text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
25. The applicant contended that the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to circular no. A.P.86-12 G1 of 14 March 1986 on prisoner searches was inhuman and degrading. He submitted that he had been systematically disciplined for refusing to undergo searches in accordance with this procedure. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides: | 5 |
69. The Government submitted that the applicant had received the medical assistance he needed for all his health problems throughout the period of his deprivation of liberty. In the SIZO the applicant received ART daily and he recovered from his tuberculosis episode. He was systematically examined and all of his complaints were adequately addressed by the SIZO medical ward staff. Therefore, the Government stated that the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. | 5 |
93. The applicant’s assertion that he did not receive appropriate medical care is a general one and is not supported by any factual information. At the same time, the materials submitted by the Government suggest that the applicant was medically examined on a regular basis and was provided with appropriate medical treatment. There is no indication of any failing on the part of the medical staff of the detention facilities which would give rise to an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see also Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, §§ 89-91, 12 March 2009, and Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 41, 7 October 2010). | 5 |
45. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Craiova and Giurgiu Prisons. In particular, he complained of a lack of living space and light in his solitary cell, a lack of hot and cold running water, the poor quality of food, a lack of adequate activities and out-of-cell time, his isolation from the other prisoners, his systematic handcuffing whenever he left his cell and the brutal interventions of masked special forces members. | 5 |
33. The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, sufficient nutrition and medical assistance and that the sanitary, hygiene and temperature norms had been duly met. | 5 |
169. The applicant stated that his unlawful solitary incommunicado detention and interrogation for twenty-three days in the hotel, combined with repeated threats and prolonged uncertainty as to his fate, violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Even without direct physical assaults, the cumulative and acute psychological effects of anguish and stress had been intentionally used for the express purpose of breaking his psychological integrity for the purpose of interrogation, and had been sufficient to drive him to protest by way of a hunger strike for ten days. | 5 |
155. The applicant alleged that the injuries and anguish she had suffered as a result of the violence inflicted upon her by her husband had amounted to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the ongoing violence and her repeated requests for help, however, the authorities had failed to protect her from her husband. It was as though the violence had been inflicted under State supervision. The insensitivity and tolerance shown by the authorities in the face of domestic violence had made her feel debased, hopeless and vulnerable. | 5 |
102. The Government sought to distinguish the present case from the Popov judgment, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention “in view of the children’s young age, the length of their detention and the conditions of their confinement in [the] detention centre”. In the present case, while similar to the Popov case in terms of the child’s age and the length of the detention, the conditions of accommodation for families in the Toulouse‑Cornebarrieu centre were, in the Government’s view, far superior to those examined by the Court in Popov. Relying on reports by the CPT and of the Inspector-General of Custodial Premises, they submitted that the Toulouse‑Cornebarrieu detention centre, a recent construction (2006) designed from the outset to cater for families, contained functional and modern facilities providing all detainees in general, and families in particular, with accommodation to the highest standard. They went on to say that the reception area for families was equipped with separate and tailored outdoor courtyards, that games were made available to children, and that appropriate toiletries and food were provided. | 5 |
54. The applicant argued that, if the risks were weighed cumulatively, it was clear that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, relying on the most recent amendment of 6 February 2014 to the Netherlands policy position in respect of Afghan asylum seekers, the applicant submitted that protection against persecution can only be obtained in Kabul and by Afghans who are from Kabul, which he was not. Furthermore, the former mujahideen leaders whom he feared were now holding positions of power, particularly in the Afghan Government based in Kabul. | 5 |
37. The applicant submitted that the conditions of her detention at the police station for a period of approximately five months constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. As found by the CPT in its 2012 report and the Ombudsman in her report of 31 July 2012, police detention facilities in Cyprus were inadequate for holding people for prolonged periods. The detention facilities at Limassol Police Station had been unsuitable for detaining people for long periods: there had been overcrowding, the sanitary facilities had been inadequate and the applicant had been deprived of fresh air, natural light and exercise during most of her detention. | 5 |
83. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had omitted to raise in substance his grievance under Article 3 before the district judge on 17 October 2006. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible. | 5 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for the treatment. In respect of his complaints, the applicant relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention. | 5 |
191. The applicants also complained that the emotional trauma they had suffered in connection with the accident and the indifference of the State authorities to their loss and grief, manifested, in particular, in their refusal to negotiate a friendly settlement with the injured parties, was indicative of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the amount of compensation awarded for the deaths of their relatives was one tenth of the compensation paid by the State per victim of the crash of the TU-154M airliner on 4 October 2001. | 5 |
230. The Government contested the applicants’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation afforded the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints. Furthermore, in Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 6636/09) the Government submitted that the children of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev could not claim to be the victims of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention. There were no special factors such as those cited in, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia (no. 69480/01, § 111, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)) justifying the victim status of the third and fourth applicants in this case. | 5 |
52. The Government challenged the applicants’ version of events and submitted that they had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment on 30 March 2009. They admitted that the applicants had been injured on that day but, referring to the findings of the relevant criminal investigation, maintained that the applicants had sustained their injuries either as a result of falling from a two-metre high wall and/or because the prison officers had had recourse to necessary and proportionate physical force in order to effect the applicants’ arrest. As regards the State’s positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government maintained that the applicants’ allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities. | 5 |
52. The applicant, referring to his account of facts, maintained that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that such ill-treatment amounted to torture. As to the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, he insisted that the investigation of his ill-treatment had not been effective. In particular, he emphasised that the criminal proceedings had been instituted only on 3 November 2003, that is more than five months after the events complained of. This delay brought to the loss of evidence and seriously reduced the chances of establishing all the relevant facts and charging all the policemen involved. He further pointed out that the bill of indictment, referred to the trial court on 28 December 2007, clearly indicated that the other officers had participated in the applicant's ill-treatment, but those were never charged. | 5 |
