ITEMID: 001-82546
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF MAKHAURI v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 13+2
JUDGES: Christos Rozakis
TEXT: 6. The applicant was born in 1959 and was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya. She currently lives in Ingushetia.
7. The submissions of the parties with regard to the facts concerning the circumstances of the attack on the applicant 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 April 2004 the applicant produced a detailed account of the attack on her. She submitted that, prior to 1999 she lived at 201 Pugacheva Street in the Tashkala settlement in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. She lived in a private house together with her husband and five children, born in 1980, 1982, 1986, 1987 and 1997. In September 1999 the applicant's four elder children went to Ingushetia to stay with relatives, while the applicant, her husband and their youngest child remained in Grozny to look after the house and property.
9. In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between Russian forces and Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the city, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submits that most residents of the district left for safer areas. 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. At the end of October 1999 the applicant and her family also moved to Ingushetia to flee the bombardments. There they rented housing in the village of Nesterovskaya. In Nesterovskaya the applicant met her neighbour from Grozny, Larisa (also known as Satsita) D.
11. On 20 January 2000 the applicant saw a programme on the all-Russian ORT TV station about the situation in Grozny. The report allegedly stated that the Tashkala settlement had been brought under full control of the federal forces and that civilians had started to return. The applicant and Larisa D. decided to go to Grozny to check up on their houses. In addition the applicant wanted to retrieve the documents relating to her children.
12. On the morning of 21 January 2000 the applicant and Larisa D. set off for Grozny. The applicant took her passport and 500 roubles (RUR), of which she paid RUR 100 for the bus trip to the outskirts of Grozny. They spent the night of 21 to 22 January with the applicant's relatives in Grozny. On 22 January 2000 at a military roadblock where about 20 other women were waiting to be let through, they met another neighbour from Tashkala, Nura T., who had also seen the news about the return of civilians. At that time the applicant did not know Nura's family name. Nura joined them, and the three of them went to Tashkala on foot.
13. When they reached the applicant's house, they saw that the house had been destroyed. The applicant was unable to find the documents. The women consoled her and they went to Larisa D.'s house, also situated in Pugacheva Street. They had walked another block when they noticed, 60-90 metres further along the street, a group of 30-40 soldiers and three or four armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The soldiers were taking valuables out of the houses and stacking them into the APCs. The applicant and the other two women were aware of stories about soldiers killing witnesses to looting and became very scared. They immediately turned around and were about to walk away, but the soldiers noticed them and ordered them to approach and to produce identity documents. The soldiers were dressed in camouflage uniforms, spoke Russian and addressed each other as “Lekha” and “Magomed”. Some spoke with an accent and the applicant guessed that they were from the Northern Caucasus.
14. The applicant's passport was in order, as were the passports of the other women, and all three had permanent addresses in Grozny. The soldiers checked their passports and told the women to empty their bags and pockets. They then asked if they had forgotten anything, but the applicant was too frightened to understand that they probably meant “any valuables”. The soldiers accused them of being fighters' informants and told them to get into the APCs to be taken to the military commander's office for an identity check. The women were scared to get into the APC and asked if they could walk instead. The soldiers permitted them to walk, but they were blindfolded with their own scarves. When the women asked why they had covered their eyes, the soldiers replied rudely that it had been “an order from the superior”.
15. They walked about 50 metres further and the soldiers took them into the courtyard of a destroyed house. The applicant walked first and the other two women followed her. She sensed that something was wrong, lifted her scarf and saw a machine gun being aimed at her. The soldiers shot into the air and forced the women into the entrance of a half-destroyed shed. The women started to weep and to plead for mercy. Nura approached the soldiers, while the applicant and Larisa D. stood by the entrance, and asked the soldiers what they wanted from them and asked them to spare their lives. Then one of the soldiers shot Nura in the head. They then shot at Larisa and the applicant. Larisa was in front and received most of the bullets; the applicant was also wounded. She fell, hit a concrete step with her head and lost consciousness.
16. She was woken by the pain in her ear when one of the soldiers tore a golden earring from her. The soldiers also picked up her ring and a chain from her neck. She realised that she should pretend to be dead or they would kill her. She fainted again.
17. She awoke for the second time to a strong pain in her leg and when she opened her eyes she realized that Larisa and herself were lying partially within the shed, with their legs on the steps outside, covered with a mattress which had been set on fire. The mattress was too damp to burn and was smouldering, but the applicant smelled diesel and realised that it had been spilled around. Her leg was burnt. Nura's body was lying a few metres away. The applicant then heard the sound of a car leaving. She climbed out of the shed, took a few steps and fainted again.
18. When she regained consciousness, she had lost a lot of blood and was very weak. She could not walk, so she crawled out into the street. She made it about 300 metres to the cellar of a five-story building called “the pilots' house” in Reznaya Street, where she knew someone was living. When she reached the cellar it was already dark. She started to knock on a pipe leading into the cellar, and was picked up by some elderly women who lived in the cellar. They carried her into the cellar and gave her first aid. The applicant had received a perforating wound – the bullet had entered her right arm and exited on the left side of her neck.
19. On the following day the women told her that the soldiers had been looking for her because they had not found her body at the place where the killings had taken place. Soldiers visited their cellar but the women dressed the applicant in their clothes and told them that she was one of them. They told her that two girls from 166 Derzhavina Street had stayed with them 1012 days before that and that their relatives had also been killed (see Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00).
20. On 24 January 2000 two of the applicant's relatives came from Ingushetia to pick her up. They were alerted by neighbours who had found her passport with bullet holes in it. With the assistance of a military officer the applicant got to Ingushetia.
21. The applicant submitted a hand-drawn plan of the relevant part of the district indicating the places to which she referred.
22. It appears that the applicant did not seek to make any direct contact with law-enforcement bodies immediately after the attack. Nevertheless the events in the Staropromyslovskiy district, including the attempt on the applicant's life, became known to the relevant authorities shortly afterwards as a result of NGO and media reports.
23. The applicant spent two months in Ordzhonikidze village hospital, where her wounded hand was operated on. In the hospital she was visited by a number of Russian and foreign journalists and members of human rights NGOs. The applicant submitted copies of press articles and NGO reports in which her story had been related. She was also visited by Nura's and Larisa D.'s relatives, who later told her that they had found their bodies and buried them.
24. 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.
25. In February 2000 Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled “Civilian Killings in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny”, in which it accused the Russian forces of murdering at least 38 civilians between late December 1999 and mid-January 2000. Human Rights Watch interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and relatives of the dead. The report contained information about the deaths of Larisa D. and Nura T., based on an interview with the applicant in Ingushetia.
26. 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 murders of at least 38 civilians in the Staropromyslovskiy district, with reference to the applicant's case.
