
1. Before ratification of the Convention by Moldova, on 12 September 1997               37
2. After ratification of the Convention by Moldova........ 38
 
IV. The particular circumstances of the case................. 41
 
A. The applicants' arrest, pre-trial detention and conviction.. 41
1. The applicants' arrest.............................. 41
2. Detention of the first three applicants on the premises of the 14th Army               43
3. Detention in the remand centre of Tiraspol police headquarters and transfer to prison during the trial               45
4. The applicants' trial and conviction.................. 46
 
B. Events subsequent to the applicants' conviction; Mr Ilaşcu's release               47
 
C. The applicants' detention after conviction............... 49
1. The conditions of detention......................... 50
2. Ill-treatment...................................... 54
 
D. Steps taken up to May 2001 to secure the applicants' release 55
 
E. Mr Ilaşcu's release on 5 May 2001..................... 56
 
F. Steps taken after May 2001 to secure the other applicants' release               57
 
G. International reactions to the applicants' conviction and detention               58
 
V. International law, domestic law and other relevant agreements 59
 
The law................................................. 69
 
I. Whether the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of moldova               69
 
A. Arguments submitted to the Court..................... 69
1. The Moldovan Government......................... 69
2. The Government of the Russian Federation.......... 71
3. The applicants.................................... 71
4. The Romanian Government, third-party intervener..... 72
 
B. The Court's assessment............................. 72
1. General principles................................. 72
(a)  The concept of “jurisdiction”.......................... 72
(b)  State responsibility for a wrongful act................... 75
2. Application of the above principles.................. 75
3. The concept of positive obligations.................. 77
4. Whether Moldova discharged its positive obligations... 78
 
II. Whether the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation               82
 
A. Arguments submitted to the Court..................... 82
1. The Government of the Russian Federation.......... 82
2. The Moldovan Government......................... 85
3. The applicants.................................... 86
4. The Romanian Government, third-party intervener..... 87
 
B. The Court's assessment............................. 88
1. General principles................................. 88
2. Application of the above principles.................. 88
(a)  Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation  88
(b)  After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation. 90
 
III. The Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis.................... 92
 
A. The complaint under Article 6 of the Convention......... 93
B. The complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention 93
C. The complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1......... 93
D. Mr Ilaşcu's complaint under Article 2 of the Convention... 93
 
IV. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.............. 94
 
A. Arguments submitted to the Court..................... 94
B. The Court's assessment............................. 95
 
V. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention............... 96
 
A. Arguments submitted to the Court..................... 96
B. The Court's assessment............................. 96
1. General principles................................. 96
2. Application of the above principles in the present case. 99
(a)  Mr Ilaşcu....................................... 99
(b)  The other three applicants: conditions of detention and treatment during detention               101
(i)  Mr Ivanţoc................................... 101
(ii)  Mr Leşco and Mr Petrov-Popa..................... 102
 
VI. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the convention.............. 103
 
VII. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the convention............. 106
 
VIII. Alleged violation of article 1 of protocol No. 1............. 107
 
IX. Alleged failure to observe Article 34 of the convention....... 107

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: no_violation