Datasets:

minsuhan

/

fact_full_lexabsumm

like 0

Personal space in multi-occupancy cell and prison overcrowding

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9. The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Kuršanec. A. Background to the case 10. In a judgment of the Čakovec County Court ( Županijski sud u Čakovcu ) of 19 June 2008, upheld by the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 3 February 2009, the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. 11. On 2 July 2010 the Čakovec Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Čakovcu ) sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment for theft, which was confirmed by the Čakovec County Court on 3 November 2010. 12. Following a request by the applicant, on 26 August 2011 a three-judge panel of the Čakovec County Court took into account those two convictions and sentenced him to a single term of two years and eleven months’ imprisonment. B. Conditions of the applicant’s detention in Bjelovar Prison 13. On 16 October 2009 the applicant was transferred from a semi-open regime in Turopolje State Prison ( Kaznionica u Turopolju ) to Bjelovar County Prison ( Zatvor u Bjelovaru ) to serve the prison sentence originally imposed by the Čakovec County Court on 19 June 2008 (see paragraph 10 above). The reason for the transfer, as indicated in a report of Turopolje State Prison, was the applicant’s inappropriate behaviour and threats of escape. 14. The applicant remained in Bjelovar Prison until 16 March 2011, when he was transferred to Varaždin County Prison ( Zatvor u Varaždinu ) following a decision by the Ministry of Justice Prison Administration ( Ministarstvo pravosuđa, Uprava za zatvorski sustav ) of 11 March 2011. 15. According to the applicant, during his stay in Bjelovar Prison he was placed in overcrowded cells. He alleged in particular that for a period of fifty days in total he disposed of less than 3 square metres (sq. m) of personal space, including for a period of twenty-seven consecutive days. There were also several non-consecutive periods in which he was allocated between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the cells (see paragraph 17 below). 16. The applicant further submitted that the cells in which he had been held were badly maintained, humid, dirty and insufficiently equipped with lockers and chairs for all inmates. The sanitary facilities were in the same room as the living area, from which they were not fully separated. Those facilities were about half a metre away from the dining table and there was a constant smell in the cell. Moreover, he had not been given any opportunity to engage in prison work and in general was not provided with sufficient access to recreational and educational activities. The prisoners were allowed to move freely outside the locked part of the prison between 4 and 7 p.m., and the out-of-cell facilities were inadequate and insufficient, particularly given that there was only an open recreation yard. The nutrition was poor and the hygiene conditions were inadequate, especially since the toilet was not separated from the living area. The inmates did not have sufficient access to hot water and were allowed to shower only once or sometimes three times per week. 17. According to the Government, while in Bjelovar Prison the applicant had at his disposal an average of 3.59 sq. m of personal space. He was held in four different cells, the conditions of which are detailed in the table below. The measurements of the cells indicate their overall size (as provided by the Government) and with the in-cell sanitary facility deducted (based on the methodology enunciated in paragraph 114 below). That calculation is based on an approximate measurement of the sanitary facility (1.9 sq. m) according to the floor plans of Bjelovar Prison, which the Government provided to the Court and which are not disputed by the applicant. Cell no. Period of detention Total number of inmates Overall surface area in sq. m Personal space in sq. m Surface minus sanitary facility in sq. m Personal space in sq. m 1/O 16.10-15.11.2009 6 19.7 3.28 17.8 2.96 1/O 16.11-19.11.2009 5 19.7 3.94 17.8 3.56 1/O 20.11.2009-05.02.2010 6 19.7 3.28 17.8 2.96 1/O 06.02-08.02.2010 5 19.7 3.94 17.8 3.56 1/O 09.02-10.04.2010 6 19.7 3.28 17.8 2.96 1/O 11.04.-20.04.2010 5 19.7 3.94 17.8 3.56 8/O 21.04.2010 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 8/O 22.04-29.04.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 30.04-02.05.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 03.05-05.05.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 06.05-07.05.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 08.05-09.05.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 10.05.-25.05.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 26.05.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 27.05-02.06.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 03.06-04.06.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 05.06-16.06.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 17.06-19.06.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 20.06-30.06.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 01.07-02.07.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 03.07-05.07.2010 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 8/O 06.07-17.07.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 18.07-13.08.2010 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 14.08-17.08.2010 Period spent in the prison hospital 8/O 18.08-26.08.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 27.08-30.08.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 4/O 31.08-02.09.2010 8 22.36 2.80 20.46 2.55 4/O 03.09.2010 7 22.36 3.19 20.46 2.92 8/O 04.09-06.09.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 07.09.2010 4 22.88 5.72 20.98 5.24 8/O 08.09-16.09.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 17.09.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 18.09.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 19.09-01.10.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 02.10-05.10.2010 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/I 06.10-07.10.2010 5 22.18 4.44 20.28 4.05 8/I 08.10-19.10.2010 4 22.18 5.55 20.28 5.07 8/I 20.10-21.10.2010 3 22.18 7.39 20.28 6.76 8/I 22.10-23.10.2010 4 22.18 5.55 20.28 5.07 8/I 24.10-25.10.2010 5 22.18 4.44 20.28 4.05 8/I 26.10-28.10.2010 6 22.18 3.70 20.28 3.38 8/I 29.10-30.10.2010 5 22.18 4.44 20.28 4.05 8/I 31.10-04.11.2010 6 22.18 3.70 20.28 3.38 4/O 05.11.2010 6 22.36 3.73 20.46 3.41 4/O 06.11-09.11.2010 5 22.36 4.47 20.46 4.09 4/O 10.11-13.11.2010 6 22.36 3.73 20.46 3.41 4/O 14.11-18.11.2010 7 22.36 3.19 20.46 2.92 4/O 19.11-26.11.2010 8 22.36 2.80 20.46 2.55 4/O 27.11-30.11.2010 7 22.36 3.19 20.46 2.92 8/O 01.12-03.12.2010 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 04.12-09.12.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 10.12-12.12.2010 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 8/O 13.12-21.12.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 22.12-24.12.2010 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 8/O 25.12-31.12.2010 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 01.01-16.01.2011 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 17.01-25.01.2011 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 26.01-27.01.2011 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 8/O 28.01-23.02.2011 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 24.02-25.02.2011 8 22.88 2.86 20.98 2.62 8/O 26.02-28.02.2011 7 22.88 3.27 20.98 2.99 8/O 01.03-15.03.2011 5 22.88 4.58 20.98 4.19 8/O 16.03.2011 6 22.88 3.81 20.98 3.49 18. The Government further explained that each cell in which the applicant had been accommodated had had windows allowing in natural light and fresh air. Artificial light was also secured and all cells were heated by a central heating system and equipped with a communication system enabling the inmates to contact prison staff immediately in case of need. All cells had a toilet fully separated from the living area and equipped with its own ventilation system. All cells had direct access to drinking water. The cells were constantly maintained and some necessary reconstruction work and improvements to the facilities had been carried out in 2007, July 2009 and May-July 2010, as well as in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Furthermore, the inmates were provided with all necessary hygiene and sanitary facilities. This included a shower three times per week and after sports activities. Every inmate was also regularly provided with the necessary toiletries and cleaning supplies for keeping the cells clean. The inmates were provided with clean bedding and bedspreads every fifteen days, or more often if necessary. In addition, the inmates were provided with the necessary clothing although they were allowed to use their own clothes. Nutrition was based on an assessment by experts and the quality of the food was constantly monitored by the competent State authorities. The inmates were provided with three meals per day meeting the necessary nutrition requirements, as supervised by the prison doctor. Meals could be taken to cells or eaten in a common room. 19. The Government also explained that the inmates were allowed to move freely outside their cells in the morning and afternoon, and to use the indoor and outdoor facilities of Bjelovar Prison. This in particular included two hours of outdoor exercise and in addition free out-of-cell movement inside the prison between 4 and 7 p.m. Specifically, in the ordinary daily regime, the inmates would wake up at 7 a.m. on working days and at 7.30 a.m. on weekends and public holidays. They would then wash, tidy their beds, and have breakfast, followed by the morning cleaning of the cell. Leisure time was scheduled afterwards, until 1 p.m., when they had an opportunity to take part in a number of activities. Leisure time was followed by lunch served between 1 and 2 p.m. The period after lunch was usually set aside for various group activities and meetings with lawyers and prison staff. Between 4 and 7 p.m. all cell doors were opened again, enabling the inmates to move about within the prison and to use its facilities as they saw fit. Dinner was served from 7 p.m., followed by the evening tidying and cleaning of the cells and other rooms in the prison. 20. The Government submitted that Bjelovar Prison was equipped with a recreation area located in the courtyard, which, in addition to the asphalted parts, included a lawn. The surface area of the courtyard was 305 sq. m. There was also direct access to drinking water and artificial light as well as protection from inclement weather available in the recreation area. The gym was open between 8 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. and between 2 and 6 p.m., and the basketball court was open on working days between 3 and 4 p.m. and at the weekends in both the morning and the afternoon. The recreation area was also equipped with a badminton court and ping-pong tables. The inmates were able to borrow books and use other services of the Bjelovar library, which were regularly available in the prison. The prison administration also organised religious ceremonies and contacts with cultural and religious associations. Each cell was equipped with cable television, which could be watched between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. during working days, and between 7.30 a.m. and midnight at weekends and on public holidays. There were also radio receivers in the cells and the possibility of borrowing and watching films from a collection available in Bjelovar Prison. In addition, the inmates were allowed to socialise by playing board games. There was also a room for spousal visits and the inmates were allowed to obtain various goods from outside the prison. Bjelovar Prison also offered a possibility of education in prison but the applicant had decided not to avail himself of that opportunity. Remunerated work in prison was available in accordance with the economic possibilities, which were at the time limited due to the general economic crisis. A possibility of work outside the prison existed but the applicant’s previous threats to escape and his inadequate behaviour in detention had not made him eligible for this possibility. During his stay in Bjelovar Prison, the applicant had regularly received medical treatment. He had seen his family four times while standing trial for another offence in Čakovec and had been allowed to speak to them by telephone twenty minutes per week, with an additional ten minutes on public holidays. 21. The Government substantiated their arguments with photographs taken in 2007, 2010 and 2011 in the context of the renovation of the prison and visits by various officials to the prison, floor plans and other relevant documentation related to the available facilities in Bjelovar Prison and the applicant’s health care and nutrition. C. The applicant’s complaints about the prison conditions 22. On 24 March 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the Bjelovar Prison administration through a lawyer, asking to be transferred to Varaždin Prison for personal and family reasons. 23. On 26 April 2010 he complained to the Ministry of Justice Prison Administration in general terms about the conduct of the Bjelovar Prison administration, alleging that they had never offered him the opportunity to have a meeting with the relevant officials, that his request for a transfer had been ignored and that the prison food had been inadequate. 24. The applicant again reiterated his request for a transfer to Varaždin Prison on 6 May 2010, citing personal and family reasons, particularly his family’s lack of financial means, which made it difficult for them to visit him. 25. On 14 July 2010 the Ministry of Justice Prison Administration replied to the applicant’s complaints, finding them ill-founded in all respects. It pointed out that he had been given sufficient opportunity to have contact with his family by telephone and while attending the court hearings in March, April and July 2010 in the criminal proceedings against him, that he had not been engaged in any work because there had been an insufficient number of work posts in Bjelovar Prison, that he had had seven meetings with the prison governor and twenty-five meetings with various other Bjelovar Prison officials, and that food had been prepared in consultation with experts, the prison diet having been continuously supervised by the prison doctor. 26. On 24 August 2010 the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to a sentence-execution judge of the Bjelovar County Court ( Županijski sud u Bjelovaru ). He pointed out that central to his complaints was his wish to be transferred to another prison closer to his family. He also complained, in particular, that his request to engage in prison work had not been answered. He was being detained with seven other inmates in cell no. 8, which measured 18 sq. m in total and was inadequately equipped and maintained. Hygiene conditions were poor, given that he had been allowed to take a shower only three times per week. 27. Following the applicant’s complaint, the sentence-execution judge requested a detailed report from Bjelovar Prison concerning the conditions of his detention. 28. After obtaining the relevant report and hearing the applicant in person, on 7 October 2010 the sentence-execution judge dismissed his complaints as ill-founded. She found, in particular, that the applicant had sufficient personal space at his disposal, given that four other persons were at the time placed with him in the same cell. The sentence-execution judge also found that the applicant was provided with sufficient hygiene and sanitary facilities, and that he was not engaged in prison work since such opportunities did not exist for all prisoners in Bjelovar Prison. 29. On 15 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence-execution judge’s decision with a three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court, alleging that she had erred in her factual findings, as cell no. 8 had been occupied by up to eight inmates. 30. On 21 October 2010 a three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the sentence-execution judge. It also explained that the required standard for personal space under the Enforcement of Prison Sentence Act, namely 4 sq. m, was the recommended minimum standard that should in principle be respected, but that there could be no automatic violation of a prisoner’s rights if such a standard was temporarily not complied with. In view of the fact that a reduction in the applicant’s personal space in cell no. 8 had only been temporary, the three-judge panel considered that there had been no violation of his rights. 31. On 5 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Bjelovar County Court about the decision of its three-judge panel. He argued that for the first six months following his arrival at Bjelovar Prison, he had been detained in cell no. 1, measuring 17.13 sq. m, where six inmates in total had been detained. He had then spent one month in cell no. 8 on the first floor with six inmates, which had measured 17.13 sq. m. He had then been placed in another cell, also marked “cell no. 8”, which again measured 17.13 sq. m, where he had spent six months with eight inmates. At the time of his complaint he was being held in cell no. 4 with six inmates. 32. On 20 November 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), relying on Article 14 § 2 (equality before the law), Article 26 (equality before the State authorities) and Article 29 (right to a fair trial) of the Constitution, complaining in general terms of a lack of personal space and work opportunities in Bjelovar Prison. He also relied on section 74(3) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act, guaranteeing adequate personal space to detainees, and alleged that this provision had not been complied with in his case. 33. On 26 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Ombudsperson ( Pučki pravobranitelj ) that he had not been granted a transfer to a prison closer to his family, and alleged in general terms that the conditions of his detention had been inadequate. 34. Meanwhile, in November 2010 the applicant joined a group of inmates who complained to the sentence-execution judge about inadequate general conditions in Bjelovar Prison. 35. By a letter of 7 December 2010 the Ombudsperson invited the applicant to further substantiate his complaints. 36. The applicant replied to that request on 21 December 2010, indicating that the sentence-execution judge and the three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court had never examined his complaints properly, and that he had not been granted 4 sq. m of personal space in detention as required under the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act. 37. In March 2011 the applicant saw a psychiatrist, who found that the applicant was frustrated with his internment and the impossibility of seeing his family. 38. On 12 April 2011 the Ombudsperson replied to the applicant’s letter that, according to the information available, his accommodation in Bjelovar Prison had fallen short of the requirements of adequate personal space under the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act. The Ombudsperson also pointed out that the cell where the applicant was being detained had been renovated in 2010, and complied with all hygiene and health standards. The Ombudsman also noted that, just like ninety-two other inmates, the applicant had not been engaged in prison work, as there had been an insufficient number of work posts for all prisoners. 39. On 5 June 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint (see paragraph 32 above) inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The relevant part of the decision reads: “In his constitutional complaint, the complainant was unable to show that the Bjelovar County Court had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant’s constitutional rights. Thus, there is no constitutional law issue in the case for the Constitutional Court to decide upon ... ” 40. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 June 2012.