27. On 14 February 2000 the NGO Memorial addressed the Prosecutor General with information about the applicant's case. It requested that a criminal case be opened on the basis of the applicant's statement concerning the attack on her and the murders of Larisa D. and Nura by Russian soldiers. On 15 and 25 February 2000 Memorial was informed by the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office that their letters had been forwarded to the military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus circuit. On 18 April 2000 Memorial forwarded to the prosecutors additional information concerning the applicant, including her temporary address in Ingushetia.
28. On 9 June 2000 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 (located in Khankala, the main Russian military base in Chechnya) replied to Memorial with information concerning several cases of alleged crimes against civilians. According to this letter, a criminal investigation had been opened on 31 May 2000 in response to the applicant's complaint under Article 105 part 2 of the Criminal Code (murder in aggravating circumstances).
29. On 18 August 2000 the applicant received a telegram summoning her to the Khankala military base on 19 August 2000 at 11 a.m. “to take part in the investigative actions related to the murder of Nura D.” (the telegram referred to Larisa's family name). The applicant did not go to Khankala, because it was the largest Russian military base, heavily guarded and surrounded by numerous checkpoints, and she was afraid to travel there alone. In October 2000 some officers from the military prosecutor's office came to the applicant's temporary lodging in Ingushetia; however, she was in hospital at the time.
30. In February 2001 Human Rights Watch issued a 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.
31. On 19 November 2003 Memorial wrote a letter to the Military Prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus Circuit, with a copy to the Chief Military Prosecutor, asking for details of the criminal investigation into the attack on the applicant. The letter also contained a request for access to the investigation file by the applicant or her representatives. On 26 December 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor forwarded the request to the Military Prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus and referred to “criminal case no. 34/33/0262-00” concerning the murder of two women, referred to by their last names, and the wounding of the applicant. From this letter the applicant for the first time learned the number of the criminal case file and Nura's family name. No further information was received.
32. The applicant submitted that she was never informed whether she had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
33. As a result of the wound received on 22 January 2000 the applicant's left arm was left partially paralysed and she suffered from pains and cramps in that arm. In July 2000 and October 2001 the applicant underwent operations on her left arm in a hospital in Kazakhstan. Each time she remained in hospital for about a month. She submitted the relevant medical documents. In July 2003 she again spent a week in hospital. In 2002 she was granted disabled status and receives a monthly disability pension of RUR 1,044 (30 euros (EUR)). She continues to live in Ingushetia, where she rents an apartment; her house and all her property in Chechnya have been destroyed. The applicant submitted that she continued to suffer from the effects of the attack: she could no longer lift weights heavier than five kilograms, she was scared to return to Chechnya, was afraid for her family and had nightmares. The applicant submitted that she was afraid of men in camouflage uniform and every time she saw them she had panic attacks.
34. The Government in their observations submitted that the attack on the applicant had been the subject of two criminal investigations. One was opened in May 2000 by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 following an application by Memorial, and the second one was opened by the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office in September 2003, on the basis of material taken from criminal investigation no. 12038 into the “mass murder of civilians in the Katayama settlement”. The investigations were joined in July 2004 under file number 50100 (see Part B below for a description of the documents from the investigation file).
35. According to the Government, the investigation established that on 22 January 2000 the applicant and two other women had been detained in Grozny by unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons, under the pretext of conducting an identity check. They were then brought to the house at 204 Koltsova Street and shot. The two other women were killed, while the applicant sustained firearm wounds and was brought to Sunzhenskiy Hospital in Ingushetia. The investigation was adjourned and reopened on several occasions, but failed to identify the culprits. It did not establish the involvement of servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Security Service (FSB) or the army in the crime. The applicant was questioned as a witness and later as a victim, and was granted victim status on 14 July 2004.
36. The parties submitted numerous documents concerning the attack and the investigation into it. The main documents of relevance are the following:
37. The Government submitted a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 14/33/0262 (joined in July 2004 with criminal case no. 50100), which comprises four volumes (about 700 pages), and a list of documents contained therein. The most important documents contained in the file can be summarised as follows:
38. On 3 May 2000, following a letter from the Memorial Human Rights Centre, the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 based in Khankala opened a criminal investigation under Article 105 part 2 (a) and (j) of the Criminal Code concerning the murders of two women and the wounding of the applicant by “unidentified soldiers” on 22 January 2000. The file was assigned the number 14/33/0262-00D. In December 2003 the investigation was transferred to the civilian Chechnya Prosecutor's Office.
39. Independently of the above, in May 2000 the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office opened criminal case file no. 12038 into “the mass murder of civilians in the Katayama settlement by the '205th brigade'”, following the publication of an article entitled “Freedom or Death” in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper on 27 April 2000. In September 2003 the investigation decided that the information concerning the attack on the applicant and the killing of the two women constituted a separate episode and forwarded the relevant part of the file to the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor for further investigation. On 9 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal investigation file no. 50100.
40. In July 2004 the two files were joined at the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office under the number 50100.
41. The case file contains the applicant's “explanations” which she gave to a military prosecutor on 2 May 2000. The applicant gave a detailed account of the attack, including the description of two soldiers aged about 18-20 who had shot her and her two companions. The applicant stated that she would be able to recognise at least one of them. The document did not contain the applicant's new address.
42. On 20 July 2000 and in March 2001 the investigator from the military prosecutor's office requested prosecutors in Ingushetia to locate and question the applicant. On 18 August 2000 the applicant was invited by telex to report for questioning to the military prosecutor in Khankala.
43. On 9 April 2001 the military prosecutor in Ingushetia reported that the applicant had left for Chechnya and could not be questioned.
44. In August 2001 the applicant's neighbour in Grozny testified that the applicant occasionally came to Grozny but was afraid to stay there. He was aware that the applicant still suffered from the effects of the attack, feared men in uniforms and was afraid to speak about the incident.
45. Between October 2001 and January 2002 the investigation on several occasions requested the military and civilian prosecutors and the local Interior Ministry entities in Ingushetia to locate and question the applicant. Several of her relatives and neighbours were questioned about her whereabouts. In November 2001 the applicant's daughter (born in 1986) stated that her mother had left for Kazakhstan for treatment. In February 2002 another relative of the applicant in Ingushetia confirmed this information.
46. In April 2002 the applicant's sister-in-law Alimat U. testified that the applicant was living in Ingushetia but went every month to Grozny, where she was registered, to receive social-security benefits. She confirmed that the applicant continued to suffer from stress and was afraid of men in uniforms.
47. On 29 April 2002 the applicant was finally questioned in Ingushetia by a military prosecutor. She gave a detailed statement about the attack of 22 January 2000 and described in detail the servicemen who had detained the women, escorted them to the house in Koltsova Street and shot at them. She described their camouflage uniform as being “pale” in colour, similar to the one worn by the police, and stated that some of the men had been wearing black bulletproof jackets and carrying portable radios. The applicant stated that she could identify one of the servicemen, addressed by the others as “Magomed”.