52. The Government said that since the Federal Office for Refugees had set aside its decision of 31 August 1998 and ruled that there were bars to the applicant’s expulsion under section 53(4) of the Aliens Act, the applicant was now fully protected against an expulsion to Iran in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The new decision could only be set aside by the Federal Office for Refugees itself and, in such event, an appeal would lie to the administrative courts. Furthermore, the federal government as such could not give assurances concerning the grant of a residence permit (in this instance, an authority to remain – Aufenthaltsbefugnis), as the issue of such permits was the responsibility of the relevant Länder authorities. | 5 |
38. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for two years and eleven months and did not have an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. He did not challenge the data contained in the excerpts from the remand prison population registers concerning the number of inmates per cell. However, he asserted that at all times the cells where he had been detained had been severely overcrowded. He noted that, apart from the excerpts from the official records for the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005, the Government had failed to substantiate their statements concerning the population of the cells at the remand prison. He further noted that, apart from an hour's daily exercise and brief meetings with his lawyer and relatives, he had been confined to his cell for twenty-four hours a day. In his view, the living conditions in the cells, including the hygiene, had been unsatisfactory. With reference to the Court's case-law (the cases of Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May 2007, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, 6 December 2007) the applicant pointed out that the Court had previously examined the issue of the conditions of detention at remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow and found them in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
36. The Government submitted that, following the publication of the CPT report on its visit in May 2014, improvements had been made to the detention facilities of Philipsburg Police Station, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the CPT. As regards the applicant’s situation, the Government submitted that the he had been individually detained in a cell of almost 12 square meters, that he had been provided with sheet, towel and that he had purchased a pillow via the inmate canteen programme, that he had been provided with hygiene products and that there were no leakages. According to the Government, this meant that of the CPT’s recommendations only the requirement of a call bell had not been fulfilled. As regards the conditions prior to this situation, when the applicant had been detained in the multi-occupancy cell, the Government submitted that it was unable to comment for lack of detailed information. The Government admitted that the circumstances under which the applicant had been detained in Sint Maarten had not been ideal, but submitted that the conditions in which he had been held pending his extradition to Italy had not been of such a nature that he should be regarded as having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
144. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police following his arrest. He also complained under the same provision that the prison guards had ill-treated and humiliated him on various occasions. The applicant next complained that his arrest and pre-trial detention had been contrary to Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 (a) that his post-conviction detention was unlawful. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against had been unfair, that he had not committed the criminal offences in question, that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and had wrongly applied the law, that they had failed to ensure his right to legal assistance, as well as his rights to examine the case file and to call witnesses. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the police had apparently tapped his phone before his arrest. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the applicant complained that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the authorities on the ground of his illnesses. He further complained of a violation of Article 17 of the Convention arguing that the law-enforcement authorities had abused their powers. The applicant next complained that the Supreme Court had failed to duly ensure his right of appeal as guaranteed by Article 2 Protocol No. 7. | 5 |
88. The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
73. The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 16 August 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing the medical expert opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation. Yet, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case (see paragraphs 32-35 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of a relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013. | 5 |
41. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained as from August 2010. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bedbugs and other parasites, inadequate heating, poor quality of food, defective sanitary installations and a lack of hot or cold running water, lack of appropriate furniture and improper conditions for eating his meals, and dirty and worn out mattresses and sheets. He further complained of inadequate health care. | 5 |
137. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the continued imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision. He referred, in particular, to such aspects of the regime as his mostly solitary confinement and prolonged and excessive isolation from his family, the outside world and other detainees and such restrictions as wearing “joined shackles” on his hands and feet all the time whenever he was outside his cell, the routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected daily and the constant monitoring of his cell – including sanitary facilities – via close-circuit television. | 5 |
62. The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that on 27 May 2008 he had been tortured at the Volnovakha police station and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter. The Court considers that it is appropriate to examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention only (see, for instance, Voykin and Others v. Ukraine, no. 47889/08, § 84, 27 March 2018), which reads as follows: | 5 |
168. The applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while he was detained in the hotel and for the failure to prevent him from being subjected to “capture shock” treatment when transferred to the CIA rendition team at Skopje Airport. He further complained that the respondent State had been responsible for his ill-treatment during his detention in the “Salt Pit” in Afghanistan by having knowingly transferred him into the custody of US agents even though there had been substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of such ill-treatment. In this latter context, he complained that the conditions of detention, physical assaults, inadequate food and water, sleep deprivation, forced feeding and lack of any medical assistance during his detention in the “Salt Pit” amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he complained that the investigation before the Macedonian authorities had not been effective within the meaning of this Article. | 5 |
25. The applicant argued that the measures, omissions and incidents complained of amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, and this in respect of the whole period he had spent in Szeged Prison. The matter complained of constituted a continuous violation of his Convention rights; therefore, the Government's reference to the six-month rule was a misconception. In particular, the fact that he had been at the mercy of his cellmates for a prolonged period of time in terms of satisfying his basic needs, such as relieving himself, bathing or getting dressed/undressed, was unacceptable. Likewise, the practice of transporting him in a van without a seatbelt to hold his wheelchair in place, together with the rough methods of getting him in and out of the vehicle was inhuman. This situation was aggravated by his classification as a 'Grade 4' security-level prisoner – impossible to challenge before the prison authorities and completely unjustified in the face of his paraplegia – as a consequence of which he had been kept handcuffed during transport and thereby prevented from securing his position whilst the vehicle was in motion. | 5 |