The applicant complained that he had been held in poor conditions at Bjelovar Prison. He alleged that he had disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space in his cell for a number of non-consecutive periods of a total duration of 50 days and personal space of between 3 and 4 sq. m in other periods. He also complained that the sanitary facilities, conditions of hygiene, food, the possibility of engaging in prison work and access to recreational or educational activities in the prison had been insufficient.

Treatment of disabled prisoners

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. Facts submitted at the time of the application 5. The applicant, who was born in 1972, is serving a thirty-year prison sentence imposed on 31 May 2007 by the Meurthe - et - Moselle Assize Court for murder, attempted murder and assault involving the use or threatened use of a weapon. He has been imprisoned since 17 May 2002 and will become eligible for release on 18 July 2027. 6. On 18 March 2006, while he was in prison in Nancy, the applicant fell several metres during an attempted escape and suffered a fractured spine. He spent several months at the Fresnes rehabilitation clinic before being transferred to Mulhouse Prison, where he encountered substantial difficulties ( particularly on account of the staircases, which made it impossible for him to move about unaided ), and Metz Prison, where his cell was not equipped for wheelchair use. He was subsequently transferred back to Fresnes from 5 November 2008 until 28 May 2009. From that date until 17 September 2014 he was held in Uzerche Prison, before being transferred to Poitiers-Vivonne Prison, where he is currently detained. 7. On 12 August 2010 the applicant applied to the Tulle judge responsible for the execution of sentences to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds, under Article 720-1-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph 27 below ). He explained that as a wheelchair user with paraplegia, he was not being detained in appropriate conditions since the premises were not designed for wheelchair use, and he was unable to receive the care he required. He noted that access to the toilet in his cell was undignified, that he could not reach all parts of the prison premises unaided, and that the provision of medical and paramedical care was inadequate, particularly as regards physiotherapy. He pointed out that he was unable to go to the showers autonomously and that the prison had assigned a prisoner to assist him for a payment of fifty euros per month. This prison orderly was responsible for cleaning the applicant ’ s cell and accompanying him to the showers and washroom. 8. In an order of 27 September 2010 the judge appointed two doctors as experts. They submitted their reports on 2 and 14 November 2010. 9. The report by Dr G., drawn up on 21 October 2010, concluded : “... Mr Mohammed Helhal has incomplete paraplegia with total effective urinary incontinence requiring self-catheterisation and round-the-clock use of a nappy. He also has major haemorrhoidal irregularities, for which he has refused any treatment. Mr Mohammed Helhal currently has active muscle relaxation in the two lower limbs, for which physiotherapy is required several times a week on a regular, long-term basis. That being so, Mr Mohammed Helhal ’ s state of health is not incompatible with imprisonment, subject to the express condition of being detained in a facility catering for his disability, where he can undergo regular physiotherapy and have appropriate access to a gym. ” 10. The report by Dr R. was drawn up on 28 October 2010 and read as follows: “... On 17 November 2009 ... Dr Dubois stated : ... ‘ his condition requires treatment by a physiotherapist in a specialist environment and daily pressure - sore relief ’. ... The most recent assessment at Bordeaux University Hospital, where the patient stayed from 5 to 12 March 2010, confirms that there has been a good sensorimotor recovery in the lower limbs and that mobility is possible with two walking sticks and a frame, whereas at present the patient mainly moves about in a wheelchair. Appropriate physiotherapy focusing on both the joints and the muscles would clearly enable the prisoner to perform his own transfers with technical support, which would also have the benefit of easing the complications at the pressure points. At the same time, alongside the favourable progress in this post-traumatic condition, the patient has an anal disorder as a result of haemorrhoid surgery, and this essentially causes discomfort on a functional level. Conclusion ... - The prisoner displays sensorimotor damage resulting from a thoracolumbar spine fracture; - The damage is stable with clear evidence of motor recovery in the lower limbs; - Daily physiotherapy would be justified to improve motor skills in the lower limbs and the quality of transfers, but this is not possible at Uzerche Prison as there is no on-site physiotherapist; - There is permanent sensory damage in the L5-S1 region requiring self-catheterisation, which is being adequately managed on a day-to-day basis by the prisoner; - All of these spinal conditions are currently stable and unlikely to worsen, but could improve with proper treatment; - The various disorders observed, in terms of both traumatic spinal cord injuries and anal damage, are not life-endangering for the prisoner; - The prisoner ’ s state of health is in my opinion not incompatible in the long term with continued detention; - The disorders currently observed are stable and will continue to develop on a chronic basis, justifying palliative care. ” 11. In a judgment of 3 February 2011 the Limoges Post-Sentencing Court dismissed the application for suspension of the applicant ’ s sentence. It took into account the two concurring medical opinions in finding that the applicant ’ s state of health was compatible in the long term with his imprisonment. However, the court observed that “ Uzerche Prison manifestly fails to satisfy the criteria for ensuring a suitable detention regime for the applicant, in terms of both the premises and the availability of paramedical care, despite the undisputed efforts by the prison ’ s management and staff to ease the prisoner ’ s living conditions as far as possible”. It then noted that there were custodial facilities that were equipped to cater for the applicant ’ s condition, such as Fresnes Prison or Roanne Prison, “ which is designed and organised in a manner compatible with accommodating disabled prisoners, and where [he] will be able to have the regular physiotherapy sessions that he rightly demands, since a masseur /physiotherapist comes to the prison almost every day”. The court concluded as follows: “ It therefore appears from all of the above considerations, both from a medical perspective and in terms of the prospect of arranging suitable conditions of detention, that the prisoner does not satisfy the requirements for having his sentence suspended on medical grounds.” 12. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 3 February 2011. He reiterated that besides the structural inadequacy of Uzerche Prison, he had not been offered any special arrangements in terms of medical and paramedical care ( physiotherapy and access to the gym). He also submitted that Roanne Prison was no more suitable than Uzerche Prison as it did not have a rehabilitation facility. 13. In a judgment of 3 May 2011 the Post-Sentencing Division of the Limoges Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 3 February, holding: “ The two experts concurred in concluding that [the applicant ’ s] condition was not incompatible in the long term with detention provided that he was given physiotherapy and access to a gym. While it is indeed not possible for these requirements to be fulfilled at Uzerche Prison, where [ the applicant ] has been transferred at his own request to be closer to his family, it has not been shown that he cannot be accommodated in conditions catering for his disorders at Roanne Prison, and therefore the criteria for suspending the execution of his sentence have not been satisfied, particularly since [ the applicant ] continues to deny – as stated in his letter of 23 March 2011 – the serious criminal acts that led to his conviction .” 14. The applicant appealed on points of law. In a judgment of 31 August 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible. 15. In a letter of 28 February 2012 to the Registry of the Court, the applicant contended that he was not undergoing any physical rehabilitation, there being no physiotherapist at Uzerche Prison, and that he had no access to the gym. He wrote that his health was deteriorating on a daily basis and that he was being mistreated through the lack of provision of care. B. Facts brought to the Court ’ s attention in the parties ’ observations of 10 April and 14 June 2013 and the Government ’ s additional observations of 24 July 2013 1. Provision of care 16. According to the Government, the applicant has received the following medical assistance : ( a) twelve occasions of escorted leave between 3 May 2011 and 26 June 2012 for specialist consultations and medical imaging tests at Tulle Hospital and Limoges University Hospital; ( b) thirty-three medical appointments with a doctor from the prison medical unit, consisting of a medical examination on 28 May 2009 followed by consultations spread across his time at the prison ( ten in 2009, three in 2010, ten in 2011, six in 2012, one in 2013); ( c) three stays in hospital for several days in 2010, 2011 and 2012; ( d) technical assistance from nurses on fifty-five occasions between 2009 and 2013, plus weekly meetings with the prison nurse; ( e) eight psychiatric consultations and sixteen meetings with a psychiatric nurse; ( f) provision of medical equipment to alleviate or offset disabilities, including a walking frame ( June 2009), an anti- pressure-sore cushion ( August 2009), spectacles ( January 2010), a new wheelchair (September 2012), and an electrostimulation device ( February 2013). 17. In addition to the treatment described above, the Government informed the Court that from September 2012 the applicant had attended physiotherapy sessions at Uzerche Prison. The physiotherapist ’ s services had been engaged following three letters dated 18 November 2011, 28 December 2011 and 19 March 2012 in which the interregional director of the Prison Service had alerted the Director General of the Limousin Regional Health Agency to the detrimental effects of the lack of physiotherapy on the care provided to prisoners. 18. The Government added that the applicant had been offered the opportunity to attend yoga classes but had been removed from the list of those enrolled for the classes because of his non- attendance. 19. The applicant confirmed the occasions of escorted leave mentioned by the Government but pointed out that on each occasion he had been transferred by ambulance – with his wrists and ankles handcuffed – and had had to undergo a full body search beforehand and a rub-down search afterwards. He added that the full body searches carried out whenever he received visits and when he was escorted outside the prison were deeply humiliating; he was obliged to have his nappy inspected, and in order to proceed more quickly, several warders carried out this task together. During one inspection, a senior warder had said in front of everyone that “the boss had given instructions to inspect his nappy”. The applicant maintained that as a result of these practices, he had asked his sister to visit him less frequently. 20. With regard to the applicant ’ s complaints about the instances of escorted leave and the body searches, the Government pointed out that the physical damage he had suffered could not be regarded as having eradicated any security risk, since his health had no bearing on his potential connections on the outside and the risk of his escaping. To that end, they produced copies of two decisions dated 2011 (month illegible) and June 2012 ordering individual ( full body ) searches in connection with escorted leave for medical reasons. They noted that in May 2013 the applicant had been sent to a punishment cell for ten days following an assault on a fellow prisoner and the discovery of a mobile telephone in his cell. They stated that searches in the prison were not carried out systematically but on the basis of incidents noted during visits or in the cells. They produced three decisions ordering individual searches, dated 14 May and 26 December 2011 and 10 May 2013 ( involving searches of the applicant ’ s cell), and seven decisions ordering a one-off search of a specific sector of the prison after the visits received on 10 June 2011, 10 November 2011, 26 June 2012, 1 October 2012, 14 December 2012, 22 March 2013 and 31 May 2013. 21. With regard to physiotherapy, the applicant pointed out that he had only started receiving it in September 2012 and that it was limited to a weekly fifteen-minute session. He produced a medical certificate issued on 10 May 2013 by a doctor from the Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit ( unité de consultation et de soins ambulatoires – “the UCSA”) stating that his “ condition requires daily rehabilitation, which Uzerche Prison is unable to provide, both on account of the lack of qualified staff and because the premises are not suitably equipped. As a result, the patient cannot remain in this facility without his health suffering. He must be given the possibility of admission to a specialised facility.” The applicant submitted that the doctor was repeating what his colleagues had already noted on 17 November 2009 ( see paragraph 10 above ) and 11 March 2011; he produced a medical certificate signed on the latter date by a doctor from the UCSA who stated that the applicant could not remain in the facility without his health suffering and added that “his paraplegia must be treated in a rehabilitation centre ”. 22. With regard to the electrostimulation device, the applicant submitted that his doctor had obtained the funds needed to purchase it but that the prison authorities had not allowed him to do so. As to the possibility of attending yoga classes, the applicant pointed out that he had been urged to go no more than once a week in order to avoid “monopolising” the lift leading to where the classes were held. 23. The applicant again stressed that he was dependent on the prison orderly responsible for assisting him in his everyday activities. The prisoner currently “ assigned ” to that duty was the third since his admission to the prison, and the applicant was dependent on him for supplying incontinence products, accompanying him to the showers ( there was a step preventing unassisted wheelchair access ) and cleaning his cell. This level of dependency and the problems associated with his incontinence complicated his relationship with the orderly. Going to the shower was a stressful time because the structure did not shield him from the view of others and his incontinence exposed him to extremely humiliating situations, causing irritation or even hostility on the part of his fellow inmates, who were unwilling to put up with such inconvenience in the course of their personal hygiene activities. 24. Lastly, the applicant informed the Court that he had been temporarily transferred to a cell in the secure unit, further to a decision by the classification board, after a mobile phone had been found in his cell. Under the resulting regime, he had access to one hour ’ s exercise in the morning and one hour in the afternoon, despite the fact that a doctor had issued a certificate on 7 June 2013 stating that his condition required access to at least five hours ’ exercise a day. The Government stated that the applicant had been transferred back to his cell on 26 June 2013. 2. Prospect of a transfer to Roanne Prison 25. The applicant submitted that although the prison management had indeed encouraged him to request a transfer to Roanne Prison, their approach had been guided by purely administrative considerations unconnected to his care -related needs. The management had refused to give the slightest undertaking about the conditions in which he would be accommodated in Roanne and the care he could be given there. They had been unable to provide any guarantees as to care arrangements as there were six cells for disabled prisoners at that facility and they were all occupied, and a single physiotherapist came to the prison for four half-days a week to provide services for five hundred prisoners. The applicant contended that he had not applied for a transfer on the grounds that the prison in question did not offer appropriate care facilities and would simply have represented a further upheaval and ordeal for him following his repeated moves from one prison to another ( twelve transfers between 2002 and 2009). He referred to information obtained from International Prison Watch ( Observatoire international des prisons – OIP) by his sister and his lawyer and produced a copy of an email sent by OIP to his lawyer on 3 January 2011, reading as follows: “ I do not think that Meaux and Roanne are particularly well equipped although, like all recent establishments, they do have disabled cells. I attach a decision in which the Douai Court of Appeal found, in relation to another wheelchair user, that ‘ no custodial facility is equipped to cater for the applicant ’ s condition ’ and accordingly suspended the execution of his sentence. ... Nevertheless, I consider it important to stress the consequences of a change of prison, not only in terms of family ties but also as regards the procedure for requesting a suspension of the sentence, since that procedure would then have to be started over again. ...” The applicant emphasised in any event that the medical unit at Uzerche Prison had not recommended his transfer to Roanne but rather the provision of treatment in a specialist facility. 26. The Government submitted that the applicant ’ s transfer to Roanne Prison had been envisaged by the health-care professionals at Uzerche Prison but observed that he had never actually requested such a transfer; after mentioning a transfer request, he had indicated the following day ( 9 August 2011 ) that he did not intend to pursue it, for reasons that were unclear. The Government also produced a note drawn up on 12 June 2012, which in their submission suggested that “ the applicant ’ s main motivation related to the previous decisions of the judicial authorities on requests for suspension of sentences, rather than to the treatment he might receive ”. They rejected the applicant ’ s arguments about the inability of Roanne Prison to accommodate him and submitted, in their additional observations, that only three of the six cells reserved for people with reduced mobility were occupied. They produced a copy of an email sent by the Prison Service in July 2013 indicating the availability of such cells. They also pointed out that an agreement had been signed in June 2013 between Roanne Prison, the UCSA and a non-governmental organisation with a view to providing appropriate care for dependent prisoners with specialist professional assistance.