48. The Chechnya Prosecutor's Office also took steps to find the applicant while investigating criminal case no. 12038 into the murders in the Staropromyslovskiy district. In October 2003 the applicant was questioned in Ingushetia about the circumstances of the attack. She confirmed that the perpetrators belonged to the federal forces, referring to the uniforms, military vehicles and the fact that they had spoken Russian.
49. On 3 June 2000 the military prosecutor questioned Larisa D.'s sister, Zara A., who testified that on 23 January 2000 she had learned from the applicant's relatives in Ingushetia of the death of her sister Larisa (Satsita) in Grozny. Also on 23 January the witness talked to the applicant in Sunzhenskiy Hospital. On 24 January 2000 the witness and two other women had gone to the house in Koltsova Street indicated by the applicant and found two bodies – that of her sister Larisa and a second woman. Larisa's body had numerous wounds to the chest area, while the body of the other woman had the upper part of the head missing. Both bodies had been damaged by animals. The witness concealed the bodies in the courtyard and left to seek help. Both women were buried around 28 January 2000 in one grave in the cemetery of the Oktyabrskiy sovkhoz, bordering on the Staropromyslovskiy district, with the assistance of a local imam. Zara A. agreed to identify the burial place and to allow her sister's body to be exhumed for the purposes of a forensic expert report. In November 2003 Zara A. was again questioned by civilian investigators in Grozny and confirmed her previous statements.
50. On 3 June 2000 the investigation questioned Larisa D.'s widower, Usman S., whose cousin was married to the applicant. He testified that on the morning of 21 January 2000 he had seen Larisa and the applicant to the bus to Grozny. Two days later he learnt that his wife, the applicant and a third woman had been shot in Grozny by servicemen. They had two daughters from the marriage. He did not object to the exhumation of his wife's body for forensic purposes. In November 2003 Usman S. was questioned by the civilian prosecutors and gave similar statements. In May 2004 he was again questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings. In July 2004 Usman S. was again questioned and this time he expressly objected to the exhumation of his wife's remains.
51. Zayna M., Larisa's other sister, and her husband Mouldi M. gave testimony in November 2001 which tallied with the statements of Zara A. They indicated, in addition, that near the body of Nura they had found her passport and thus learnt her family name. The passport was kept by the imam who later gave it to her relatives. They indicated the date of burial as 3 February 2000. Zayna M. also gave detailed statements about the discovery of the bodies. She stated that the clothes on the bodies of her sister and Nura had been opened, as if they had been searched. They found an open wallet which they guessed had belonged to Nura and an empty pouch which her sister Satsita had worn around her neck and where she had kept her gold jewellery. Zayna M. produced a detailed drawing of the site and gave a description of the district, indicating the places to which she had referred. She indicated the locations occupied by the military units, but could not identify those units by name or by any other means. She also stated her firm conviction that the murders had been committed by servicemen, based on the accounts of the applicant and the women who had sheltered her in the cellar. The witness asserted that by 20 January 2000 there had been no fighters left in the district, and that therefore the armed men could only have been soldiers. On 8 November 2001 Zayna M. was granted victim status.
52. In November 2001 the local imam testified that on 3 February 2000 he had assisted in the burial of two women found in the courtyard of a house in Koltsova Street with gunshot wounds. He identified them as Larisa D. and Nadezhda (Nura) T.
53. In November 2001 the investigation forwarded requests for information about the family of Nura T. to the town of Achkhoy-Martan where her family had lived.
54. The investigation questioned a number of local residents of the Staropromyslovskiy district in an attempt to find witnesses to the attack on the applicant. Other local residents did not have any additional information, because they had spent the winter of 1999-2000 away from Grozny.
55. On 1 June 2000 the Staropromyslovskiy district civil registry office issued a death certificate for Satsita Akhmadovna D. The date and place of death were recorded as 21 January 2000, Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. Death had occurred as a result of a gunshot wound to the head, according to death certificate no. 95 issued on 29 May 2000 by [Grozny] City Hospital no. 3.
56. The investigation requested the corresponding information from the hospital, which in November 2001 replied that the medical document had been issued on the basis of a report by an officer of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD dated 27 May 2000.
57. The investigation also tried unsuccessfully to find out whether the death of Nura T. had been recorded by the medical authorities or by the civil registry bodies in Grozny or Achkhoy-Martan.
58. On 27 June and 29 July 2000 the military investigators examined the courtyard of the house at 204 Koltsova Street. During the first examination in the courtyard they collected 71 cartridges from 5.45 mm automatic rifles and 62 cartridges from 7.62 mm automatic rifles. During the second examination they collected one 5.45 mm calibre bullet. Some photographs and a drawing of the site were annexed to the reports.
59. On 11 August 2000 the ballistics expert report concluded that the bullet had come from a standard round of ammunition used for Kalashnikov automatic rifles with a calibre of 5.45 mm, and that no other information could be obtained owing to the deformation of the bullet.
60. On 18 August 2000 the investigator forwarded the collected cartridges for a ballistics report. However, it appears that on the same day the military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus military circuit ordered that the compilation of an expert report would serve no purpose and its conclusions would have no evidential value, given the length of time (over five months) that had elapsed between the murders and the collection of the cartridges.
61. A further examination of the site was carried out in November 2001 when the investigators, together with Zayna M., Larisa D.'s sister, travelled around the Staropromyslovskiy district. Zayna M. showed her route on 24 January 2000 and indicated the cellar of the house in Partizanskaya Street where she had first seen the wounded applicant, two military roadblocks (still functioning at that time), the former hostel of a radio manufacturing plant in which a detachment of OMON troops from North Ossetia had been stationed at the relevant time and, finally, the house at 204 Koltsova Street where she had found the bodies of her sister and Nura T.
62. In 2003 and 2004 the investigators from the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office again examined the house and courtyard at 204 Koltsova Street, but found nothing of interest.
63. The investigation sent dozens of requests and collected various pieces of information relating to the participation of military units of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior in operations in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny in January 2000.
64. In June 2000 the military prosecutor requested the chief of staff of the United Group Alignment (UGA) (начальник штаба ОГВ), the chief of staff of the Internal Troops Alliance in the Northern Caucasus (начальник штаба группировки ВВ МВД РФ на территории Северо-Кавказского региона) and the chief of staff of the Northern Caucasus military circuit to submit copies of the combat situation maps and situation reports for Grozny and, in particular, Staropromyslovskiy district for 21 and 22 January 2000.
65. In July 2000 the military prosecutor again requested the chief of staff of the UGA, the chief of staff of the Internal Troops Alliance in the Northern Caucasus and the head of the mobile detachment of the Ministry of the Interior in Grozny (мобильный отряд МВД РФ г. Грозный) to identify the exact location of their respective units at the relevant time, to identify the commanding officers and to retrieve combat situation maps, situation reports and mission orders and submit information relating to the vehicles used, including APCs, and the types and numbers of weapons.