78. The applicant essentially claimed that he is considered a suspect of terrorism by the Moroccan authorities on two grounds: firstly because these authorities are aware of his conviction in the Netherlands for terrorism-related offences and fail to respect the ne bis in idem principle and, secondly, because these authorities are aware of his link to a dismantled terrorist cell in Morocco. On the basis thereof, and referring to case-law of the Court concerning terrorist suspects, the applicant claimed that he had adduced sufficient evidence of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that if he were to be deported to Morocco, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
70. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, as the doctors had acted with the intention of protecting her life and health, as well as the life of her child. Had the doctors deliberately wished to deprive the applicant of her reproductive capacity, they would have carried out a hysterectomy which, as an expert had confirmed, would have been considered as a life-saving intervention given the state of the applicant’s reproductive organs. While it was true that the applicant’s mother had not formally agreed to the procedure, it was to be noted that the applicant had previously given birth to a child and that she had reached the age of majority only ten days after her sterilisation. | 5 |
52. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he and his lawyer had not had access to any of the evidence on which the domestic courts had based their decisions. He also complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 that the courts had not given “relevant and sufficient reasons” for dismissing his habeas corpus requests based in particular on his state of health and that the appellate court had refused to rehear his doctor. In light of the above findings under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 42 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to determine whether the applicant’s arguments about his state of health were pertinent to the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5, or whether the courts gave adequate reasons for the decision. Therefore the Court will only examine the complaint about the applicant’s access to the case file. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
10. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of her ill-treatment by the police and the insufficient investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. She also complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of her abusive detention on 22 February 2002. The relevant parts of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 read as follows: | 5 |
15. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time and high temperatures in the cells. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
83. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints had been examined in detail at the domestic level by the competent sentence-execution judge, who had heard the applicant and who had regularly visited Bjelovar Prison in the period at issue, namely twelve times during the applicant’s stay there. The sentence-execution judge had not found a violation of his right to adequate conditions of detention. These findings had been reviewed and upheld by a three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court and the Constitutional Court. Likewise, the Ombudsperson had examined the applicant’s complaints and noted that they principally concerned matters related to his transfer to a prison closer to his family. The Ombudsperson also noted that Bjelovar Prison had been recently renovated. Moreover, in the case of Pozaić v. Croatia (no. 5901/13, 4 December 2014), raising an issue of conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison dating from the same period in which the applicant had been detained there, the Court had also found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection the Government pointed out that, given that the CPT had never visited Bjelovar Prison, the Court’s finding in Pozaić was the only determination of conditions of detention in that prison by an international institution. | 5 |
49. The Government did not present any plausible justification for the delay in transferring the applicant to a hospital after the first prescription for hospitalisation had been issued by the doctors in the evening of 9 April 2015. In the Court’s view, the refusal of the prison administration to follow the doctors’ prescriptions for such a long time subjected the applicant to severe pain and suffering, a treatment which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. The Government stressed that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. | 5 |
83. The applicants complained that after the abduction their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been ill-treated by State agents and that the investigation thereof had not been effective. They further complained that because of the abduction and subsequent killing of their relative and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads: | 5 |
48. The Government noted the relatively short period of the applicant's detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility and that he had not complained or claimed that his physical or mental health had deteriorated as a result. They also argued that measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an element of suffering or humiliation, that the conditions of detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility were not intended to degrade or humiliate the applicant and, in conclusion, that the ill-treatment complained did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Government considered that the said article had not been violated. | 5 |
37. The Government firstly submitted that they had not been under any obligation to conduct compulsory screening of the applicant for the presence of HCV. Secondly, in connection with the adequacy of the medical treatment available to the applicant in the post-diagnosis period, they claimed, without providing any relevant medical evidence in support, that the applicant’s state of health at the initial phase of his diagnosis had been stable; he had been examined on several occasions; no deterioration of his condition had been noted and he had been given vitamins and hepatoprotectors. In the Government’s view, the fact that the applicant had not been provided with antiviral treatment immediately after his infection was revealed did not in itself amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
26. The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings against her assailants had lacked the effectiveness required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She alleged that the authorities had not prosecuted some of the people involved, including two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., and two other individuals, Y.Y.G. and K.M., whom she had identified at the start of the investigation. She complained that the authorities had not made the necessary efforts to investigate the link between the two police officers and the prostitution ring into which attempts had been made to coerce her or to search for the other two individuals. The applicant maintained that the authorities had not displayed diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, which had been unduly prolonged; the dual effect of this was that she had endured further psychological suffering and the proceedings in respect of some of the perpetrators had become time-barred. | 5 |
175. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from alleged breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, the alleged breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention and the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. He pointed out that he had been arrested at night, without being told for what reason, had been hooded, had been subjected to serious deliberate violence causing him intense pain in the police minivan on the way to Koprivshtitsa, and had been taken not to a regular place of detention but to a house where he had been tortured, and then again hooded on the way back to Sofia, which had caused to feel terror and apprehension as to what awaited him next. After that he had not been given timely medical attention, had been refused contact with a lawyer of his own choosing, and only allowed to contact his wife to tell her that he was in custody but not where. He had suffered additional frustration and feelings of injustice from the slow and ineffective investigation of his ill‑treatment and from the lack of any redress in respect of it. He had also, in breach of the presumption of innocence, been stigmatised by high‑ranking officials as a participant in Mr Lukanov’s assassination, although he had been cleared of that charge in the criminal proceedings against him. That stigma, taken up by the media, would continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. Lastly, he had suffered damage as a result of the lack of sufficient safeguards against and effective remedies in respect of unlawful secret surveillance, which was particularly damaging in his situation. | 5 |
27. The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicants’ favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to them in compensation for non-pecuniary damage were adequate and sufficient, and had been calculated by taking the entirety of the criteria into account, including each person’s specific circumstances. | 5 |
13. The Government claimed that the alleged ill-treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity necessary to trigger the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention because the expert had only found two abrasions on his head. The applicant had engaged in a fight shortly before his arrest in which he had received blows to his head. The recorded injuries did not correspond to the applicant’s description of ill-treatment. The mere fact that a criminal case had not been opened did not warrant the conclusion that the investigation was inefficient because, in the particular circumstances of the case, a pre-investigation inquiry had been sufficient to establish the relevant circumstances. | 5 |
45. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate that if expelled, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment (see Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 31, 7 June 2016). The Austrian courts and the Federal Minister of Justice had comprehensively examined in proceedings before several instances adhering to the rule of law whether, if extradited to Kosovo, the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Taking into account specific information and the applicant’s submissions, they answered this question in the negative. The applicant referred to former attacks by the Lu. clan to corroborate the alleged danger to his life if extradited. However, at the same time it was evident that the Kosovo authorities had been able to react to these threats appropriately themselves, for example, by the criminal conviction of S.Lu. for issuing a threat against the applicant. Repeated convictions of members of the Lu. clan in Kosovo demonstrate that the authorities were indeed capable of removing risks for the applicant’s life by taking measures in accordance with the rule of law. | 5 |
99. The Government considered that the prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed in the daytime had been implied from a normative act – Regulation no. 423. By the same token, they argued that the applicant’s isolation had resulted from a normative act – section 504 of the Sentence Enforcement Code. It was their view that that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the compliance of these legal provisions with provisions of superior legal force, had he considered that they breached Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied on the Court’s decision in the case of Grišankova and Grišankovs (cited above), where the Court had accepted that recourse to the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy. The Government stressed that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of a legal provision was binding on the domestic authorities. | 5 |
48. The applicant alleged, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been beaten by unidentified prison officers on an unspecified date in Gldani no. 8 prison. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he also challenged the outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He maintained, inter alia, that the domestic courts had improperly assessed the circumstances of his case and that, instead of endorsing the incriminating evidence, the courts should have subscribed to his arguments in defence. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above-mentioned provision, the applicant also complained that an application to the Supreme Court was not an effective judicial remedy, as that court had rejected his cassation appeal as inadmissible. | 5 |
166. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation in case no. 23116 had not established that Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State. | 5 |
67. The Government reiterated the Immigration Judge’s findings (see paragraphs 19-20 above) that there was no reason why the applicant would not continue to receive the assistance in Afghanistan that he had apparently received for three to four years there after he had incurred his injuries and before he had travelled to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, in view of the numbers of disabled people in Afghanistan and the lack of supporting evidence demonstrating that those people were living in a state of extreme degrading or inhuman conditions by virtue of government inaction, they argued that there remained no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would be at real risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant had family in Afghanistan. | 5 |
71. The applicant also started his reply with listing principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to inmates’ access to medical assistance. He further relied on a number of expert reports, including the report issued on 16 May 2013 upon an investigators’ order and cited by the Russian courts in their decision to release the applicant from detention on health grounds (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above). While having acknowledged that the reports commissioned by his counsel from civil experts had not been performed on the basis of his personal examination, he insisted that they had been issued by very respected civil medical specialists, including a doctor who had later participated in the preparation of the report of 16 May 2013. The reports were also prepared on the basis of his entire medical file. Furthermore, the reports prepared by the experts both in response to the request from the defence and those from the prosecution confirmed that the applicant did not have adequate access to necessary medical specialists, such as an infectious diseases doctor or herpetologist, he was not subjected to necessary testing, including fibroscopy, and he was not seen by medical personnel frequently enough as was required by his condition, including in the cases of medical emergencies. He also stressed that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the recommendations of the medical experts. The applicant argued that the expert reports submitted by him disclosed serious failings in his medical care in detention. In his opinion, the Government did not submit any evidence which could have rebutted that conclusion. The applicant concluded that the Russian authorities violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as they were unable to provide him with the requisite level of medical services and were subjecting him to severe suffering and a significant risk of a fatal outcome. | 5 |
124. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had suffered ill-treatment by other detainees in the Kryvyy Rig SIZO and that his complaints in that regard had not been duly examined. He further raised the following complaints: under Article 7 about his allegedly unfair criminal prosecution; under Article 8 about the alleged secret surveillance of him and his family by the security services for many years; under Article 9 about the fact that the investigator in charge of his case was a Muslim, which he considered to be unacceptable given his orthodox Christian faith; under Article 10 about the criminal cases against him having allegedly been related to his activities as a journalist; under Article 11 about the negative impact of his detention and psychiatric confinement on the NGO he headed; with reference to Article 12, about his complaints to various authorities having been without success; and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about being limited in his ability to lodge appeals. | 5 |