Suffering from paraplegia of the lower limbs and urinary and faecal incontinence, the applicant complained that, in view of his severe disability, his continuing detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Medical care / treatment during hunger strike

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vienna. At the time of the events he was a national of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By the time of lodging the application he had obtained Austrian citizenship. A. The events at issue 7. On 28 April 1994 the Vienna Federal Police Authority ( Bundespolizeidirektion ) ordered the applicant's detention with a view to expulsion on account of his illegal stay in Austria. At that time a request by the applicant for asylum had been refused by the second-instance authority. 8. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Vienna East Police Prison ( Polizeigefangenenhaus Wien Ost ). On 30 April 1994 he went on hunger strike. 9. In accordance with the relevant regulations (see paragraph 45 below ), a report was drawn up to document the applicant's hunger strike. According to the entries in that report, the applicant, whose height is 1.77 metres, weighed 64. 8 kilograms when he started his hunger strike. Subsequently, his weight was recorded every four or five days, namely on 5, 9, 14, 19, 24, 27 and 28 May 1994. Apparently his blood-sugar level was also checked but the findings were not recorded in the report. 10. The events at issue took place when the applicant had been on hunger strike for three weeks. The exact date is in dispute between the parties. 11. According to the applicant, the events happened in the evening of 21 May 1994. He submits that he has consistently referred to that date throughout the domestic proceedings and the Convention proceedings, and that the Independent Administrative Panel in its decision of 3 September 1999 also established 21 May 1994 as the date of the events at issue. 12. According to the Government, the events at issue took place on 22 May 1994. They referred to the entry in the disciplinary file of the Vienna Police Prison, according to which the applicant had created unrest in the course of 22 May 1994 ( banging against the cell door and repeatedly ringing the bell to call prison officers and finally pretending to be unconscious ) and had been transferred to an individual cell on that date as a disciplinary measure. 13. While the parties disagreed as to the date of the events, it is not in dispute that, on the evening at issue, the applicant's cellmates called the police officers on duty and informed them that the applicant had slipped while going to the toilet and had sustained a bleeding injury to his head. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to an individual cell. The injury to his head was bandaged by a paramedical officer. 14. On 24 May 1994 the applicant was taken to a prison doctor, who noticed and mentioned in his written diagnosis several skin abrasions in the lumbar region of the applicant's backbone, one of which is described as being substantial. He treated these injuries with a spray and bandages. Moreover, he recorded the applicant's weight and measured his blood pressure and blood-sugar level. 15. On the same day Mr Staub, a member of an NGO looking after the applicant, Mrs Pichler, a journalist, and Mr Horvath, a friend, visited the applicant in prison. Mrs Pichler subsequently published an article in the magazine News reporting that the applicant had told her that after his accident four officers had dragged him by the feet out of his cell and kicked him. They had also stabbed him behind the ears with ballpoint pens and hit him repeatedly in the face. He had shown the journalist abrasion marks on his back and hip and small round bruises behind his ears. 16. On 26 May 1994 a prison doctor changed the bandages and also examined the applicant's head. In his written diagnosis of that date he mentioned, in addition to a small healed scratch on the middle of the applicant's head, two small scabs such as would form after a superficial skin abrasion behind both ears. He further noted that the applicant had been able to walk on his own to the second floor, down to the ground floor and then back to his cell on the first floor. He did not raise any other specific health complaints. Again the doctor recorded the applicant's weight, which was down to 53.5 kilograms, and his blood pressure and blood-sugar level. He noted that on account of his loss of weight, the applicant was in a weakened condition and his release would have to be considered within the next few days. 17. On 28 May 1994 the prison doctor found the applicant unfit for detention. By then his weight had decreased to 53. 2 kg. He was released from prison on the same day. 18. Later on, the applicant's asylum request was granted. B. Proceedings brought by the applicant 1. First set of proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel 19. On 17 June 1994 the applicant filed a complaint with the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel ( Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat ). He submitted that on 21 May 1994 the four prison officers called by his cellmates had dragged him by his feet out of the cell. They had then beaten him, kicked him in his belly and kidneys and pressed a ballpoint pen behind his ear lobes. At that time he had lost consciousness. He had subsequently been dragged from the third floor along the steps down to the cellar, in the process suffering injuries and haematomas along his backbone and skin abrasions on his heels. Having been given a bandage that was insufficient, he had been locked in an individual cell in the cellar without daylight. Only upon a request by Mr Staub, who had visited him in prison on 24 May 1994, had a paramedic seen him and eventually, upon his insistence, taken him to the prison's doctor. The treatment he had suffered at the hands of the police officers on 21 May 1994 and the fact that he had subsequently been kept until 24 May 1994 in solitary confinement without daylight and without medical care were, in the applicant's submission, in violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 20. In its submissions in reply the Vienna Federal Police Authority contested these allegations. It stated that during his hunger strike the applicant had regularly been weighed and his blood-sugar level had been checked. Because of conflicts with former inmates the applicant had already been transferred from another cell. The applicant had several times pretended to faint and had requested an inmate, Mr Stojanovic, to call the prison officers. On the day in question the applicant had banged continuously against the cell door, had rung the bell and had disregarded the ensuing admonitions of the prison officers. In the evening he had gone to the lavatory situated in the cell, had fallen down and had suffered a slightly bleeding injury on his head. The applicant's inmates had subsequently dragged the applicant away from the toilet. The prison's paramedical officer, Mr Zechmeister, established that the applicant was only pretending to be unconscious and such behaviour continued once the applicant was taken outside the cell. An officer, Mr Freithofer, then ordered that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement. Two other officers, Mr Mayerhuber and Mr Reichel, were present. None of them had mistreated the applicant. While Mr Zechmeister fetched bandage material, Mr Freithofer and Mr Mayerhuber carefully dragged the applicant down to the ground floor. The applicant was holding his head up while being carried, and was therefore only pretending to be unconscious. As he could not be made to walk on his own, inevitably his feet, and partly also his backside, dragged along the floor. After the applicant's head injury had been cleaned and bandaged, he walked on his own to the individual cell situated on the first floor. This cell had a window. At that time the applicant did not allege that he had sustained any further injuries. As with every prisoner on hunger strike, the applicant's state of health was examined daily by the prison's paramedical officer. On 24 May 1994 the applicant showed the paramedic for the first time the abrasions on his back, which were subsequently treated by the prison doctor. 21. On 26 July 1994 and on 16 January 1995 the Independent Administrative Panel held two oral hearings at which it heard evidence from the applicant, two prison inmates, Mr Fadil and Mr Stojanovic, and two of the officers concerned, Mr Zechmeister and Mr Mayerhuber. 22. In addition to the allegations he had made in his complaint, the applicant submitted that after the incident he had noticed traces of blood behind his ears. The individual cell had had a window but no daylight had come through. There were only dirty bedclothes. There had also been a toilet which did not flush. He had suffered from severe pain in his back and on his head and had requested to see a doctor but his requests had been met only with insulting remarks. Only after three days had the paramedical officer come to his cell again. He had shown him the injuries on his back and subsequently, after Mr Staub had visited him, had been taken to a doctor. As well as the injuries on his back because of the way in which he had been carried, he had suffered injuries to his ribs as a result of being kicked by the police officers. Afterwards the doctor had visited the cell and the applicant had obtained a cushion and clean bedclothes. 23. The representative of the police authority submitted that according to the applicant's submissions in criminal proceedings which he had brought against the four police officers concerned and which were later discontinued, he had seen the prison's doctor on 24 May 1994 before Mr Staub's visit. 24. Mr Fadil alleged that he remembered being in the same cell as the applicant in May 1994. The applicant, however, did not remember Mr Fadil. Mr Fadil submitted that the applicant had already lost consciousness several times. After his accident, the prison officers had grasped the applicant under his arms and neck and had pulled him out of the cell so that his back dragged along the floor. The cell door had then been closed but he had heard the applicant being beaten and crying. He had also learnt from other prisoners that the applicant had been injured while being dragged down the steps. Another prisoner who had meanwhile been deported had allegedly witnessed this incident and had also noticed traces of blood on the floor. 25. Mr Stojanovic, who was undisputedly a cellmate of the applicant at the time of the events, confirmed that the applicant had already lost consciousness several times before the incident in question. They had then called a doctor, who had come and measured the applicant's blood pressure. On the evening in question the officers had pulled the applicant by his feet out of the bed and then, grasping the applicant's neck, out of the cell while his back dragged along the floor. During this time the officers had punched the applicant two or three times on his chest. Then the door had been closed, and he had heard cries and something which sounded like beating. He had never noticed any injuries on the applicant's back. Some three or four days after the incident and again one week later he had met the applicant, who had shown him blue marks on his back and on his leg. The applicant also told him that he had been beaten. Mr Stojanovic had also been interviewed by police officers in the course of the criminal proceedings concerning the case. According to the transcripts of the interview, he had stated on that occasion that the applicant had several times falsely claimed to be feeling weak and had requested him to call the prison officers. After his accident the applicant had been moved by his cellmates from the toilet to his bed and his back had been dragged along the floor. The prison officers who had subsequently carried the applicant out of the cell had not mistreated him. When confronted with these statements at the hearing before the Independent Administrative Panel, Mr Stojanovic submitted that they were not true and had apparently been wrongly recorded because of his poor knowledge of the German language and misunderstandings with the interviewing police officers. 26. Mr Zechmeister submitted that he had been on duty as a paramedical officer on the day at issue and had been called several times to the applicant's cell as the applicant had pretended to faint. When called again to the applicant's cell in the evening, his impression that the applicant was again pretending was confirmed by an examination of the applicant's reactions. He had then left in order to fetch dressing material for the applicant's head injury and requested the police officer in charge to place the applicant in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure and in order to keep the peace with the other inmates. He had seen the applicant again in the solitary confinement wing, where he had cleaned and bandaged the injury to his head. He had not noticed any further injuries and the applicant had not mentioned any. The applicant was subsequently taken to an individual cell on the first floor. At that time, he was able to walk on his own. The applicant had never told him that he had been beaten. 27. Replying to questions by the applicant's counsel, Mr Zechmeister stated that in addition to hourly checks by police officers, the paramedic checked the cells between 6 and 9 p.m. He looked through the small window in the door without opening the door. Cells were equipped with an interphone allowing inmates to contact staff at any time. In reply to the question whether there was specific surveillance for inmates who risked losing consciousness while in solitary confinement, Mr Zechmeister replied that in his view the applicant did not present such a risk at the material time. Nor did he consider that the applicant required permanent surveillance. Inmates requiring permanent surveillance were placed in the other Vienna Police Prison at Roßauer Lände. If they were unfit for detention, they were released. Mr Zechmeister could not remember when the applicant had first been examined by the prison doctor after the incident at issue. Hunger-strikers were examined by the prison doctor either daily or every second or third day, depending on their state of health (for example, where weight loss or blood pressure gave rise to concern). 28. Mr Mayerhuber submitted that when he had arrived on the evening in question, the applicant was already lying in front of his cell. At that time two other police officers and Mr Zechmeister, examining the applicant, had been present. Mr Stojanovic had told him that the applicant had cut himself on purpose with a razor blade in order to feign a collapse. Mr Mayerhuber and another police officer had taken the applicant to the solitary confinement wing by linking their arms with the applicant's. The applicant's face had been facing away from the direction in which he was being moved. While the upper part of the applicant's body had been straight, his backside had partly dragged along the floor and his feet had constantly done so. The applicant had not been carried as there had been a risk that he might fall down if he bristled or reacted in a clumsy way. He did not know whether the applicant had been wearing shoes at that time. The applicant had been motionless but he had not been able to tell whether the applicant was unconscious or not. 29. On 31 March 1995 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant's complaint, noting that his transfer to an individual cell on 22 May 1994 had constituted a disciplinary measure. The applicant should therefore have brought proceedings under the Police Prison Internal Rules ( Polizeigefangenenhaus- Hausordnung ) and there was no scope for a complaint to the Independent Administrative Panel. 30. On 12 March 1997 the Constitutional Court ( Verfassungs - gerichtshof ) quashed that decision, on the ground that the Independent Administrative Panel had wrongly refused to rule on the merits of the applicant's complaint, and remitted the case to it. 2. Second set of proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel 31. On 3 February and 18 June 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel held further hearings. 32. The representative of the police authority submitted that the injuries found on the applicant's back had been caused by his fellow inmates, who had dragged him away from the toilet. The applicant submitted that he had been dragged out of his cell by the prison officers and had thereby suffered injuries to his back. The Independent Administrative Panel also heard evidence from Mr Staub, Mrs Pichler and Mr Horvath. 33. Mr Staub submitted that when he had visited the applicant, he had noticed two skin abrasions the size of the palm of a hand to the right and left along the applicant's backbone. While these injuries had apparently been treated in a professional manner, he had considered the bandage on the applicant's head to be an “impertinence”. He had thereupon called the paramedical officer, who had apparently changed the bandages afterwards. He had further noticed skin abrasions on the applicant's heels and injuries behind his ears. The applicant had conveyed the impression to him that the conditions in the individual cell were very questionable and even catastrophic and that, despite his request, he had not been allowed to see a doctor. 34. Mrs Pichler submitted that she had noticed skin abrasions and blue marks on the applicant's back and injuries behind his ears. The applicant had told her that the latter injuries had been caused by stabbing with ballpoint pens. 35. Mr Horvath submitted that he had noticed skin abrasions on the applicant's back, on which scabs had formed. He had also noticed injuries behind the applicant's ears and had remarked that that area was swollen. The applicant had told him that he had been stabbed with a pencil. 