66. On 4 June 2000 the Grozny Department of the Federal Security Service notified the investigation that they had no information relevant to the case. It appears that in July 2000 the headquarters of the UGA replied to the military prosecutor that no copies of the documents in question existed. On 30 July 2000 the headquarters of the Internal Troops Alliance in the Northern Caucasus replied that all the relevant information had been transferred to the central archives of the Internal Troops. On 15 August 2000 the chief of staff of the UGA replied that all information related to the counter-terrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus prior to 15 May 2000 had been forwarded to the archives of the Northern Caucasus military circuit. In June-July 2001 the archives of the Northern Caucasus military circuit and the central archives of the Internal Troops stated that they did not have the documents requested.
67. In January 2001 the headquarters of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior informed the investigation that on 21-22 January 2000 no detachments of the Ministry had been based or been operating in the Staropromyslovskiy district or the Tashkala settlement.
68. In October 2001 the investigation requested similar information from the commander-in chief of the Internal Troops and the archives of the Northern Caucasus military circuit. The archives again stated that they did not have the documents in question.
69. In November 2001 the investigation again requested the UGA to disclose information about the engagement of military units in the Staropromyslovskiy district on the relevant dates and to indicate which military unit had been based in the area of the former metal storage facility in the Tashkala settlement. The letter referred to the previous correspondence with the archives of the Northern Caucasus military circuit which denied receiving any such information from the UGA. Another request to identify the temporary and permanent positions of the military units in question was sent to the staff of the UGA in January 2002.
70. In August 2002 the investigation again requested the chief of staff of the Northern Caucasus military circuit to submit details about the deployment and positioning on 20-22 January 2000 in the Staropromyslovskiy district of 30 military units, the numbers of which had been previously communicated to the investigation. In September 2002 the staff responded that they had no information about the operations in question and submitted the addresses of the relevant military units.
71. In April 2002 the investigation requested access to the relevant documents at the headquarters of the UGA. The reply stated that the documents in question had either been transferred to the archives of the Northern Caucasus military circuit or been destroyed.
72. In the meantime, in August 2000, having obtained a list of all the military units involved in operations in Grozny between December 1999 and February 2000, the investigators requested the chief of staff of the Internal Troops Alliance in the Northern Caucasus and the chief of staff of the UGA to submit detailed information about the participation of these military units in operations in the Staropromyslovskiy district. The investigation received replies from the relevant authorities containing some of the requested information. On the basis of these, the investigators sent dozens of requests to the current locations of the military units and to the military prosecutors in those regions. The investigation also forwarded a number of requests to the relevant civilian prosecutors and the regional departments of the interior whose detachments had been deployed in Grozny in the winter of 2000.
73. It appears that all the military and interior servicemen questioned about their participation in the operations in Grozny denied that their detachments had taken part in operations in or near Koltsova Street and Pugacheva Street. In particular, the commander of the OMON from North Ossetia wrote to the investigators and stated that their servicemen had not been on mission in Chechnya between December 1999 and January 2000. Other military units replied that they had no information relevant to the investigation of the criminal case.
74. In May and June 2002 the military prosecutor in Budennovsk, Stavropol region, reviewed the operation reports, orders and log book of the 205th motor rifle brigade (205 омсбр) for the period between December 1999 and February 2000 and concluded that they contained no information relevant to the investigation of the criminal case. Two officers of that military unit stated that their unit had been engaged in the Staropromyslovskiy district in January 2000, but that by 22 January they had advanced to the centre of the city. They stated that their unit had no APCs and that their servicemen had not been involved in patrolling the territory either on their own or in cooperation with other military units. They denied having any information about the attack on the applicant or any other attacks on civilians.
75. The Chechnya Prosecutor's Office also attempted to identify the relevant military units while investigating the murders of civilians. In December 2003 the staff of the Northern Caucasus military circuit forwarded to the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor's Office information about the military operations in the district in January and February 2000, which stated that the 205th motor rifle brigade had been involved in operations in the Staropromyslovskiy district from 1 January to 13 February 2000. On 17-22 January 2000 the brigade had been stationed in Pugacheva Street.
76. In April 2004 the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office requested the military prosecutor of the UGA to provide it with the information concerning the relevant military units and to question UGA servicemen.
77. The investigation questioned several servicemen from the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD, who stated that their office had been set up on 7 February 2000. The servicemen from the office of the district military commander stated that their office had been set up on 18 February 2000. Neither office had any information relating to the events preceding these dates, and both were staffed by servicemen from different regions on short-term missions to Chechnya. They had no information relating to the crime, but stated that in January 2000 a group of the special police forces (OMON) from the Perm region and a group of servicemen from the Moscow Regional Department of the Interior had been deployed in the district.
78. In August 2001 and again in October 2001, the investigation requested the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD to submit information about the location and manning of roadblocks in the district on 21-22 January 2000.
79. In October and November 2001 the servicemen of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD informed the investigation that a criminal case into the murder of two women and the wounding of the applicant had been opened by the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office in 2000. They also stated that the applicant and her relatives did not live in the district and could not be found, and that they had not identified any witnesses to the crime.
80. In December 2001 the head of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior (ROVD) informed the military prosecutor that the killings in question had been committed by a group of servicemen stationed at the relevant time in Derzhavina Street. He gave the family name of Nura T., and stated that her body had been buried by her relatives in Achkhoy-Martan in 2000. He also stated, in November 2001, that no witnesses to the crimes could be identified in view of the time that had elapsed, and that the applicant did not live at her permanent address.
81. The military investigation then requested information about the case from the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office; however, it appears that no reply was received.
82. In April 2002 the head and deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD testified about the events of January and February 2000. Both stated that they had arrived in the district around 22 January 2000 with the troops, that they were aware of the applicant's case and that it was one of many instances of servicemen killing civilians in the district. The head of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD stated that he was aware of about 40 similar cases in the district, all committed in the same style – people shot with automatic rifles in courtyards and garages. Both servicemen also spoke of widespread looting committed by servicemen who had been conducting house-to-house searches. The witnesses testified that, according to their information, the crimes against civilians had been committed by servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior, most probably by a consolidated team of special police forces (SOBR) of the North-Western region, which had included servicemen from the Leningradskiy region and Komy Republic. The witnesses described them as well-built men aged more than 25, dressed in various types of camouflage and clearly distinguishable from the military units, which were usually staffed by younger conscripts. They stated that various detachments of the Ministry of the Interior had been stationed in the district and had refused to cooperate with the newly established VOVD, in contrast to the military units who had maintained stricter discipline and better control of their troops.
83. The investigation questioned a number of local residents of the Staropromyslovskiy district in an attempt to find witnesses to the attack on the applicant.