143. The applicants pointed out that the CSPA was theoretically intended to function as a facility for assistance and initial reception. In their view, that type of centre, which did not comply with the European Prison Rules of 11 January 2006, was unsuitable for extended stays in a situation of deprivation of liberty. In their submission, a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be excluded either on account of the nature of the CSPA or in view of the short duration of their detention. The duration in question was only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in assessing whether treatment exceeded the threshold of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article 3. The Court had previously found violations of Article 3 of the Convention even in the case of very short periods of detention where there were other aggravating factors such as particularly appalling conditions or the vulnerability of the victims (the applicants referred to Brega v. Moldova, no. 52100/08, 20 April 2010; T. and A. v. Turkey, no. 47146/11, 21 October 2014; and Gavrilovici v. Moldova, no. 25464/05, 15 December 2009, concerning periods of forty-eight hours, three days and five days respectively). The applicants argued that the same factors were present in their cases and pointed out that at the material time they had just survived a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean by night in a rubber dinghy, and that this had weakened them physically and psychologically. They had thus been in a situation of vulnerability, accentuated by the fact that their deprivation of liberty had no legal basis, and their mental distress had increased as a result. | 5 |
20. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment in police custody, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant also complained about the treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest. They contended under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They further complained under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention about the length of their detention in police custody and their inability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and to claim compensation in the domestic courts in this respect. | 5 |
56. The Government submitted that in the applicant’s letters of 12 June 2006 (received by the Court on 14 June 2006) he had briefly mentioned his poor state of health and given further details only in his letter of 18 September 2006 (received by the Court on 22 September 2006). On both occasions, however, he had failed to complain of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and had not informed the Court that he wanted to raise such a complaint. In any event, the Government contended that if the Court considered that the applicant had lodged a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the date that complaint had been lodged before the Court was 12 June 2006 and not 29 April 2005. | 5 |
104. The Government argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. The applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the guard and the latter had responded accordingly. The guard had duly warned the applicant and only after that had he used a rubber truncheon to restrain him. The investigation carried out by the authorities in response to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been effective as required by the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
76. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1) had been inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of detention. The relevant Articles provide: | 5 |
216. The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture while in custody from 19 to 23 April 2004 and that there had been no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The first applicant also complained that he had not been provided with requisite medical assistance and allowed to meet his family during his hunger strike. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
42. The applicant’s allegations of his injuries being the result of ill‑treatment by the police officers from the Sverdlovskiy district police department were dismissed by the investigation authorities based on the pre‑investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 129, 24 July 2014). The mere carrying out of a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article <mask> of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (ibid., §§ 129 and 132‑36). | 5 |
225. The Government stated, with reference to information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, that “the investigation had established the fact that bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant”, but argued that before all the circumstances of the offence had been established there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. The Government also insisted that the investigation in the present case had not breached the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the applicant had been granted victim status and could have participated in the criminal proceedings. | 5 |
66. The applicant submitted that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of his allegations of ill-treatment which warranted an investigation by the authorities in conformity with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection he referred to his injuries, whose nature and number had been specified in the expert report. The possible origin of the injuries specified in the report (blunt dynamic force) corresponded to the applicant’s allegations that he had been beaten, while being held incommunicado, with a plastic bottle and a rubber tube (see paragraph 23 above). The number and location of the injuries on his body suggested that they had been inflicted when he had been in a position of restricted freedom to move (restrained) by people who had full control over him. If the authorities had carried out a medical check-up after he had been arrested and before he had been detained, his injuries would have been brought to light in good time. The medical examination of 19 August 2005 was not followed up by an effective investigation by the relevant authorities. The public prosecutor did nothing to investigate his allegations. Likewise, the trial judge had been focused on examining the criminal case against the applicant. The courts had summarily concluded that the applicant’s statement of 8 November 2005 was self-serving and was aimed at avoiding criminal responsibility. Lastly, his criminal complaint submitted to the public prosecutor was to no avail. | 5 |
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility and that he was awarded inadequate compensation for the aforesaid violation by the domestic courts. In particular, he contended that the compensation awarded was very low and was rendered meaningless by the fact that he had to pay high court fees on the dismissed part of his claim. | 5 |
15. The Government submitted that the case had been adequately and thoroughly examined in two different court proceedings. In consequence of comprehensive taking of evidence, the Székesfehérvár District Court had acquitted the applicant of drunken driving and violence against an official, while the Budapest Regional Court had also acquitted the police officers involved of the applicant’s charges. For the Government, it followed from this that the applicant’s version of events was not supported by evidence beyond any doubt. The Government noted that the applicant had admitted to having had a quarrel with the police officers, been drunk and refused to identify himself. This had served as a legitimate ground for the police action. Moreover, it had not been contested that the applicant had, in a heated situation, showed resistance which could be subdued only with physical force. However, the injuries outlined in the medical report drawn up right after the impugned police action did not support the applicant’s allegations of lasting and serious ill-treatment. Maintaining that the police action had been necessary and proportionate, the Government concluded that the injuries caused by the coercion used against the applicant could not have attained the level necessary for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