36. Following a request by the applicant, the Independent Administrative Panel ordered an expert medical opinion. The opinion referred to the applicant's allegation that he was suffering from earaches and decreased auditory function and noted it was unlikely that the applicant's eardrum had been injured during his detention as this would have caused bleeding. However, such bleeding had neither been documented nor established, nor had the applicant himself alleged that it had occurred. Until February 1998 the applicant had not undergone any otolaryngology treatment and now, four years later, it was impossible to establish whether the applicant's ear problems and decreased auditory function in February and March 1998 were a consequence of his detention in 1994. As regards the applicant's allegation that he had suffered from purulent effluence from the right ear after his release, the expert opinion noted that this could have been the consequence of an inflammation of the middle ear. 37. The Independent Administrative Panel eventually carried out an inspection of Vienna East Police Prison and took photos, which it submitted to the applicant for comment. 38. On 16 June 1999 the applicant requested that the Independent Administrative Panel carry out another inspection in his presence. 39. In written submissions dated 21 July 1999 the applicant disputed that the cells shown on the photos corresponded to the individual cell to which he had been taken. In the solitary cell in which he had been detained there had only been a wooden pallet without a mattress and bedclothes. A spout had served as a toilet. The only window had been nearly on the same level as the ground of the courtyard which it faced and only a little daylight had come through. There were no radiators. He had repeatedly unsuccessfully tried to contact police officers through the interphone. He repeated his request for another inspection to be carried out in his presence. The request was not granted. 40. On 3 September 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant's complaint. It established the facts as follows: “As a result of his hunger strike, the applicant lost eleven kilograms within a very short time and was further behaving in an uncooperative, refractory manner and did not miss an opportunity to attract attention, which – from the applicant's point of view – is probably legitimate and comprehensible but also resulted in his not being treated in the most attentive and gentle way. The applicant had repeatedly shouted and disturbed the peace in his cell, which he shared with several other inmates. On 21 May 1994 the applicant's cellmates informed the police officers on guard in the prison that he had fallen from the toilet and had suffered an injury to his head. Since the police officers wanted to restore order in the cell shared by several inmates, the applicant was carried out from the cell and transferred to the individual cell situated in a separate part of the building – one floor below. Since he was carried – in particular because he made no voluntary effort to walk on his own – it happened that while being taken down the steps, his back dragged along the edges of the steps and in the process he suffered superficial skin irritations. After being moved to individual cell no. E 184 and examined by a paramedic of the Police Prison, his slightly bleeding wound was cleaned and bandaged. After the applicant had informed the paramedic on 24 May 1994 that he also had an abrasion on his back, the latter notified the prison doctor, who treated the wound with a spray and bandage. The applicant subsequently remained in detention awaiting his expulsion until 28 May 1994, 12 noon, staying in cell E 184, and at the above time he was released because he was unfit for further detention. Evidence was taken through an inspection of the file of the Vienna Federal Police Authority, the file of the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, the Josefstadt District Court and the file of the proceedings conducted by the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel. In addition, the established facts were based on the transcripts of the oral hearing in the first round of proceedings, Zl. 02/31/57/94, which contain the statements of the police officers examined at that time. Moreover, the Independent Administrative Panel conducted a supplementary oral hearing during which the transcripts of the first round of proceedings were read out and the witnesses Horvath, Mag. Staub and Pichler were examined. Finally, the Panel taking this decision obtained a medical opinion from an ear, nose and throat specialist and indirectly carried out an inspection of the site to determine the local situation at the relevant time. The witnesses examined both in the first round of proceedings and in the continued proceedings were highly credible. The witnesses in the continued proceedings were, however, unable to comment on the factual situation, in particular the cause of the injuries, firstly because they had only noticed the applicant's injuries some time after they had been inflicted on him and were thus unable to comment first hand on the cause of these injuries. Secondly, the injuries were not such as to clearly indicate their origin, and on account of their lack of expert knowledge, the witnesses were not able to comment on the cause of these injuries. Lastly, it is doubtful to what extent statements by witnesses which are intended to reflect a direct perception can – after a period of almost four years – still be so unhampered and uninfluenced as to meet the requirements of fair proceedings. The same must naturally hold true for the police officers, and it was not least for that reason that these officers were not examined afresh and the present decision is based on their examination in the course of the oral hearing in the first round of proceedings. The statements by the police officers were conclusive and in accord with one another; moreover, the statements made during the oral hearing in the first round of proceedings and the statements made during their questioning in the course of the preliminary investigations were consistent, without any serious contradictions relevant to the decision being discernible. Moreover, the statements of the police officers were in line with the contents of the first-instance administrative file, and on that account it could also be assumed that during his detention pending expulsion the applicant behaved in an extremely refractory manner, and the conduct of the police officers was thus the only suitable way to bring about a solution to these problems. The applicant appeared extremely calm – not to say serene – to the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel, which is why from the present perspective, the idea that the applicant behaved as described in the facts seemed realistic only with a great deal of imagination. The Vienna Independent Administrative Panel must, however, also take into account the fact that at that time – unlike today – the applicant was in an exceptional state of mind, and such conduct must therefore be regarded as absolutely possible. Finally, the authority determining the case also proceeds from the assumption that the applicant had been in a kind of emergency situation at the time, and his'civil disobedience'was the only possible way for him to successfully avoid expulsion. The expert medical opinion and the inspection of the site could not support the applicant's submission that he had to await his expulsion in a cell without light in inhuman conditions. The cell referred to by the applicant is situated at least as high as half a floor above the elevated cell level so that there is no access to the cells through the open windows from outside. The statements made by the applicant about the route on which he had been carried from the cell shared with other inmates to the individual cell differed from the maps depicting the relevant section of the Police Prison that are included in the file. It is thus also to be assumed that the applicant's emotional state in his surroundings in the Police Prison was so tense at the relevant time that it may well be that the circumstances as the applicant perceived them should be evaluated differently from his statements in his written submissions. There is no indication that the statements by the head of Vienna Police Prison are untrue. Although he was not yet in his present position in the prison at the time, the head of Vienna Police Prison stated that as far as he knew and according to information from his colleagues, the prison had not been redesigned or renovated during the past few years. Finally, basing itself on the expert medical opinion obtained, the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel found that the applicant had not been injured with a ballpoint pen at that time as he maintained. An injury would almost invariably have resulted in blood coming out from the wound, and the official expert in his opinion also arrived at the conclusion that such an injury did not occur.” 41. The Independent Administrative Panel's legal assessment reads as follows: “Since the applicant – as can be deduced from the established facts set out above – is himself responsible for his injuries, and either inflicted those injuries on himself through his own conduct or sustained them as a result of his conduct – such as, for example, circulatory insufficiency while he was on the toilet, resulting from his hunger strike – no conduct contrary to Article 3 of the Convention could be observed. On account of both his refractory behaviour in his shared cell, causing unrest among the other inmates, and his passive resistance while being taken to the individual cell, the police officers carried the applicant down the staircase because of his circulatory insufficiency, and the intervening officers had no other possible way of taking him to the individual cell. The applicant also described the situation and circumstances in the individual cell in such a manner that one cannot follow his submissions from the present perspective. The cell at issue has always been situated some five metres above the ground level of the courtyard, and in any event sufficient light comes into the cell. Moreover, the cell has a sufficiently large window, which thus also guarantees the inflow of natural light. Nor is it understandable why the applicant believes that he was taken to a cell in the cellar and was detained in virtual darkness. At no time was there any indication to that effect in the investigation proceedings. If the applicant also submits that he was denied medical treatment, it must be said on the contrary that he regularly received medical treatment both during his hunger strike and during his detention in the individual cell, which means that he was repeatedly taken to a doctor and his state of health was under constant supervision by a qualified paramedic, who would at any time have been in a position to arrange for the intervention of a doctor. Finally, in his submissions as a whole, the applicant gave an explanation of the entire sequence of events which was not very consistent or easy for the authority deciding his case to understand; it cannot be assumed that the applicant intentionally made untrue statements to the panel deciding his case, thus intending to obtain an unjustified advantage. It must rather be assumed that – as already outlined above – the applicant was in a state of mind lacking full mental orientation and thus actually perceived the situation faced by him in such a manner. Since no further violations of the law emanated from the proceedings conducted by the authority, the complaint had to be rejected as being unfounded on all counts ...” 42. On 27 February 2001 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint. Subsequently, on 28 May 2001 the applicant supplemented his complaint with the Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ). 43. On 19 December 2003 the Administrative Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint. That decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 19 January 2004. III. REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (CPT) 46. The relevant extracts of the CPT's report on a visit to Austria from 26 September to 7 October 1994 read as follows (unofficial translation from French): “5. Police prisons a. follow-up visit to the Vienna Police Prison 56. As already indicated (see paragraph 3), the CPT's delegation carried out a follow-up visit to the Vienna Police Prison at Roßauer Lände. Since the end of 1990, there have been two police prisons in Vienna, with a total capacity of 450 places. At the time of the CPT's second visit, the Police Prison at Roßauer Lände had a capacity of 220 and, on the day of the visit, 211 prisoners were being held there. The majority of them – 154 – were persons detained under the aliens legislation pending deportation ( Schubhäftlinge ). The rest were either being held at the disposal of the Security Bureau, serving an administrative sanction or awaiting transfer. During the talks held at the end of the visit, the CPT delegation expressed its concern to the Austrian authorities about its findings in the police prison. Indeed, four years after the first visit, it found very few improvements in the conditions of detention. 57. The single and multi-occupancy cells in the prison were still in a dilapidated state and the conditions of hygiene were deplorable. In particular, most of the cells'equipment (beds, mattresses, sheets and blankets) was dirty and shabby; further, in the multi-occupancy cells, the state of the toilets and their partitioning remained very poor. ... c. medical care in the police prisons visited 80. The number of general practitioners assigned to the police prisons visited can be considered adequate, given the respective capacity of those establishments. Moreover, appointments with outside specialists could be arranged where necessary. 81. The situation regarding nursing staff levels in some of the prisons visited was less satisfactory. At the Vienna Police Prison, health care was provided by a team of ten paramedical officers ( Sanitäter ), who were in charge of both this establishment and of the other police prison in Vienna (see paragraph 56). They had received six weeks'basic training in the Army, followed by a period of practical training in a hospital. This training programme had begun a year earlier and it was envisaged that, in future, health care staff would follow a recognised training programme for nurses ( Krankenpfleger ). There was always a paramedic on duty on the establishment's premises. ... 85. The delegation was also concerned by the absence of any psychological support for inmates in the Vienna Police Prison. In one of the establishment's single cells, the delegation saw an Asian woman who was patently in a state of extreme psychological distress, exacerbated by the language barrier, and for whom the necessary psychological support was not forthcoming. According to staff, the inmate in question had resisted while being escorted for deportation and had displayed violent behaviour when placed in a multi-occupancy cell. Another inmate, on hunger strike, was observed to be in a similar state, but was not receiving the necessary psychological support either. Moreover, this inmate had started a thirst strike; he had evidently not been informed of the potential consequences of such conduct for his health. 86. It is plain from the CPT delegation's observations that the medical care provided in the police prisons visited amounted to nothing more than a somewhat developed form of first aid. This finding is all the more serious given that periods of custody in these police establishments may last for up to six months. The CPT considers that these establishments – particularly the larger ones, such as the Vienna Police Prison – should offer a level of medical care comparable to that which can be expected in a remand prison. In this connection, the CPT has noted with interest the proposal to create a health care unit at the Vienna Police Prison. 87. Consequently, the CPT recommends that the Austrian authorities review the provision of medical care in the light of the foregoing remarks. More particularly, it recommends that immediate steps be taken to ensure that: ... The CPT would also like to receive detailed information from the Austrian authorities on the approach adopted in police prisons as regards the treatment of persons on hunger or thirst strike, and further information on the planned creation of a health - care unit at the Vienna Police Prison. d. other issues i. persons detained under the aliens legislation 90. As already mentioned (see in particular paragraphs 56, 65, 71 and 74), persons deprived of their liberty under the aliens legislation (FrG) represent the largest group of persons held in the police prisons visited. It should be stressed that the detention of such persons gives rise to specific problems. Firstly, there will inevitably be communication difficulties caused by language barriers. Secondly, many foreign nationals will find it hard to accept being in custody when they are not suspected of any criminal offence. Thirdly, tensions may arise between detainees of different nationalities or ethnic groups. Staff assigned to supervise such persons must therefore be very carefully selected and receive appropriate training. Supervisory staff should possess heightened interpersonal communication skills; they should also be familiar with the detainees'different cultures and at least some of them should have appropriate language skills. Further, staff should be taught to recognise possible symptoms of stress displayed by detainees (whether post-traumatic or induced by sociocultural changes) and to take appropriate action. 91. It is clear from the delegation's observations during the second visit that – despite commendable efforts by certain officers in the establishments visited – the staff of police prisons had not been trained to perform this particularly onerous task. The CPT therefore recommends that the Austrian authorities review the training of police officers responsible for the custody of foreign nationals in the light of the above remarks. The CPT would also like to receive the comments of the Austrian authorities on the possibility of creating special centres for this category of persons, in which they could enjoy material conditions and a detention regime appropriate to their legal status. ”