84. In August 2000 the investigation questioned Galina P. (born in 1937), who stated that in the winter of 1999-2000 she had remained in Grozny. She had moved in to the Tangiyevs' house in Derzhavina Street, where nine people were staying in the cellar, and remained there until 24 December 1999. They had then moved to another house at 144 Pugacheva Street, because the shelling had become too intense and the first house had been damaged. About sixty people, mostly elderly, had stayed in the big cellar at 144 Pugacheva Street. The Chechen fighters had left their district around 18 December 1999. The witness testified that the federal soldiers had regularly visited their cellar and forced the inhabitants to help them retrieve the wounded and dead. On 1 or 2 January 2000 the three youngest men from the cellar (aged below 50) had been taken away by soldiers and later found dead. The witness described the soldiers as wearing blue-grey camouflage uniforms. She also testified that on 10 January 2000, along with the two Tangiyev sisters, she had visited the Tangiyev's house, where four persons had been staying: Abdul-Vagap Tangiyev, his wife Khirzhan Gadaborsheva, his brother Ismail Gadaborshev and an elderly woman, “Valya”. They had found the bodies of Mr Tangiyev and Valya in the house with gunshot wounds; the cellar was closed up and burning. A neighbour told them to leave because the killers could return, and later told them that he had buried the four bodies in the courtyard. On the same day, 10 January 2000, the witness had left for Ingushetia.
85. In 2000, on the basis of this information, the military investigators requested the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office to provide them with information about the murder of three members of the Tangiyev family and the woman named Valentina. It appears that no reply was received.
86. Within the framework of criminal case no. 12038 concerning the murders in the Staropromyslovskiy district, the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office questioned Anna Politkovskaya, the author of the article “Freedom or Death”. She testified that in February 2000 she had been in Ingushetia and in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, where she had interviewed several witnesses to the killings and relatives of the deceased. She had also interviewed the applicant in the hospital in Ingushetia, and the article contained a piece about the attack on her. Mrs Politkovskaya stated that in their interviews several witnesses had referred to the “205th brigade” as being responsible for the murders.
87. On 20 August 2001 an expert report was drawn up on the basis of the applicant's medical file from the hospital. It stated that the applicant suffered from gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and neck that could have been sustained in the circumstances described.
88. In September 2001 the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office also ordered a medical examination of the applicant while investigating criminal case no. 20138 (mass murders in the Katayama settlement) and sought the relevant medical documents from Sunzhenksiy Hospital. Similar requests were again sent in 2003.
89. In October 2001 the Sunzhenskiy district hospital confirmed to the military prosecutors that the applicant had remained there from 24 January to 13 March 2000 with gunshot wounds.
90. Several decisions were issued by the investigation granting the applicant victim status in the proceedings. None of them was countersigned by the applicant.
91. Between May 2000 and August 2006 the case was adjourned and reopened on sixteen occasions. In their decisions the supervising military and civilian prosecutors criticised the investigation as being “carried out at a low professional level”, “superficial and incomplete” and “failing to take the necessary steps to identify the culprits”.
92. The case file reviewed by the Court concludes with the order issued by the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor on 17 August 2004 for the investigation to be reopened and a number of tasks to be performed, including questioning the applicant and granting her victim status, identifying the culprits, carrying out the exhumation of the bodies and preparing forensic expert reports.
93. In 2004 the applicant submitted a number of documents relating to the events of January 2000. The main documents of relevance are as follows:
94. The applicant's story was related in a number of Russian and international publications submitted by the applicant. She was also cited in the Human Rights Watch and Memorial reports of February 2000 concerning the murders of civilians in the Staropromyslovskiy district.
95. On 9 February 2001 Human Rights Watch issued a memorandum on the state of the national investigation into human rights and international humanitarian law violations in Chechnya. The report stated that the investigation into the mass murder of civilians in Grozny, including the applicant's case, was not being conducted effectively and had produced no results. The report deplored the situation of impunity and called upon the authorities to carry out a proper investigation into the attacks on civilians.
96. In a letter dated 25 April 2003 the deputy Prosecutor General Mr Fridinsky replied to a request for information sent by Mr Kovalev, a member of the State Duma. The letter contained information relating to the prosecution of army servicemen in Chechnya for crimes committed against civilians. According to that letter, since the beginning of the “counter-terrorist operation”, 58 indictments had been forwarded to the courts by the military prosecutors and 74 persons had been indicted. Of those, 12 cases related to murder, 13 to theft, four to abuse of power and five to reckless driving of military vehicles. 51 persons had been found guilty, of whom seven were officers, 22 were professional soldiers and sergeants, 19 were conscript soldiers and three were non-commissioned officers. In addition, the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office brought 17 charges against 29 servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior for crimes against the civilian population. The list of cases attached to the letter showed that in the majority of cases the sentences were conditional or had been lifted under an amnesty.
97. The applicant submitted an extract from the book “My War” by General Gennady Troshev, who at the relevant time had been the Commander of the Eastern Direction of the UGA in Chechnya (командующий восточным направлением Объединенной группировки Российских федеральных войск в Чечне). The book stated that by 3 January 2000 all major parts of the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny were under the control of Russian forces.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
2


ITEMID: 001-5511
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LTU
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2000
DOCNAME: AHMADI, SABERDJAN AND SABERDJAN v. LITHUANIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The first applicant, Adjara AHMADI, was born in 1948. The second applicant, Amirdjan SABERDJAN, was born in 1972. The third applicant, Omar Khan SABERDJAN, is the second applicant's son, born in 1995. All three were born in Afghanistan. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr. M. Urbelis, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
A.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Proceedings concerning the first applicant
The first applicant fled from Afghanistan in 1996 and illegally entered Lithuania via Belarus without any valid identification papers. She applied for political asylum in Lithuania, which was refused on the ground that she had no established family links in Lithuania and that her fear of persecution in Afghanistan had been unsubstantiated. On 3 November 1997 the Minister of the Interior decided to expel the first applicant from Lithuania. No time-limit or country of destination was specified in the expulsion order. The court proceedings brought by the applicant against the above decisions were unsuccessful.
By reference to Article 9 of the Refugees Act (see the 'Relevant domestic law' part below), on 17 February 1999 the interior authorities held that the first applicant could face persecution in Afghanistan and decided to clarify her identity and re-examine her status in Lithuania on account of the persistent state of unrest in Afghanistan and “in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement.”
On 10 April 2000 the first applicant applied to the interior authorities to leave Lithuania. She obtained an Afghan passport from the Afghanistan Embassy in Moscow and voluntarily left Lithuania on 27 April 2000. It appears that she now lives in Turkmenistan.
Proceedings concerning the second and third applicants
In 1996 the second and third applicants fled from Afghanistan. They illegally entered Lithuania via Belarus without any documents and immediately requested asylum. On 22 October 1997 the Minister of the Interior refused asylum on the ground that there was no substantiated fear of their persecution in Afghanistan. In the same decision the Minister decided to expel the second applicant and his son from Lithuania. No time-limit or destination was specified. The second applicant brought court proceedings concerning the above decisions, but to no avail.
On 16 November 1998 the Refugee Appeals Board granted asylum to the second applicant's brother and his family.