70. The applicant finally argued that it was true that Article <mask> of the Convention permitted the respondent State to implement legal provisions aimed at protecting its citizens. However, that provision did not authorise that State to act in breach of other Convention Articles. Moreover, it had been possible to place him in preventive detention at the time of his conviction, but the sentencing court decided not to do so. | 5 |
67. The applicant submitted that Article 13 had been violated in his case since Armenian law had not provided a possibility to seek compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of ill-treatment. He argued that for Article 13 to apply, it was sufficient to have an arguable claim in terms of the Convention. Thus, even if the investigator had decided not to prosecute the police officers by his decision of 21 June 2005, the fact of his ill-treatment and the unlawfulness of the police actions had been unequivocally established by the judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 16 February 2006 and the higher courts. He therefore had had an arguable claim before the civil courts of having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, his civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage had been dismissed because that type of compensation had not provided for in domestic law. | 5 |
158. The applicants made two complaints in relation to their proposed extradition. First, they complained that, if convicted in the United States, they would be detained at ADX Florence and, furthermore, would be subjected to special administrative measures (SAMS). They submitted that conditions of detention at ADX Florence (whether alone or in conjunction with SAMS) would violate Article <mask> of the Convention. Second, the applicants complained that, if convicted, they would face sentences of life imprisonment without parole and/or extremely long sentences of determinate length in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
32. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant neither claimed that he had ever been involved in any political activities, nor submitted any evidence confirming that the criminal proceedings against the owner and officials of the BTA bank had been politically motivated. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Kazakhstan was insufficient and that evidence was needed that the applicant himself ran a personal risk of facing ill-treatment in Kazakhstan. The Government considered that the applicant's allegations were not corroborated by any other evidence. They referred to the Court's case-law in which such personal circumstances had been successfully advanced by the applicants in support of their allegations (Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 64, 10 December 2009, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 81, ECHR 2007‑VII (extracts)), as well as to the Court's case-law in which a lack of substantiation led to the rejection of similar complaints (Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, § 34, 18 February 2010, and Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004). They also noted that the Ukrainian authorities had received sufficient assurances from their Kazakh counterparts that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that a review of the Court’s case-law considering the issue of life imprisonment from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention demonstrated the compatibility of Russian law – which provided for the right to release on parole also in cases where life imprisonment had been imposed – with the Convention. Life imprisonment could be imposed in a majority of States worldwide and, according to the Government, only six member States of the Council of Europe had abolished it. In Russia life imprisonment was a penalty for the most serious crimes but was always accompanied by alternative penalties and never applied automatically. The Government emphasised that the Contracting States should be allowed a margin of appreciation in deciding on the appropriate length of prison sentences for particular crimes (they referred to László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, § 46, 20 May 2014). | 5 |
47. The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that in the present case a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was difficult to prove because there had been no effective investigation. He disagreed with the Government’s contention that his complaint was belated – he had submitted the complaint one week after his discharge from the hospital, on 8 September 2003, and one week later it had been forwarded to the police. He argued that he was not obliged to provide conclusive evidence in support of his allegations as the obligation to investigate and gather evidence was incumbent on the domestic authorities. | 5 |
114. The Government argued that the sterilisation procedures had been performed in a medical institution in accordance with the law and with the aim of protecting the applicants’ health and lives. The applicants themselves had requested their sterilisation and had signed the relevant documents. The fact that the formal approval of their legal guardians had not been obtained as requested by the law was not relevant from the viewpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in view of their age and the fact that they lived with partners and children, they could be considered mature enough to decide on their own health. They had therefore not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
22. The Government argued that the second applicant, Zinnet Onay, who is the mother of the first, was not a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that it was clear from the documents of apprehension and detention that the young man's parents had not made any attempt to visit him or challenge his detention, although they had been promptly informed of his arrest. | 5 |
63. The Government argued that in a situation such as the present one, where the applicant claimed, on the basis of the same circumstances, a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time before the domestic authorities and a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, it was necessary to examine whether the complaint had already been appropriately addressed by the competent domestic authorities and whether the applicant had already been granted just satisfaction. Recalling that the applicant had been awarded and paid compensation for non-pecuniary damage before the domestic courts, the Government emphasised that in deciding the applicant’s claim, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant, then a minor, had been a victim of a series of offences over a long period of time, and that during the criminal proceedings she had been required to repeatedly testify and relive the abuse she had suffered. In its judgment, the competent local court had considered the whole duration of the proceedings and the way in which their particular circumstances had affected the applicant. The court had evaluated all these circumstances in relation to the activity expected of the competent authorities. | 5 |
31. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had used excessive force against him at the time of his arrest and had insulted and beaten him. He also alleged a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention maintaining that the lawfulness of his detention had not been decided speedily by the courts, due to the fact that his correspondence had been delayed by the authorities. He further alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention given the unfairness of the criminal proceedings and the unlawful publicity about the proceedings in the media, which had negatively affected their fairness. Under the same provision the applicant also complained about the poor quality of his defence conducted by a legal-aid lawyer. In addition, under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that visits from his family in prison were rarely granted and his letters to his family were open and read. Finally, the applicant alleged that in view of his overall treatment in the course of the proceedings, he had been discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. | 5 |
50. The Government denied the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and considered them unsubstantiated, referring to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor in response to the applicants’ complaints and to the conclusions reached in this regard by the trial and appellate courts. The Government further submitted that the investigation conducted by the Russian authorities had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
64. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus, he risked being sentenced to the death penalty; he would be ill-treated in Belarusian detention facilities, in particular, with a view to extracting a confession from him in relation to the criminal offences he was accused of; and that he would have to suffer from appalling conditions of detention in such facilities. The applicant also alleged that the above matters, in particular concerning the risk of ill-treatment, had not been properly examined by the Russian authorities. | 5 |
132. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had been forcibly handed over to Uzbek State agents by the FSB agents “Timur” and “Zakhar”. The applicant had been subjected to torture while in detention in Uzbekistan. The Russian authorities had belatedly opened an investigation into the applicant’s abduction and had failed to take all the requisite measures to elucidate its circumstances, in breach of their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
105. The Government argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's view, the investigation had not breached the requirements of that provision. They also claimed that “the perception of events is a very personal matter depending on emotional and other specific features of an individual's personality and relates in fact to the field of psychology”, and that therefore “it is impossible to assess the degree of the applicant's mental suffering from the views of the investigating officers”, the latter being responsible only for investigating criminal offences. | 5 |
99. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relative had been ill-treated during his apprehension and most likely tortured during his detention. The first, second and third applicants also claimed that as a result of their family member’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
53. The applicant referred to the Court’s decision on the admissibility of his application and replied that he had provided the German courts with documents showing that he faced persecution if expelled to Iran right from the start of the proceedings. Accordingly, he requested the authorities to grant him refugee status and a work permit. He also sought an award of 22,060 German marks (DEM) and DEM 600 monthly for the period from December 2000 until the Court’s judgment on the merits for pecuniary damage. His current immigration status was neither valid nor satisfactory. Referring to Ahmed v. Austria (judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), he asked the Court to rule on the merits, as, in his submission, he remained a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly he alleged that, owing to his unstable situation, one that prevented him from getting married or starting a home, he was also a victim of a violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention. | 5 |
47. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, only Mr Mangîr adduced medical evidence proving that he had been diagnosed with concussion after his release from detention. The other applicants failed to adduce any evidence, such as medical documents or witness statements, in support of their allegations. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article 3, in respect of the four other applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. | 5 |
70. The applicant further complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy through which to assert his claim that he had been summoned and sentenced in absentia to seven years’ imprisonment and 70 lashes of the whip by the Revolutionary Court of Teheran and would therefore be exposed to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Article 13 reads: | 5 |
76. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. He further complained that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention and that the material conditions of his detention had been poor. Lastly, he complained that he had not been provided with food and water on hearing days. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
44. The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers who, owing to an inadequate investigation, had been neither identified nor punished. They also complained that the German legal system did not provide them with an effective judicial remedy to complain about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation. In this connection, the applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3. | 5 |
146. The Government have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the applicant’s injuries recorded following his transfer from Kentron Police Station. The applicant, on the other hand, has consistently and repeatedly raised his allegations of ill-treatment before various domestic authorities (see paragraphs 37, 44 48, 55, 81 and 86 above). In the absence of such explanation, either at the domestic investigation stage or before the Court, the Court concludes that the applicant has suffered treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention at the hands of the police. | 5 |
118. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during the abduction of Murad Gelayev, the second and fourth applicants were subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that Murad Gelayev was subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention following the abduction, while at the hands of State agents. They further complained that the Russian authorities failed to comply with the procedural obligations arising from Article 3 to investigate these alleged instances of ill-treatment and torture. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
37. The Government firstly submitted that the obligation to investigate under Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In that connection, they submitted that the investigation of the assault against the applicant had been prompt, independent and adequate – the investigating authorities had established all the essential circumstances of the assault and had identified the perpetrators, the applicant had been sufficiently involved in the proceedings as a victim and as a civil party, and there had not been any lengthy periods of delay. The Government argued that the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings due to the expiry of the statute of limitations had not automatically rendered those proceedings ineffective. | 5 |
123. The applicant maintained that he had been ill-treated and tortured by the police in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his assertion he submitted the transcripts of oral submissions of F (the co-suspect in the alleged killing of MS), B, M and V (his ward mate in Hospital no. 39) taken by two human rights activists in 1999 as part of the unofficial investigation into the events of September 1998 (summarised above in the “Facts” part). Further, the applicant alleged that the statements made by the police officers during the investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment had been fundamentally inconsistent, reflecting the fallacious nature of the version of events advanced by the authorities. In support of his observations the applicant also referred to a number of documents from the official investigation case-file, but to which he had no access at present. | 5 |
61. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the Gdansk Detention Centre had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the conditions of detention had been inhuman. The design of cells made it impossible for two detainees sharing the same cell to move around freely. Cells were equipped with separate toilets but the surface of the toilet was included in the calculation of the surface of the cell. | 5 |
39. The Government submitted that on 24 July 2008 the applicant had been released from Łowicz Prison. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation. | 5 |
51. The applicant claimed in particular that he had been transported in cramped conditions to and from the City Court on one hundred and ninety-five days. At the courthouse he had been kept in a cell measuring 1.5 square metres with two to three other persons. There had been no bench, no ventilation and no natural light in the cell. He had been given no food or drink on those days. The applicant argued that his confinement at the assembly section of the remand centre prior to departure, his transport in overcrowded vans and confinement at the courthouse, including lack of food on those days, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
89. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment at the time of his arrest on 19 October 2001, that he had been kept in solitary confinement, that he had been detained under the special regime reserved for “dangerous prisoners” and that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with the ophthalmological care required by his medical situation. Furthermore, he complained under Articles 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention of a lack of sufficient evidence for his arrest and the alleged lack of a legal basis for his pre‑trial detention starting from 18 March 2004. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the impossibility, prior to the CCP being amended by Law no. 281/2003, to appeal against the interlocutory judgments extending his pre‑trial detention and the lack of a legal basis for his pre‑trial detention after 17 June 2004. He further complained about the length of that period of detention. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention of the alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the judges who had extended his pre‑trial detention and the breach of his right to presumption of innocence following the alleged publication of press articles containing “compromising accusations” about him before the judges had examined the extension of his pre‑trial detention. | 5 |
102. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in the light of the case-law of the Court. They submitted that the judgments cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all the necessary measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute in itself just satisfaction. | 5 |
39. The applicant made three distinct complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention: he alleged (i) that the material conditions of his detention in prison no. 7 had been poor; (ii) that he had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis there; and (iii) that he had not been provided with appropriate medical care for his various diseases in prison. The relevant provision reads as follows: | 5 |
21. The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the author of the “protest letter” that had been found by the authorities. The applicant was only one of about 135 prisoners who had signed the letter, which had been addressed to the Minister of Justice. Moreover, the letter voiced the prisoners’ criticism of proposed legislative changes and should under no circumstances have been considered as putting the security of the prison at risk. The applicant pointed out that no collective remonstrance had taken place in the months following the incident, which proved his assertion. | 5 |
33. The Government stressed that the applicant had had the right to receive a visit from a family member or a phone call once a week. Moreover, once a week he had the right to visit a “day room” in which he could participate in cultural and educational activities. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision. | 5 |
53. The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the conditions of his detention under the additional security measures, in particular the use of handcuffs on him at all times when he was outside of his cell and his being banned from using the prison’s sports facilities and exercising, the restriction on his movement and communication with others and the ban on participating in social and family events, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. | 5 |
58. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of that inadequate medical care had been secured to him in Dobrowo and Koszalin Remand Centres. He submitted that because of the poor sanitation conditions and limited opportunities for keeping clean he had contracted various skin diseases. Some of those ailments still affected the applicant up to this day. The applicant also complained that, contrary to doctor’s recommendations, he had not been assigned a bottom bunk bed. | 5 |
58. The applicant maintained that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the prison officers had “used violence and caused injuries” to him. He considered these actions unlawful. The applicant referred to his injuries as identified following a forensic medical examination (see paragraph 34 above). With a reference to the Ribitsch judgement (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), he alleged that physical force against him had not been necessary. He further argued that the use of restraint measures against him had not been justified or proportionate, as his behaviour could not have been considered an attack on prison officers. The applicant pointed out that there were three prison officers against him. He had been in prison for a long time, was not armed, and was far from young. | 5 |
33. The Government argued further that any suffering on the part of the first applicant during the events at issue had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the prosecution authorities had been well aware of his state of health, and had carried out their actions – searches of his premises and cars, preparation of the necessary documents and court hearing concerning the proposal to place him under house arrest – as quickly and painlessly for him as possible. Moreover, the first applicant’s care assistant and the second applicant had been allowed to help him, and the first applicant had been allowed to remain in his car, where the police had brought the equipment necessary for the bringing of charges. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the authorities had never meant to deliberately humiliate the applicant. | 5 |
86. The applicant sustained a fracture of the jaw and some other injuries (see paragraphs 37, 46, 52 and 54 above). Although some of the injuries did not constitute damage to health by national standards, this does not prevent the national authorities and the Court from establishing whether those injuries were sufficiently serious to reach the “minimum level of severity” under Article <mask> of the Convention. Giving an affirmative answer to this, it remains for the Court to examine whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 for the injuries. | 5 |
61. The applicant complained that his proposed removal would place the United Kingdom in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While the domestic authorities found that certain aspects of his account were not credible, he now relied solely on facts which were not in dispute, namely that he was a southern Bhutanese of Nepalese origin, who was a failed asylum seeker forcibly being returned to Bhutan. | 5 |
63. The applicant submitted that his detention pending the moratorium on executions amounted to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given the fear of a possible resumption of executions, the long time spent in uncertainty (1990 -98) and the detention's material conditions and regime. That situation was exacerbated by the fact that no judicial remedies capable of improving the applicant's situation were available. | 5 |
140. The applicant submitted that the reason why his action had been rejected as unsubstantiated had been the refusals of the courts to carry out an on‑the‑spot inspection of the detention facility and to question the director of the National Investigation Service. On the other hand, the administration of the detention facility had refused the experts’ access to it, thereby hampering the establishment of the conditions in it, which were the basis of the applicant’s action. The possibility to prove the impact of these conditions on the applicant had therefore become pointless. For this reason he had not brought witnesses, hoping that the Supreme Court of Cassation would consider the refusals of the courts below to order an inspection and an expert report serious breaches of the rules of procedure and remit the case. However, because of the legislative changes in November 2002 the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation had been discontinued, thus excluding this possibility. In the applicant’s view, the particular requirements of the State Responsibility for Damage Act, coupled with the stance of the courts and the impossibility to have an appeal on points of law examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation had rendered the action under the Act an ineffective remedy against the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, it was not open to the applicant to make a claim under the general tort law, because of the rule of section 8 of the Act. | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.