The applicant, a national of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time of the events, alleged that, when held in custody in Vienna Police Prison with a view to his expulsion for illegal residence, prison officers had ill-treated him. Placed in solitary confinement immediately afterwards, he further complained about being refused access to a doctor.

Persons arrested or under criminal prosecution

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicants are brothers. Mr Amir and Damir Khuzhin were twins born in 1975 and Mr Marat Khuzhin was born in 1970. They all live in the town of Glazov in the Udmurtiya Republic of the Russian Federation. On 19 June 2006 Mr Damir Khuzhin died in an accident. A. Arrest of the applicants 5. On 14 April 1999 the first and second applicants were arrested on suspicion of kidnapping committed in concert. The case was assigned to Mr Kurbatov, a senior investigator in the prosecutor ’ s office of the Udmurtiya Republic. 6. On 12 May 1999 the investigator Mr Kurbatov questioned the third applicant as a witness. On the same day he was placed in custody. On 14 May 1999 the investigator issued a formal decision to arrest the third applicant on suspicion on aiding and abetting kidnapping. 7. On 17 and 26 May 1999 the first applicant was allowed to see his fiancée, Ms Maksimova. It would appear that on the latter date they contracted a marriage because from 9 June 1999 she began visiting him as his wife and changed her name to Mrs Khuzhina. In the subsequent period she visited the first applicant on a regular basis once or twice a month. 8. On 2 June 1999 the three applicants were charged with kidnapping and torture, offences under Articles 117 and 126 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of having abducted a certain Mr V., a homeless tramp, and forced him to perform physical labour in a fruit warehouse owned by them in exchange for extremely low pay. On several occasions V. had run away but the brothers had caught him, beaten him and tortured him by applying electric wires to various parts of his body. 9. On 7 June 1999 the first applicant and his counsel requested the investigator to arrange for a confrontation with V. and a certain witness U. On the following day the investigator refused their request, noting that the confrontation was “undesirable as both V. and U. had previously been financially dependent on the Khuzhin brothers and during a confrontation Amir Khuzhin could exert a negative influence on them”. 10. The third applicant and his counsel requested the investigator to interview witnesses G., L., and A., who could allegedly testify that V. had been able to move around freely and that the Khuzhin brothers had treated him well. On 18 June 1999 the investigator dismissed the request as unsubstantiated. He noted that V. ’ s liberty of movement had indeed been unrestricted in the beginning and the Khuzhin brothers had restrained him “only at a later stage” and that there were “a sufficient number of depositions by witnesses and the victim to the effect that the Khuzhin brothers had treated V. very badly and humiliated him”. 11. It appears that on an unspecified date the police entered and inspected a warehouse belonging to the applicants. B. Press coverage of the case 1. Television broadcast 12. On 20 July 1999 the State television channel Udmurtiya broadcast the Versiya ( “ Version ” ) programme. The second part of the programme concerned the applicants ’ case. The participants included the presenter Ms Temeyeva, the Glazov town prosecutor Mr Zinterekov, the investigator Mr Kurbatov, and Mr Nikitin, who was head of the division for particularly important cases in the office of the prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic, as well as the victim V., whose face was not shown. 13. Mr Zinterekov opened the programme with the following statement: “The Khuzhin brothers are, by their nature, cruel, insolent and greedy; they wished to get cheap or, more precisely, free labour. On the other hand, the victim V., a person with no fixed abode, mild and gentle...” 14. The presenter started telling the story of V. ’ s enslavement. As she was speaking, black-and-white passport-size photos of the applicants were shown full screen. 15. The presenter ’ s story alternated with that of the victim V., who related how he had been ill-treated by the Khuzhins and had unsuccessfully attempted to escape. The presenter asked the participants whether the Khuzhin brothers could be described as sadistic. 16. Mr Zinterekov replied as follows : “We, that is, prosecutors and the police, have known these brothers from the time when they were still minors... We investigated the acts committed by the brothers but they could not be held criminally liable by virtue of their young age. After they reached the age [of majority], they found themselves in the dock. All three brothers were convicted of disorderly acts. In my opinion, that offence is very much characteristic of all the Khuzhin brothers in its cruelty and meaningless brutality. I think that the personal qualities of the Khuzhin brothers and [their] desire to have free labour have led to this crime.” 17. The participants subsequently discussed why the victim had not come to the police immediately after the beatings had begun, and commented on legal aspects of the pending proceedings: “ [Mr Kurbatov : ] You know when [V.] came to the law-enforcement authorities in April 1999, our investigative group in the Glazov town prosecutor ’ s office was shocked at the cruelty of this crime. When a person comes for protection to the law-enforcement authorities, you should examine him closely, listen carefully to his story. [V.] had more than 187 injuries on him. The Convention [for the Prevention] of Torture naturally comes to mind. [Presenter:] The Khuzhin brothers are now charged under two provisions of the Criminal Code: Article 126 – kidnapping committed for lucrative motives, and Article 117 – torture.” As she was speaking, the first page of the criminal case file was shown on screen. 18. The other participants offered the following comments: [Mr Zinterekov:] The prosecutor ’ s office will insist on imprisonment as a measure of punishment in respect of all three brothers... For instance, Article 126 § 2 provides for five to ten years ’ imprisonment, Article 117 provides for three to seven years ’ imprisonment. The court will have to choose... [Mr Nikitin:] A brazen crime. If anyone knows about similar facts, report them to the police and the criminals will be punished... [Presenter:] ... In September the Glazov Town Court begins its examination of the criminal case. Three businessman brothers who got a false idea of being slave-owners will get a well-deserved punishment.” 19. The programme was broadcast again in August 1999 and on 15 May and 25 October 2001. 2. Newspaper publication 20. On 7 August 1999 the journalist Ms M. published an article under the headline “The Land of Slaves” ( «Страна рабов» ) in the local newspaper Kalina Krasnaya. It began as follows : “I am firmly convinced that the following story is just one fact that emerged from the dim waters of market relations. And ethnic relations as well. Though I wish I were impartial as regards these ethnic relations – each people has its enlightened scholars and cruel murderers.” 21. The journalist related the story of V., who had been exploited and beaten by the Khuzhin brothers. The article mentioned that the elder brother ’ s first name was Marat, that the two other brothers were twins aged 24 and that they traded in fruit at a local market. The applicants ’ last names were not listed. A former classmate of V. who had given him refuge was quoted as citing a statement by V. himself, to the effect that “these Tatars have everything fixed up”. The final paragraph read as follows: “Many, many questions crossed my mind as I was reading the criminal case file. Why is the life of a dirty piglet more valuable than a human life? Why are masses of Russians, Udmurts and others among the unemployed, while ‘ they ’ not only find work for themselves but also use hired labour! And why does everyone in the town know about the doings of that best friend of all tramps and put up with it? . .. ” 3. Complaints about press coverage 22. The applicants lodged several complaints about the press coverage of proceedings against them. 23. In a letter of 23 March 2000 Mr Nikitin replied that the programme had been produced on the basis of information supplied by the division for particularly important cases in the office of the prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic. Pursuant to Article 139 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor ’ s office had had the right to disclose materials in the case file and make them available to the journalist. 24. In a letter of 3 May 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic replied that there were no grounds to hold officials of the Glazov prosecutor ’ s office criminally liable for disclosure of materials from the investigation. 25. On 25 August 2000 Mr Zinterekov wrote that there were no grounds for liability to be incurred either by officials of the prosecutor ’ s office or by journalists who had provided coverage of the proceedings. 26. On 18 December 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic replied to the third applicant that Mr Zinterekov could not be held criminally liable for his statements. 27. In a letter of 12 March 2001 a deputy prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic confirmed that the disclosure of the case file to the mass media had been in compliance with Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further noted that the Glazov town prosecutor (Mr Zinterekov) had been told to use “a more balanced approach in determining the scope of information that could be made public in criminal cases before the conviction has become final”. 28. In similarly worded letters of 25 July and 15 August 2001, deputy prosecutors of the Udmurtiya Republic informed the first and third applicants that there were no grounds to initiate a criminal case against the maker of the television programme and that no further replies concerning that matter would be given. The Glazov town prosecutor was, however, instructed to check whether a criminal investigation should be opened in connection with the article in the Kalina Krasnaya newspaper. 29. On 27 September 2001 an investigator from the Glazov prosecutor ’ s office issued a formal decision not to initiate a criminal case for libel against the journalist M., who had authored the article “The Land of Slaves”. It appears from the decision that, in M. ’ s own words, she had received formal permission from the investigator Mr Kurbatov to consult the case file and that Mr Kurbatov had approved a draft of the article. Mr Kurbatov, however, denied any memory of granting access to the file to M. and claimed he had never read the article in question. He did not deny, though, that he had briefed the presenter of the television programme on details of the criminal case. Referring to the applicants ’ conviction by the judgment of 2 March 2001 (see below), the investigator found that the contents of the article had been essentially true and that M. had not disseminated any false information damaging the third applicant ’ s dignity or honour. C. The applicants ’ trial 30. On 31 July 2000 the Glazov Town Court held a directions hearing and scheduled the opening of the trial for 10 August 2000. 31. The trial continued in late 2000 and early 2001. Witnesses for the prosecution and defence, as well as the victim Mr V., testified in court. 32. On 2 March 2001 the Glazov Town Court found the applicants guilty of kidnapping and torture under Article 126 § 2 and Article 117 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. The third applicant was sentenced to five years and one month ’ s imprisonment, whilst the first and second applicants were to serve seven years in a high-security colony. 33. The applicants appealed against the conviction. Their points of appeal concerned, in particular, the alleged prejudice to their presumption of innocence which had resulted from the newspaper publication and television programme described above. The prosecution also lodged an appeal. The case file was sent to the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic for consideration on appeal. 34. On 29 October 2001 the acting president of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic returned the case file to the Town Court because the trial judge had failed to consider the applicants ’ comments on the trial record, to locate the allegedly missing documents and to provide the applicants with a copy of the prosecution ’ s points of appeal. 35. In an interim decision of 1 November 2001 the Glazov Town Court partly accepted and partly rejected the applicants ’ corrections of the trial record. 