By reference to Article 9 of the Refugees Act, on 17 February 1999 the interior authorities held that the second and third applicants could face persecution in Afghanistan and decided to clarify their identity and re-examine their status in Lithuania on account of the persistent state of unrest in Afghanistan and “in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement.”
The second and third applicants applied for temporary residence on “humanitarian grounds” (see the 'Relevant domestic law' part below). By a decision of 10 July 2000 they were issued temporary residence permits for six months, pursuant to Article 19 § 3 of the Aliens Act, because of the danger to their lives and health in Afghanistan. In that decision it was noted that the second applicant had no valid identification documents, but that he had been assisted by the Lithuanian immigration authorities in applying to the Afghanistan Embassy in Moscow for an Afghan passport. The second applicant was requested to present a passport so that his and his son's temporary residence permits could be renewed after 10 January 2001.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 9 of the Refugees Act stipulates that a rejected asylum seeker for whom an expulsion order has been issued cannot be expelled if his life could be endangered as a result.
Pursuant to Article 36 § 2 of the Aliens Act, an expulsion order can be suspended on “humanitarian grounds.” Pursuant to Article 19 § 3 of the Aliens Act, a rejected asylum seeker can apply for temporary residence on “humanitarian grounds.”


ITEMID: 001-96505
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: SUCHKOV v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: The applicant, Mr. Vitaliy Nikolayevich Suchkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Barnaul. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant set up a deal with a certain S. (“the debtor”): 9,600 United States dollars (USD) for a Mitsubishi car. The debtor took the applicant’s money but never handed the car over to the applicant.
The applicant lodged a civil action against S. On 15 September 1999 the Industrialny District Court of Barnaul (“the District Court”) ordered that S. pay the applicant 233,184 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment became binding on 28 September 1999.
On 22 November 1999 a bailiff of the Industrialny District of Barnaul (“the bailiff”) opened enforcement proceedings.
The parties disagree as to the subsequent events between November 1999 and June 2000.
According to the applicant, the bailiff was inactive throughout this period and later forged enquiries to a bank and the Road Inspectorate backdated to 23 November 1999.
According to the Government, the bailiff took certain steps aimed at enforcing the judgment. On 9 December 1999 the bailiff issued a charging order in respect of the debtor’s cars, then had it transferred to the Road Inspectorate six days later. On 15 December 1999 the debtor’s garage was attached. On 21 December 1999 the bailiff checked the state of the debtor’s possessions. On 7 February 2000 the bailiff drew up an inventory of the debtor’s movable assets. Between 15 March and 16 June 2000 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Leninskiy District of Barnaul bailiffs’ service. The latter found that none of the debtor’s property remained in Leninskiy District, so the enforcement proceedings were transferred back to Industrialny District.
Further events are not disputed by the parties.
In June 2000 the bailiff attached part of a flat jointly owned by the debtor and his former wife, instructed the Road Inspectorate to impound the debtor’s Mitsubishi car, if it could be located, made enquiries about the debtor’s place of work and issued an order to retain half of the debtor’s salary every month for the benefit of the applicant, and suggested that the applicant accept the spare parts of a disassembled Toyota car discovered in the debtor’s attached garage as part satisfaction of the debt.
In June 2000 the debtor was asked by the bailiff to bring his Mitsubishi and Moskvich cars to the bailiffs’ office, but failed to do so. In July 2000 the debtor, twice fined by the bailiff for failure to hand over his property, told the bailiff that he had sold the Mitsubishi in June 1999 to Sh., and that the Moskvich had been sold long ago, in 1994. By a judgment of 18 January 2001, which became binding on 30 January 2001, the District Court confirmed that the debtor was still the legal owner of the Mitsubishi and that therefore the attachment of the vehicle was legal. As the Mitsubishi could not be located, the bailiffs conducted a search for it. Having yielded no results, the search was discontinued in March 2003.
Some of the debtor’s assets were not liable to seizure because the property was jointly owned by the debtor and his ex-wife, so the applicant brought a court action seeking division of their common assets. By a judgment of 17 April 2001, which became binding on 30 May 2001, the District Court determined how the property in question was to be divided. According to the judgment, the debtor received in property a part of the flat and the garage, whereas the Moskvich and the disassembled Toyota acquired in the course of the marriage and registered at the Road Inspectorate in the debtor’s name were given to the debtor’s ex-wife.
By a decision of 27 February 2002 the Altay Regional Court confirmed in the final instance that the debtor’s part of the flat was not liable to seizure because it was the only home he had.
On 28 February 2003 the debtor’s garage, for which no bids had been made at auction, was given to the applicant.
On 30 May 2003 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings. The applicant continued to receive monthly payments held back from the debtor’s salary.
In the meantime, the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for inflationary losses supposedly caused by the bailiffs’ inactivity during the enforcement of the judgment.
On 26 July 2001 the Tsentralny District Court granted the applicant’s claim, but on 3 October 2001 that decision was quashed on appeal and the matter was remitted for fresh examination before a first-instance court.
On 15 November 2001 the Tsentralny District Court of Barnaul dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. It held, inter alia, that, although the bailiffs had failed on several occasions to respect the procedural time-limits, there was no causal link between the bailiffs’ conduct and the alleged losses. On 26 December 2001 the Altay Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
Article 28 § 2 of the Russian federal law “On Enforcement Procedure” (Law no. 119-FZ of 21 July 1997) provides that a search for a debtor’s missing property must be conducted by a bailiff if paid for in advance by a creditor. The creditor shall have the right to recover the incurred expenses from the debtor.
Article 87 of the same law provides for certain measures which a bailiff may take when private persons or public officials fail to comply with lawful orders, provide false information about a debtor’s income and financial status, do not inform a bailiff about the debtor’s dismissal from work, a change of the debtor’s places of work or residence or when they do not respond to the bailiff’s summonses. These measures include a fine of up to 100 minimum wages, escorting a defaulting party by force to a place where enforcement actions are performed and institution of criminal proceedings.


ITEMID: 001-77843
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FRA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF MAMERE v. FRANCE
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 10
JUDGES: András Baka;Elisabet Fura;Jean-Paul Costa;Mindia Ugrekhelidze
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Paris. A member and leader of the “green” political party Les Verts, and former regional councillor and member of the European Parliament, since 1987 he has been mayor of Bègles and Vice-President of the Urban Community of Bordeaux and, since 1997, member of parliament for La Gironde. He has also worked as a journalist – from 1977 to 1992, for example – for the State television channel Antenne 2.
5. In October 1999 the applicant took part in the recording of an infotainment programme for television called Tout le monde en parle (“Everyone’s talking about it”), presented by Thierry Ardisson, which was aired on the State television channel France 2 during the night of 23 to 24 October 1999. During the programme Michel Polac, another guest personality, mentioned the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 26 April 1986 and spoke of the emotion he had felt on reading a book dedicated to the victims of the disaster. The applicant replied as follows (extract from the 3 October 2001 judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal):
“Only a few weeks ago some mushrooms imported into France were found to contain caesium and that is the result of Chernobyl. I was presenting the 1 o’clock news on the day of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986; there was a sinister character at the SCPRI called Mr Pellerin who kept on telling us that France was so strong – the Asterix complex – that the Chernobyl cloud had not crossed our borders.”
6. At the time of the Chernobyl disaster Mr Pellerin, a radiologist and qualified senior biophysics teacher, was head of the Central Service for Protection against Ionising Radiation (Service central de protection contre les rayons ionisants – “the SCPRI”). Under the dual authority of the Health and Labour Ministries, one of the SCPRI’s tasks was to monitor contamination levels in France and alert the above ministries in the event of a problem; it was replaced in 1994 by the Office for Protection against Ionising Radiation (Office de protection contre les rayonnements ionisants – “the OPRI”).
Mr Pellerin was placed under investigation on 31 May 2006 for “aggravated deception” by the first investigating judge at the Paris tribunal de grande instance, as part of an investigation opened after persons suffering from thyroid cancer, the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (“the CRIIRAD”) and the French Association of Thyroid Disease Sufferers (“the AFMT”) lodged a complaint in March 2001 against a person or persons unknown, together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties claiming damages, for failure to protect the population against radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident, alleging in particular that official authorities had lied and played down the pollution of the air, soil and foodstuffs.
7. By summonses served on 18 and 19 January 2000, Mr Pellerin brought proceedings directly against the applicant in the Paris Criminal Court for public defamation of a civil servant, a punishable offence under sections 29 and 31 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. He also brought proceedings against the television channel France 2 and its director of publication, Mr Marc Tessier.
In a judgment of 11 October 2000, the court found Mr Tessier and the applicant guilty (as principal and accessory respectively), sentenced them each to pay a 10,000 French francs (FRF) fine and, jointly and severally, to pay FRF 50,000 in damages, declared the France 2 television company civilly liable and ordered the publication in a newspaper, at the defendants’ cost, of the following announcement:
“In a judgment delivered on 11 October by the Paris Criminal Court (Press Division), Mr Marc Tessier, director of publication of the national television company France 2, and Noël Mamère were sentenced to fines and to pay damages to Mr Pierre Pellerin, for having committed against him the offence of defamation of a civil servant, by making accusations against him on the Tout le monde en parle television programme aired on 23 October 1999.”
8. The applicant appealed, but the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in respect of the guilty verdict, the sentences and the civil claims, in a judgment of 3 October 2001 worded as follows:
“...
Defamation
Mr Mamère accuses Mr Pellerin of repeatedly (“kept on”) claiming (“telling us”) at the time of the Chernobyl disaster that the radioactive cloud would not cross France’s borders. He further specifies that the civil party worked for the SCPRI (Central Service for Protection against Ionising Radiation), thereby reminding us that because of his expertise and his role he could not have been unaware of what was actually happening and what is now common knowledge.
Mr Mamère thus accuses Mr Pellerin of lying to journalists, and therefore to the general public, concerning the passage of the radioactive cloud over France, when the file clearly shows that Mr Pellerin never said any such thing, and that he had actually said that the level of radioactivity had increased in France – which obviously meant that the cloud had passed over the country – but that the increase would be without any harmful effect on public health, a claim which has yet to be disproved with any certainty.
To accuse Mr Pellerin of having knowingly supplied, in his capacity as a specialist on radioactivity issues, erroneous or even untrue information about such a serious problem as the Chernobyl disaster, which was of potential consequence for the health of the French population, is undeniably damaging to his honour and his reputation and is therefore defamatory. The fact that Mr Mamère’s comments, according to his counsel, were uttered in a humorous tone, as a quip, makes them no less defamatory and to acknowledge that is not a violation of Article 10 of the Convention ...
Good faith
As the events criticised occurred so long ago, the defendant has adduced no proof that his defamatory allegations are true, but claims that he acted in good faith.
Moderation of tone
In using such terms as “kept on telling us”, Mr Mamère insists strongly and in no uncertain terms that Mr Pellerin deliberately and repeatedly lied, and that he constantly and knowingly distorted the truth.
He also describes Mr Pellerin as a “sinister” character, which is not a neutral expression, particularly when used in connection with something like the Chernobyl disaster. He also says the civil party suffers from the “Asterix complex”, thereby subjecting him to derision and undermining his credibility.
The insistence shown by Mr Mamère, the peremptory nature of his comments and the pejorative characteristics he attributes to the civil party reveal a lack of moderation in his remarks.
As one of the conditions of good faith is lacking, the defendant cannot be considered to have acted in good faith and there is no need to examine the other aspects of good faith.
He must therefore be convicted.
...”
9. The Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant, Mr Tessier and France 2 based, inter alia, on an alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The judgment, delivered on 22 October 2002, reads as follows:
“...
The terms of the impugned judgment and the examination of the case file place the Court of Cassation in a position to affirm that the Court of Appeal, for reasons which are neither insufficient nor contradictory and which address the essential grounds raised in the pleadings submitted to it, correctly assessed the meaning and scope of the remarks impugned in the summons and rightly denied the defendants the benefit of good faith, after finding, without contravening the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention ... that the said remarks amounted to defamation.
For the remainder, the Court of Appeal correctly considered that the director of publication, whose duty it is to supervise and verify every pre-recorded programme the channel broadcasts, is answerable in law for any remarks made in the course of the programme which are found to be defamatory.
....”
10. The applicant adduced a copy of a Ministry of Agriculture press release dated 6 May 1986, which reads as follows:
“French soil is far enough away to have been completely spared by the radioactive fallout from the accident at the Chernobyl power station. At no time has the recorded increase in radioactivity levels been a threat to public health.
The Ministry of Agriculture has readings taken by the Central Service for Protection against Ionising Radiation (SCPRI), which answers to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. According to the SCPRI the maximum airborne radioactivity levels have always remained entirely negligible.
France has asked the European Economic Community to put in place a uniform monitoring procedure, without delay, which all countries could apply in respect of non-member countries, based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Such measures should on no account hinder intracommunity exchanges. Furthermore, we have asked all the member States to inform their partners of any measurements taken and their results.
Special precautionary measures have been put in place in certain member States in respect of French products. This is quite unnecessary. The Ministry of Agriculture will make every effort to see to it that the free movement of all French products towards these countries is restored as soon as possible.”
The applicant also adduced an extract of the transcript of the statement made by the Minister of Industry to the Senate on 23 May 1986; it reveals in particular that between the Chernobyl accident and that date the SCPRI issued at least twenty-five statements about the accident.