36. On 18 December 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic heard the case on appeal and upheld the judgment of 2 March 2001. The court did not address the applicants ’ arguments concerning an alleged impairment of their presumption of innocence. D. Conditions of the applicants ’ transport 37. Following their conviction, the applicants remained in detention facility no. IZ-18/2 for unspecified reasons. 38. On 21 October 2002 the facility administration distributed winter clothing to the prisoners. The applicants refused to take it. On 13 November 2002 the third applicant accepted a padded jacket and the second applicant winter shoes. 39. On 26 December 2002 the applicants were listed for transport from detention facility no. IZ-18/2 to correctional colonies. According to them, the outside temperature on that day was -36 o C; the Government submitted a certificate from the meteorological service showing that the temperature fell to -29.8 o C in the night. 40. At about 5 p.m., when the applicants were taken to the assembly cell of the detention facility together with ten to twelve other detainees, they were wearing T-shirts and tracksuit bottoms. The wardens offered them winter jackets and hats which, according to the Government, hailed from the humanitarian-aid supplies but had been washed and were neat. The applicants claimed that the items were “torn and old” and refused to take them. 41. At 10 p.m. the applicants, together with other prisoners, were put into a prison van and taken to Glazov railway station to board the Kirov-Kazan train that arrived at 10.10 p.m. The distance between the facility and the station was 800 metres and the journey time was less than five minutes. At 10.05 p.m. the van arrived at the station and the applicants emerged from it without winter clothing. A prison inspector dashed into the van, collected the winter clothing which the applicants had left behind, and gave it to the escorting officer. The officer again offered the clothing to the applicants to put on but they refused to do so, claiming that it was unfit to wear. According to the statements by the inspector and the officer, the clothing was in an “appropriate condition”. 42. It appears that the argument went on for about 10 to 15 minutes. The head of the train escort refused to take the applicants in without appropriate clothing and the facility personnel decided to take them back into the cells. 43. In support of their claim that the clothing had been “ inappropriate ”, the applicants produced to the Court a written statement signed by five other detainees who had been held in facility no. IZ-18/2 at that time. 44. On 27 and 29 December 2002, 7 January and 11 April 2003 and other dates the applicants complained that they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on 26 December 2002. 45. On 28 February 2003 Mr Zinterekov responded to them in the following terms: “It has been established that winter clothing was given to you and that you remained outside in clothing inappropriate for that season only because you refused to put it on. Your arguments that the clothing offered did not meet sanitary and hygiene standards could not have been objectively confirmed; there are no grounds for disciplining any officials.” E. Impounding of the third applicant ’ s van 46. On 12 May 1999 the third applicant arrived in his van at the Glazov police station for questioning. On that day he was taken into custody (see above). 47. On 13 May 1999 the investigator Mr Kurbatov impounded the van and ordered that it should be kept in the car park of a private company. The charging order itself did not indicate the grounds on which it had been issued, but referred back to the investigator ’ s decision of the same date, a copy of which was not made available to the Court. 48. The third applicant repeatedly complained to various authorities that his van had been unlawfully seized. He alleged that the investigator was using it for his private errands. 49. In a letter of 14 April 2000 the acting Glazov prosecutor reported to the third applicant the findings of an internal inquiry into his complaints. He found as follows: “On 12 May 1999 Mr Kurbatov arrested you ... However, the Gazel car, in which you had arrived, remained in the street outside the premises of the Glazov police station, and measures for its safe keeping were not taken. The car remained there until 13 May 1999, when Mr Kurbatov impounded it ... However, he did not examine the state of the car, nor did he show it to you or any attesting witnesses ... The impounded car was taken by a road police employee from Glazov police station, acting on Mr Kurbatov ’ s orders, into the premises of the [private company]. The car was not properly sealed ... It must be noted at the same time that there existed no legal grounds for impounding the vehicle, as required by Article 175 § 1 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. According to that provision, a charging order could be issued with a view to securing a civil claim or a possible confiscation order. However, in this case no civil claim was brought throughout the proceedings and the criminal-law provisions under which [ the third applicant ] was charged do not provide for confiscation measures as a penal sanction. Thus, Mr Kurbatov breached Articles 141, 142, 175 and 176 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure – which set out the requirements for the record of impounding and the procedure for issuing charging orders – and also the Instruction on the procedure for seizing, accounting, storing and transferring physical evidence in criminal cases, values and other assets by law-enforcement authorities and courts. Further to the internal inquiry, the prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic was advised to determine whether Mr Kurbatov should be disciplined.” 50. On 13 June 2000 the investigator Mr Kurbatov handed the keys and registration documents of the van to the Glazov Town Court. 51. In letters of 19 July and 18 December 2000 the Udmurtiya Republic prosecutor ’ s office informed the third applicant that Mr Kurbatov had been disciplined for breaches of the Instruction on the procedure for storing physical evidence and fined in the amount of his bonus salary for the first quarter of 2000. 52. It appears that on 4 June 2002 the Glazov Town Court lifted the charging order and the third applicant ’ s van was returned to Mrs Khuzhina (his brother ’ s wife). F. Civil proceedings against the investigator and journalists 1. Civil action against the investigator and the journalist Ms M. 53. On an unspecified date the third applicant sued the investigator Mr Kurbatov for damages on account of his failure to ensure the safe keeping of his van; all three applicants also brought a defamation action against the journalist Ms M., seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Glazov Town Court ordered the joinder of both actions and listed a hearing for 3 March 2003. 54. In February 2003 the applicants asked the court for leave to appear. Mrs Khuzhina, as a representative of the first applicant, asked the court to ensure the attendance of the applicants at the hearing. 55. On 3 March 2003 the Town Court issued several procedural decisions. In the first decision, it rejected Mrs Khuzhina ’ s request for the applicants ’ attendance, holding that the Penitentiary Code did not provide for the possibility of bringing convicted persons from a correctional colony to the local investigative unit for the purpose of taking part in a hearing in a civil case. The second decision took stock of the absence of both parties – the journalist Ms M. and a representative of the newspaper had not shown up despite having been notified of the hearing – and indicated that the case would be heard in their absence. It appears that Mrs Khuzhina then walked out of the courtroom in protest against the court ’ s decision to hear the case in the absence of the first applicant. In a third decision, the court decided to proceed with the case in her absence. It additionally rejected the applicants ’ request for leave to appear on the same grounds as above, adding: “ ... parties to the case do not just have rights but also have duties, such as [a duty] to make written submissions and substantiate their claims. Taking into account the fact that the rights of Mr A. Khuzhin, Mr D. Khuzhin and Mr M. Khuzhin are not restricted and can be exercised by them in full measure, there are no legal grounds to ensure the attendance of individuals who have committed particularly serious, insolent [ дерзкие ] crimes.” Lastly, the Town Court rejected the applicants ’ requests to summon witnesses and study the hearing records, reasoning as follows: “The substantiation of the Khuzhins ’ claim seeks to obtain a new assessment of the circumstances and findings set out in the criminal judgment of 2 March 2001. The statements by the Khuzhin brothers are not reasoned or argued; they are not procedural requests as such [ sic ]; they have repeatedly studied the materials in the case file and can study them again by receiving copies of them; since they are serving a sentence imposed by a court judgment in a penitentiary institution, the case must be examined in their absence.” 56. On 4 March 2003 the Town Court refused for the same reasons the third applicant ’ s request to obtain attendance of witnesses and an expert. It also decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of both parties ’ representatives. 57. On the same day the Town Court dismissed all of the applicants ’ claims. On the defamation issue it found that the article “The Land of Slaves” had been based on the true facts which had subsequently been established in the criminal judgment of 2 March 2001. As regards the claim relating to the damage caused to the third applicant ’ s van, it established that the vehicle had been returned to him after he had paid compensation to the victim for non-pecuniary damage and that the investigator had acted within his powers and had not caused any damage through his actions. 58. The applicants and Mrs Khuzhina appealed. They complained, in particular, of a breach of the principle of equality of arms. Mrs Khuzhina additionally pointed out that she had not been the representative of either Damir or Marat Khuzhin. 59. On 7 October 2003 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic held an appeal hearing. It appears that neither the applicants nor Mrs Khuzhina were in attendance. The court held that there had been no breach of equality of arms because the applicants had been duly notified of the hearing and informed of their right to appoint representatives. The second and third applicants had not made use of that right, whereas the first applicant ’ s representative, Mrs Khuzhina, had declined to take part in the hearing. In the court ’ s view, the joinder of the cases was also lawful and justified because the second applicant had been a party to both claims. 60. According to a letter of 30 April 2003 from the prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic to the second applicant, it was incumbent on the court hearing a civil claim to decide whether the detainee ’ s presence was necessary. The second applicant could have been escorted to the hearing if there had been a decision of the Glazov Town Court to that effect. 2. The third applicant ’ s action against the prosecutor 61. On an unspecified date the third applicant brought a defamation action against the prosecutor Mr Zinterekov. He challenged as defamatory the statements made by Mr Zinterekov in the Versiya television programme about the applicants ’ adolescent delinquency, insolence and greediness. 62. On 14 November 2003 the Glazov Town Court delivered its judgment. Mr Zinterekov made oral submissions to the court; the third applicant was neither present nor represented. In dismissing the defamation action, the court noted as relevant the materials relating to the criminal case against the applicants and, more specifically, a reference letter for the second applicant from his secondary school that concerned his unauthorised absences from classes and disorderly behaviour. The court held that the facts as established in the judgment of 2 March 2001 had justified Mr Zinterekov ’ s reference to the applicants as insolent and greedy. 63. On 19 December 2003 and 22 January 2004 the third applicant lodged his points of appeal, alleging, in particular, a violation of the principle of equality of arms. 64. The Court has not been provided with any information about the appeal proceedings.

The applicants were arrested in April 1999 and subsequently charged with kidnapping and torture. A few days before their trial in July 1999, a national television channel broadcast a talk show during which three prosecution officials discussed the case in detail. The first applicant complained in particular that the police had taken his passport photograph from the criminal case-file and, without his consent, given it to a journalist who had used it in a television show.

Victims of terrorist acts

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEThe background to the case The background to the case The background to the case 5. The applicants are the children of Lieutenant Colonel Ramón Romeo, who died following an attack carried out on 19 March 1981 in Bilbao (Spain) by a commando unit claiming to belong to the terrorist organisation ETA [1]. An alleged member of the commando unit, N.J.E., a Spanish national of Basque origin, was suspected of shooting the applicants’ father at point ‑ blank range. 6. One of Ramón Romeo’s children joined proceedings in Spain as a civil party. In May 2007 all the members of the commando unit were convicted by the Spanish courts, with the exception of N.J.E., who had reportedly fled to Mexico following the events of 1981 and later moved to Belgium. Legal challengesFirst set of surrender proceedings First set of surrender proceedings First set of surrender proceedings 7. A Spanish investigating judge of the Audiencia Nacional issued two European arrest warrants in respect of N.J.E. on 9 July 2004 and 1 December 2005 for the purpose of bringing criminal proceedings, respectively, on charges of attempted murder and terrorism committed in Bilbao on 14 June 1981, and participation in a criminal organisation, terrorism, intentional killing, infliction of serious bodily harm, and murder, committed in Bilbao on 19 March 1981. 8. By an order of the investigating judge of the Ghent Court of First Instance of 9 October 2013, N.J.E. was placed in detention. 9. In an order of 16 October 2013 the Committals Division ( chambre du conseil ) of the same court declared the European arrest warrants enforceable. 10. N.J.E. appealed against that order. She argued at the outset that execution of the arrest warrants should be refused, since prosecution of the offences was time-barred under Belgian law and the facts came within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Belgian courts (section 4(4) of the European Arrest Warrant Act of 19 December 2003, see paragraph 25 below). She also submitted that there were substantial reasons for believing that execution of the European arrest warrants would infringe her fundamental rights under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (section 4(5) of the above-mentioned Act). 11. On 31 October 2013, referring to Articles 6 and 7 of the preliminary part of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 26 below), the Indictments Division of the Ghent Court of Appeal held that N.J.E. did not come within the jurisdiction of the Belgian criminal courts, taking the view that N.J.E. did not have her main residence in Belgium. The Indictments Division further noted that N.J.E. was not being prosecuted in Belgium for any of the offences provided for in Article 6 of the preliminary part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lastly, it observed that there had been no “complaint from the aggrieved foreign national or his or her family”, or any “official notice given to the Belgian authority by the authority of the country in which the offence [had been] committed” within the meaning of Article 7 § 2 of the preliminary part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Nevertheless, the Indictments Division refused execution of the European arrest warrants on the basis of section 4(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act. It held that the punishable acts needed to be viewed in the broader context of Spain’s contemporary political history and the personal background of N.J.E., who, having been active in the “Basque armed resistance movement” in her twenties, was now a 55-year-old professional woman living a normal life in Ghent. Furthermore, basing its finding in particular on a report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) concerning the latter’s periodic visit to Spain from 31 May to 13 June 2011, the Indictments Division held that there were substantial reasons for believing that execution of the European arrest warrant would infringe N.J.E.’s fundamental rights under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. It found in particular as follows: “... persons charged with punishable offences with an alleged terrorist motive are held in Spain under a different custodial regime, in degrading conditions possibly accompanied by torture, and with very limited contact with the outside world (family, lawyer and assistance), as borne out by evidence ... The investigating judge and the public prosecutor’s office were wrong to assert that there exists a presumption of observance of fundamental rights in Spain including with regard to former members of the Basque resistance movements, as [N.J.E.] probably was. Firstly, there can never be a presumption of observance of human rights. Secondly, the law itself runs counter to the existence [of such a presumption], given that the person concerned by the [European arrest warrant] has the right to demonstrate and explain convincingly that there are substantial reasons to fear a human rights violation. This additional safeguard is afforded within a strictly European legal context. Reports from international organisations support these genuine fears. Thirdly, the law nowhere requires it to be demonstrated that fundamental rights would be breached as a matter of absolute certainty.” 13. Lastly, the Indictments Division ordered N.J.E.’s release. 14. The Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment. It argued that, regard being had to the principle of mutual trust between the member States of the European Union (“the EU”), any decision to refuse extradition on the grounds of a breach of the fundamental rights of the person concerned had to be supported by detailed evidence demonstrating the existence of a clear threat to his or her rights and capable of rebutting the presumption of observance of fundamental rights. The judgment of the Indictments Division had provided no specific evidence of a risk of a breach of N.J.E.’s fundamental rights, and had been drafted in such general terms that the presumption of observance of human rights in favour of the State issuing the European arrest warrant could not be rebutted. 15. In a judgment of 19 November 2013 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. With regard to the principles applicable in the case before it, it observed the following: “Under section 4(5) of the Act of 19 December 2003, execution of a European arrest warrant must be refused if there are substantial reasons for believing that execution would infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, namely the rights guaranteed by the [Convention], which stem from the constitutional traditions common to the European Union Member States, as general principles of Community law. Recital 10 of the preamble to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States makes clear that the mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. This high level of confidence entails a presumption of observance by the issuing State of the fundamental rights referred to in section 4(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act of 19 December 2003. In view of this principle of mutual trust between the Member States, any refusal to surrender the person concerned must be supported by detailed evidence of a clear threat to his or her fundamental rights capable of rebutting the presumption in favour of the issuing State of observance of those rights. The judge has unfettered discretion to assess whether the detailed evidence relied on, pointing to a clear threat to the fundamental rights of the person concerned, is sufficient to rebut the aforementioned presumption. The Court [of Cassation] merely verifies that the judge has not drawn inferences from his or her findings that are unconnected to the latter or cannot be justified by them.” Turning to the circumstances of the case before it, the Court of Cassation found as follows: “The judgment finds that there are substantial reasons for believing that the execution of the European arrest warrants would infringe the defendant’s fundamental rights because ‘persons charged with punishable offences with an alleged terrorist motive are held in Spain under a different custodial regime, in degrading conditions possibly accompanied by torture, and with very limited contact with the outside world (family, lawyer and assistance)’. In so finding, it refers to the 2011 reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of the Council of Europe. Hence, the judgment provides legal justification for refusing extradition, as there are substantial reasons for believing that execution of the European arrest warrants would infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. This ground of appeal cannot be upheld.” 16. In a letter of 27 November 2014 in reply to one of the applicants, concerning the refusal to execute the European arrest warrant in respect of N.J.E., the President of the Court of Cassation specified that the refusal to execute a European arrest warrant did not necessarily mean that the person concerned would escape punishment. He added as follows: « [O]ther procedures exist which should be implemented by the competent authority, as appropriate, so that persons suspected of serious crimes who are no longer in the State where the crimes were allegedly committed can be put on trial. You may assess in that regard whether or not to make an application to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office.” Second set of surrender proceedings 17. On 8 May 2015 a fresh European arrest warrant was issued against N.J.E. by an investigating judge of the Audiencia Nacional, concerning the acts committed in Bilbao on 19 March 1981 and classified, in particular, as “terrorist murder” in Spanish law. As to the risk of torture in Spain alleged by the Indictments Division, the investigating judge specified that the CPT’s information had been disputed by the Spanish Government in March 2012 and that, during its subsequent periodic visits in 2012 and 2014, the CPT had made no further mention of it. With regard to incommunicado detention, the judge stated that it was tightly regulated. It could be imposed only in exceptional cases concerning the investigation of armed gangs or terrorists; all persons subjected to such detention were guaranteed a forensic medical examination, and the national torture prevention mechanism included the possibility of unannounced visits by the Ombudsman; the person concerned was entitled to the assistance of a lawyer during the police and judicial proceedings; detention was always subject to judicial supervision, and the person concerned had the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus; the communal areas were monitored by CCTV and interviews could be recorded; and the restrictions on communications with family and friends were limited to five days and had to be reviewed by a judge. Furthermore, the crime of torture under the Spanish Criminal Code encompassed any physical or psychological ill-treatment, and allegations of torture were examined by an independent judge. Lastly, the investigating judge observed that Spain had transposed the European directives strengthening existing safeguards in criminal matters. 18. Following the issuing of this arrest warrant, N.J.E. was re-arrested by the Belgian authorities on 20 June 2016 but was released on the same day. 19. In an order of 29 June 2016 the Committals Division of the Ghent Court of First Instance refused execution of the new arrest warrant. 20. On 14 July 2016, following an appeal by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, the Indictments Division of the Ghent Court of Appeal upheld the order, ruling that the new arrest warrant did not contain any information that would lead to a different conclusion than that reached in its judgment of 31 October 2013. It based its finding on, among other things, the documents submitted by N.J.E. and, in particular, the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Spain (adopted at its session from 29 June to 24 July 2015), which recommended “once again” that the Spanish authorities put an end to incommunicado detention and guarantee the rights of all suspects to freely choose a lawyer whom they could consult in complete confidentiality and who could be present at interrogations. 21. On 15 July 2016 the Federal Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing in particular that there had been a breach of section 4(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act on the grounds that the reference to the Human Rights Committee’s observations was insufficient to rebut the presumption of observance of human rights. 22. In a judgment of 27 July 2016 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground of appeal relied on had been based on an incomplete reading of the impugned judgment. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEFramework Decision 2002/584/JAI Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI 23. For the purposes of the present case the Court refers to its judgment in Pirozzi v. Belgium (no. 21055/11, §§ 24-29, 17 April 2018), which sets out the relevant provisions of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, together with a summary of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”) in that regard. 24. Mention should also be made of the CJEU judgment in the case of Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions of detention in Hungary) (Case C ‑ 220/18 PPU, judgment of 25 July 2018). This judgment expanded on the methodology set out in the judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru (Joined Cases C‑404/15 and C‑659/15, judgment of 5 April 2016) and determined the extent of the assessment which the executing member State had to undertake where it had evidence pointing to systemic or generalised deficiencies with regard to the conditions of detention in prisons in the issuing State. The CJEU held, in substance, firstly, that the executing judicial authorities were required only to assess the actual and precise conditions of detention of the person concerned that were relevant in determining whether he or she was at real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Secondly, where the issuing authority had given assurances that the person concerned would not be subjected to such treatment, the executing authority, in view of the mutual trust between the judicial authorities of the member States, had to rely on those assurances, in the absence of any specific indications that the conditions of detention were in breach of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The European Arrest Warrant Act of 19 December 2003 25. In Belgium, the above-mentioned framework decision was transposed by means of the European Arrest Warrant Act of 19 December 2003, the relevant provisions of which read as follows: Section 2 “1. The arrest and surrender of persons sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order between Belgium and the other Member States of the European Union shall be governed by this Act. 2. The arrest and surrender shall be carried out on the basis of a European arrest warrant. 3. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by the competent judicial authority of a European Union Member State, referred to as the issuing judicial authority, with a view to the arrest and surrender by the competent judicial authority of another Member State, referred to as the executing authority, of a person sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. ...” Section 3 “A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable under the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.” Section 4 “Execution of the European arrest warrant shall be refused in the following cases: 1. If the offence on which the arrest warrant is based is covered by amnesty in Belgium, where Belgium had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own law. 2. If it transpires from the information available to the judge that the requested person has been the subject of a final judgment in Belgium or in another Member State in respect of the same acts, provided that, where sentence has been passed, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing Member State, or where a final judgment has been given in respect of the requested person in Belgium or in another Member State in relation to the same acts, which prevents further proceedings. 3. If the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant may not, owing to his or her age, be held criminally responsible for the acts on which the arrest warrant is based under Belgian law. 4. Where the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested person is statute-barred according to Belgian law and the acts fall within the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. 5. If there are substantial grounds for believing that execution of the European arrest warrant would infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. ...” Section 11 “1. Within twenty-four hours following the actual deprivation of liberty, the person concerned shall be brought before an investigating judge, who shall inform him or her (1) of the existence and content of the European arrest warrant; (2) of the possibility of consenting to his or her surrender to the issuing judicial authority; and (3) of the right to choose a lawyer and an interpreter. This information shall be mentioned in the record of the hearing. ...” Section 15 “If the investigating judge deems the information provided by the issuing Member State in the European arrest warrant to be insufficient to enable a decision to be taken on the person’s surrender, he or she shall make an urgent request for the additional information required and may stipulate a time-limit for receiving it, taking account of the need to comply with the time-limit laid down in section 16(1). ...” Extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Belgian courts in criminal matters 26. Article 4 of the Belgian Criminal Code provides: “Offences committed outside the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium by Belgians or foreign nationals shall be punishable in Belgium only in those cases stipulated by law.” 27. The relevant provisions concerning the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Belgian courts in criminal matters are contained in the preliminary part of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 6 “Criminal proceedings may be brought in Belgium against any Belgian or any person whose principal residence is in the Kingdom of Belgium who, outside the country’s territory, commits one of the following: 1. a criminal offence against State security; 1 bis. a serious violation of international humanitarian law for the purposes of Title I bis of Book II of the Criminal Code; 1 ter. a terrorist offence under Title I ter of Book II of the Criminal Code. 2. A criminal offence against public confidence as laid down in Chapters I, II and III of Book II, Title III, of the Criminal Code or an offence under Articles 497 and 497 bis, if the offence in question concerns either the euro or other currencies which are legal tender in Belgium or objects intended for use in their manufacture, forgery, alteration or falsification, or the effects, papers, seals, stamps or marks of the Belgian State or public authorities or institutions. 3. A criminal offence against public confidence under the same provisions, if the offence in question concerns currencies which are not legal tender in Belgium or objects intended for use in their manufacture, forgery, alteration or falsification, or the effects, papers, seals, stamps or marks of another country. In the latter case prosecution shall be possible only where the Belgian authority receives official notice from the authority of the country concerned.” Article 7 “1. Criminal proceedings may be brought against any Belgian or any person whose principal residence is in the Kingdom of Belgium who, outside the country’s territory, commits an act classified as a criminal offence under Belgian law, if the act in question is punishable by the legislation of the country where it was committed. 2. If the offence was committed against a foreign national, a prosecution may be brought only on an application by the public prosecutor. It must also be preceded by a complaint from the aggrieved foreign national or his or her family, or by official notice given to the Belgian authority by the authority of the country in which the offence was committed. If the offence was committed in wartime against a national of a country allied with Belgium for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 117 of the Criminal Code, the official notice may also be given by the authority of the country of which the foreign national is or was a national.” RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT 28. In its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Spain, adopted at its 3192nd meeting held on 20 July 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Committee addressed the issue of incommunicado detention in the following terms: “17. The Committee reiterates its concern at the practice of court-authorized incommunicado detention. The Committee notes the initiative to reform the Code of Criminal Procedure and the information provided by the State party concerning the reduced use of incommunicado detention, but regrets that the reform does not abolish incommunicado detention or guarantee all the rights set out in article 14 of the Covenant, including the right to legal aid (arts. 7, 9, 10 and 14). The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations (CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 14) and recommends once again that the State party should take the necessary legislative measures to put an end to incommunicado detention and to guarantee the rights of all detainees to medical services and to freely choose a lawyer whom they can consult in complete confidentiality and who can be present at interrogations.”

In this case the applicants complained that their right to an effective investigation had been breached as a result of the Belgian authorities’ refusal to execute the European arrest warrants issued by Spain in respect of N.J.E., the individual suspected of shooting their father, who was murdered in 1981 by a commando unit claiming to belong to the terrorist organisation ETA. The Belgian courts had held that N.J.E.’s extradition would infringe her fundamental rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.