11. The applicant further adduced a document, dated 23 November 2005, entitled “Recapitulation of the mission completed by the two experts in accordance with the orders of 6 February 2002 and 16 July 2003 of [the] ... first investigating judge at the Paris tribunal de grande instance”. It is the opinion of two judicial experts appointed by the judge in charge of the investigation mentioned in paragraph 6 above to analyse, among other things, the sealed samples collected by the SCPRI at the time of the Chernobyl accident and determine what the SCPRI knew. The “general conclusions” of the opinion read as follows:
“At this stage in our investigation it is clear that the SCPRI was very promptly supplied with all the scientific data in the possession of its network and the information it requested urgently from various bodies concerning radioactive contamination in mainland France and Corsica, for most of the radioactive isotopes, including iodine 131, iodine 132, tellurium 132, caesium 134 and caesium 137. The information was interpretable and location-specific.
The SCPRI was also aware that the results for the iodine isotopes were obtained using filters which captured only a small percentage, which meant that the readings for iodine 131 and 132 were well below the real values.
The release of this information by the SCPRI to the decision-making authorities and the public was neither complete nor precise and certain values were concealed.
The use of different units, some of which were no longer in current use, made comparisons or evaluations very difficult, even for specialists, and therefore even more so for the decision-making authorities and the public.
The publication of mean values per département, region or part of the country helped to mask the reality of contamination concentrated in certain localities, later referred to as “leopard spots”, linked to weather conditions – particularly rainfall – and the landscape.
In this manner the presence, especially in the first fortnight after the clouds passed, of quantities of radioactive isotopes which were dangerous, particularly for fœtuses and for young children, was hidden from the decision-making authorities and the public.
Telex messages contained in the sealed evidence also show how, in France and even in the international scientific community, partial or mean values were imposed (some mean values being based on single readings), which led to the publication of inaccurate maps.
In our opinion mapping is possible only at the level of the “leopard spots”, where populations living in relative isolation may have been subjected to levels of radiation similar to those in certain territories close to the Chernobyl power station in April-May-June 1986.
Attempts are still being made today to produce these maps which, in these conditions, cannot reflect what really happened in France in the days following the Chernobyl accident, and this is still a bone of contention.
The information of the IRSN [Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire – Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety] sheds some light on the subject, but it was received too late to be included in this report within the allotted time.
Finally, there is information in the sealed evidence concerning the respective roles by the various State authorities in such circumstances [sic]. There was a major controversy over the subject, including whether informing the public was the role of the SCPRI or the SGCISN [Secretary General of the Interministerial Nuclear Safety Committee], whose job it was according to interministerial directive SGSN 5400 on informing the public and the media in the event of a nuclear safety incident or accident. This aspect of the evidence cannot be neglected.”
12. The relevant provisions of Chapter IV of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 provide:
“It shall be defamatory to make any statement or allegation of a fact that damages the honour or reputation of the person or body of whom the fact is alleged. The direct publication or reproduction of such a statement or allegation shall be an offence, even if expressed in tentative terms or if made about a person or body not expressly named but identifiable by the terms of the impugned speeches, shouts, threats, written or printed matter, placards or posters.
It shall be an insult to use any abusive or contemptuous language or invective not containing an allegation of fact.”
“Defamation by reference to the functions or capacity of one or more ministers or ministry officials, one or more members of one of the two legislative chambers, a civil servant, a representative or officer of the law, a minister of religion in receipt of a State salary, a citizen temporarily or permanently responsible for a public service or discharging a public mandate, a member of a jury or a witness on the basis of his witness statement [in speeches, shouts or threats made or uttered in public places or meetings, or in written or printed matter, drawings, engravings, paintings, emblems, images or any other written, spoken or pictorial medium sold or distributed, offered for sale or exhibited in public places or meetings, or on placards or posters on public display, or in any audiovisual medium] shall be punishable [by a fine of 45,000 euros].
...”
“The truth of the defamatory allegation, but only when it relates to functions, may be established in the ordinary way in the case of allegations against State institutions, the army, navy or air force, the public authorities and any of the persons listed in section 31.
The truth of defamatory and insulting allegations may also be established against directors or administrators of any public industrial, commercial or financial company.
The truth of the defamatory allegations may always be established except:
(a) when the allegation concerns the person’s private life;
(b) when the allegation refers to events dating back more than ten years;
(c) when the allegation refers to events in respect of which an amnesty has been granted or which are time-barred or gave rise to a conviction which has been expunged by rehabilitation or review.
Subsections (a) and (b) above shall not apply when the facts are offences provided for and punishable under Articles 222-23 to 222-32 and 227-22 to 227-27 of the Criminal Code and were committed against a minor.
In the cases provided for in the previous two paragraphs, rebutting evidence is reserved. If proof of the defamatory allegation is established, the defendant shall be acquitted.
In any other circumstances and in respect of any other unspecified person, when the allegation has given rise to proceedings brought by the prosecution service or a complaint lodged by the defendant, while the resulting investigation takes its course the proceedings and trial for defamation shall be suspended.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 10


ITEMID: 001-4750
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 1999
DOCNAME: KESKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Elisabeth Palm;Gaukur Jörundsson
TEXT: The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals.
They are represented before the Court by Mr Vural Soytekin, a lawyer practising in İstanbul (Turkey).
s, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants, accused of being members of the illegal organisation Dev-Yol, (Revolutionary Way), were taken into police custody on various dates between 1980 and 1982.
In 1983, the military public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Erzincan Martial Law Court. It was alleged that the applicants were members of an illegal organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Section 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
All the applicants were released pending trial on various dates between 1982 and 1986. Only one of the applicants, Özcan Bölükbaş, was kept in detention on remand until 1988.
On 24 August 1988 the Martial Law Court delivered its judgment and acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.
The public prosecutor challenged the judgment of the first instance court as regards 16 of the applicants. However, he did not appeal against the acquittals of four of the applicants, namely Ayten Atmaca, İzzet Gündüz, Mehmet Özcan, Mahmut Koç, and the decision against them became final in 1988.
Pursuant to the law No. 3953 promulgated on 30 December 1993 the case-file was transferred to a non-military court, the Court of Cassation. On 4 July 1995 the Court of Cassation ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicants be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Section 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired.
The applicants’ lawyer obtained a copy of this decision in July 1995.


ITEMID: 001-86505
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: THOMSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Brian Thomson, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kent. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s wife died on 10 August 1995. In April 2001, the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits. On 10 April 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim.
The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.


ITEMID: 001-61094
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: ITA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2003
DOCNAME: CASE OF VOGLINO v. ITALY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Christos Rozakis
TEXT: 7. The applicant lives in Grottaferrata (Rome).
8. She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.F.R.
9. In a writ served on the tenant on 4 February 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10. By a decision of 29 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 July 1992.
11. On 7 October 1992, 20 September 1995 and 10 February 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12. On 7 December 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1992.
13. Between 15 December 1992 and 25 February 1993, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14. On 13 October 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 October 1995.
Between 31 October 1995 and 6 November 1996, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15. On 28 February 2000, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 March 2000.
16. Between 24 March 2000 and 13 July 2000, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17. On 24 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
18. The relevant domestic law is described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 18-35, ECHR 1999-V.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1