Medical negligence and liability of health professionals

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10. The applicants, Franja and Ivan Šilih, were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec. 11. On 3 May 1993, at some point between midday and 1 p.m., the applicants'twenty-year-old son, Gregor Šilih, sought medical assistance in the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital for, inter alia, nausea and itching skin. He was examined by a duty doctor, M.E. On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid ( Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic ( Synopen ). Following the injections, the applicants'son's condition significantly deteriorated. This was probably a result of him being allergic to one or both of the drugs. His skin became very pale, he began to tremble and to feel cold; M.E. noticed signs of tachycardia. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made. Subsequently, at 1.30 p.m., the applicant's son was transferred to intensive care. M.E. ordered the administration of, inter alia, adrenaline. By the time the cardiologist arrived, the applicants'son had stopped breathing and had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was given. At around 2.15 p.m. the applicants'son was connected to a respirator and his blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma; his brain was severely damaged. 12. On 4 May 1993 he was transferred to the Ljubljana Clinical Centre ( Klinični center v Ljubljani ), where he died on 19 May 1993. 13. The exact timing of the events which led to the death of the applicants'son and the action taken by M.E. in response to his deteriorating condition were disputed in the domestic proceedings. 14. On 13 May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint ( ovadba ) with the Slovenj Gradec Unit of the Maribor First-Instance Public Prosecutor's Office ( Temeljno javno tožilstvo Maribor, Enota v Slovenj Gradcu ) against M.E. for the criminal offence of “negligent medical treatment” ( nevestno zdravljenje ) which, following the applicants'son's death, was characterised as “a serious criminal offence that [had] caused damage to health” ( hudo kaznivo dejanje zoper človekovo zdravje ). The applicants argued that, through the intravenous injection of the two drugs, M.E. had given their son the wrong treatment and had subsequently failed to take appropriate corrective measures after his condition deteriorated. 15. In the course of the preliminary proceedings ( predkazenski postopek ) medical documents concerning the treatment administered to the applicants'son were seized by the police and, following his death, the duty investigating judge ( preiskovalni sodnik ) directed the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine ( Inštitut za sodno medicino v Ljubljani ) to conduct an autopsy and prepare a forensic report. 16. On 26 August 1993 the police submitted a report to the public prosecutor from which it appears that the Ministry of Health ( Ministrstvo za zdravstvo ) requested the Medical Association ( Zdravniško Društvo ) to set up a commission to prepare an opinion in the case. The commission was composed of the same experts as those who were preparing the forensic report (see paragraph 17 below). According to the report, the opinion was sent on 11 June 1993 to the Ministry of Health, which published it in two of Slovenia's main newspapers on 19 June 1993. 17. On 1 July 1993 the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine submitted their report, which stated, inter alia : “The anaphylactic shock which ... followed the administration of Dexamethason and Synopen was most likely due to sensitivity to one of the mentioned drugs. The medical treatment of anaphylactic shock in the Slovenj Gradec Hospital was, on the basis of the medical records, in accordance with established medical practice. The consequent ventricular fibrillation was influenced by the infection of the heart muscle, which Gregor Šilih must have contracted several weeks before 3 May 1993. After the ventricular fibrillation occurred, the hospital staff gave resuscitation. According to the medical records, this was performed in accordance with established medical practice. In the period from Gregor Šilih's admission to the Slovenj Gradec Hospital until his death, we have not found any acts or omissions in his medical treatment which could be characterised as clearly inappropriate or negligent.” 18. On 8 April 1994 the public prosecutor dismissed the applicants'criminal complaint on the ground of insufficient evidence. A. Criminal proceedings 19. On 1 August 1994 the applicants, acting as “subsidiary” prosecutors ( subsidiarni tožilec ), lodged a request for the opening of a criminal investigation ( zahteva za preiskavo ) into M.E.'s conduct. 20. On 8 November 1994, having heard representations from M.E. on 26 October 1994, the investigating judge of the Maribor First-Instance Court ( Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru ) granted their request. On 27 December 1994, on an appeal ( pritožba ) by M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel ( zunaj- obravnavni senat ) of the Maribor First-Instance Court overturned the investigating judge's decision after finding that the evidence in the case-file, in particular the forensic report, did not afford reasonable grounds for suspecting M.E. of manifestly acting in breach of professional standards. 21. An appeal by the applicants and a request for the protection of legality ( zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ) were dismissed, the latter in a decision of 29 June 1995 by the Slovenj Gradec District Court ( Okrožno sodišče v Slovenj Gradcu ), which obtained jurisdiction in the case after the reorganisation of the judiciary in 1995. The applicants contested that decision. On 5 October 1995 the Maribor Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Mariboru ) dismissed their appeal on essentially the same grounds as those on which the previous appeal and request for the protection of legality had been rejected, namely that the applicants were not entitled to appeal against the interlocutory-proceedings panel's decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctor. 22. Subsequently the applicants obtained a medical opinion from Doctor T.V. who stated, inter alia, that myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), which had previously been considered a contributory factor in the death of the applicants'son, could have occurred when he was in anaphylactic shock or even later. As a result, on 30 November 1995 they lodged a request to reopen the criminal investigation (see paragraph 90 below). In addition, they lodged a motion to change the venue of the proceedings to the Maribor District Court ( Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru ). On 31 January 1996 the Maribor Higher Court granted their motion for a change of venue. 23. On 26 April 1996 the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court granted the applicants'request for the reopening of the investigation. An appeal by M.E. was rejected by the Maribor Higher Court on 4 July 1996. 24. In the course of the investigation, the investigating judge examined witnesses and obtained an opinion from P.G., an expert at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Graz ( Austria ). P.G. stated in his report that the administration of the antihistaminic had led to the applicants'son's serious allergic reaction. He expressed doubts as to the pre-existence of myocarditis. 25. On 10 February 1997 the investigating judge closed the investigation. 26. Owing to the complexity of the case, the applicants asked the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office ( Okrožno državno tožilstvo v Mariboru ) to take over the conduct of the prosecution. Their request was rejected on 21 February 1997. The Head of the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office subsequently explained to the Supreme Public Prosecutor ( Vrhovni državni tožilec ) that, while P.G.'s report confirmed the existence of reasonable suspicion that M.E. had caused the death by negligence, it was not a sufficient basis on which to lodge an indictment as that required a degree of certainty. 27. On 28 February 1997 the applicants lodged an indictment accusing M.E. of the criminal offence of “causing death by negligence” ( povzročitev smrti iz malomarnosti ). 28. On 7 May 1997, upon M.E.'s objection to the indictment, the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court directed the applicants to request, within three days, additional investigative measures (see paragraph 93 below). 29. The investigating judge subsequently examined several witnesses and ordered a forensic report by K.H., an Austrian forensic expert in the field of emergency medicine and anaesthesia. K.H. stated in his report that the ultimate reason for the death of the applicants'son was relatively uncertain, so that the issue of the effectiveness of the measures taken by M.E in response to the son's condition was of no relevance. 30. On 22 June 1998 the investigating judge informed the applicants that it had been decided to close the investigation. He reminded them that they must either lodge an indictment or a further request for additional investigating measures within fifteen days (see paragraphs 91-92 below). 31. On 30 June 1998 the applicants asked the investigating judge to question K.H., P.G. and T.V. 32. On 24 November 1998, after questioning K.H., the investigating judge informed the applicants that the investigation had been closed. They were again reminded that they must either lodge an indictment or a further request for additional investigative measures within fifteen days. 33. On 10 December 1998 the applicants lodged an indictment supplemented by evidence that had been obtained in the extended investigation. On 12 January 1999 an interlocutory-proceedings panel rejected M.E.'s objection to the initial indictment as unfounded. 34. On 22 January 1999 M.E. lodged a request for the protection of legality, claiming that the indictment submitted on 10 December 1998 had not been served on her. On 25 February 1999 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovno sodišče ) quashed the Maribor District Court's decision of 12 January 1999 and remitted the case to the District Court with instructions to serve the indictment of 10 December 1998 on M.E. M.E. subsequently lodged an objection to that indictment and on 3 June 1999 the interlocutory-proceedings panel decided to refer the case back to the applicants, directing them to obtain further evidence – by requesting additional investigative measures – within three days from the service of its decision. 35. The applicants complied with the directions and on 21 June 1999 requested additional investigative measures, in particular the examination of K.H., P.G. and T.V. In their request, they complained of the remittal of the case since they considered that the evidence should have been further assessed at the trial and not at that stage of the proceedings. 36. Further to their request, the investigating judge ordered a supplementary report from K.H. and, on 3 December 1999, informed the applicants that further investigative measures had been taken and that they had 15 days in which to lodge an indictment or request additional measures. 37. Following a request by the applicants on 16 December 1999 for further measures, the investigating judge ordered a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 1993 and the examination of two witnesses. 38. The investigation was closed on 3 May 2000. The applicants were reminded of the requirements under section 186, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Act (“ the CPA” – see paragraph 92 below). 39. In the meantime, on 28 June 1999 the applicants again made an unsuccessful request to the public prosecutor to take over the conduct of the prosecution. 40. On 19 May 2000 the applicants filed a further indictment and the additional evidence they had been directed to obtain. 41. In August 2000 the applicants complained to the Judicial Council ( Sodni svet ) about the length of the criminal proceedings. They also challenged the three judges sitting on the interlocutory-proceedings panel which had previously heard M.E.'s objection to the indictment. On 10 October 2000 the President of the Maribor District Court rejected the applicants'request for the judges to stand down. 42. Following a further objection to the indictment by M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel examined the case on 18 October 2000 and decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings. Relying in particular on the opinions of the Ljubljana Institute of Forensic Medicine and K.H., it found that the applicants'son's reaction to the administration of Dexamethason and/or Synopen was a consequence of his sensitivity to those drugs and of myocarditis, which was undoubtedly a pre-existing condition. As regards the conduct of M.E., the interlocutory-proceedings panel found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the applicants'accusation that she had committed the criminal offence alleged. The applicants were ordered to pay the court fees and the expenses incurred in the proceedings since 23 January 1999 (the date the CPA was amended so as to require the aggrieved party to pay costs if the proceedings ended with the dismissal of the indictment). 43. On 7 November 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal which the Maribor Higher Court dismissed on 20 December 2000. They then petitioned the Public Prosecutor-General ( Generalni državni tožilec ), asking him to lodge a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court. Their petition was rejected on 18 May 2001. 44. In the meantime, on 13 March 2001 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavno sodišče ), complaining of procedural unfairness and the length of the proceedings and that they had been denied access to a court since the indictment had been rejected by the interlocutory-proceedings panel. On 9 October 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed their appeal on the ground that after the final discontinuance of criminal proceedings a “subsidiary” prosecutor could not appeal to the Constitutional Court, as he had no locus standi before that court. 45. On 27 March 2001 the applicants also lodged a criminal complaint alleging improper conduct on the part of seven judges of the Maribor District and Higher Courts who had sat in their case. The complaint was dismissed as unfounded by the Maribor District Public Prosecutor's Office on 13 June 2001. 46. Subsequently, the applicants made several attempts to reopen the case. Among other motions filed by the applicants that were rejected as inadmissible by the authorities were the following. On 3 July 2001 they lodged a “request for the criminal proceedings to be reinstated”, which was considered in substance to be a request for the reopening of the case. On 29 August 2001 the interlocutory-proceedings panel of the Maribor District Court dismissed the request on the grounds that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued in a decision that was final and that it would be detrimental to the accused to reopen the case. On 9 November 2001 the Maribor Higher Court rejected an appeal by the applicants dated 4 September 2001. On 24 June 2002 the applicants lodged with the Maribor Higher Court a “request for immediate annulment of the entire criminal proceedings ... conducted before the Maribor District Court”. This was also considered in substance to be a request for the reopening of the case and was likewise dismissed. On 27 November 2002 the Maribor Higher Court rejected an appeal by the applicants. 47. Ultimately, on 17 July 2002 the applicants lodged a fresh indictment against M.E. On 14 July 2003 the Slovenj Gradec District Court struck the indictment out because the prosecution of the alleged offence had become time-barred on 3 May 2003. B. Civil proceedings 48. On 6 July 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital and M.E. in the Slovenj Gradec District Court for the non-pecuniary damage they had sustained as a result of their son's death in the amount of 24,300,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT). 49. On 10 August 1995 they also instituted proceedings against the head of the internal medical care unit, F.V., and the director of the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital, D.P. Further to a request by the applicants, the court joined the two sets of proceedings. 50. All the defendants in the proceedings had lodged their written pleadings by October 1995. 51. On 30 August 1997, in a supervisory appeal ( nadzorstvena pritožba ) to the President of the Slovenj Gradec District Court, the applicants argued that the civil proceedings should proceed despite the fact that criminal proceedings were pending since the latter had already been considerably delayed. 52. On 21 October 1997, referring to sub-paragraph 1 of section 213 of the Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 97 below), the court stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings. It noted that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend to a large extent on the determination of the preliminary question ( predhodno vprašanje ), namely the verdict in the criminal proceedings. The applicants did not appeal against that decision, which therefore became final on 17 November 1997. 53. On 22 October 1998 Judge S.P. replied to a supervisory appeal by the applicants dated 15 October 1998, inter alia in the following terms: “[The applicants] are'subsidiary'prosecutors in the criminal proceedings and therefore are very well aware that the proceedings before the Maribor District Court, where the preliminary question is being determined, have not been completed. Their supervisory appeal concerning the stay of the [civil] proceedings is therefore pure hypocrisy.” Upon a complaint by the applicants lodged with the Ministry of Justice, Judge S.P. was ordered to explain her reply to the applicants. 54. In February 1999 the applicants again filed a supervisory appeal; the stay, however, remained in force. 55. On 27 August 1999 Judge P.P., to whom the case appears to have been assigned in the meantime, sent the applicants a letter, in which he stated, inter alia : “In the instant case the determination of criminal liability is a preliminary question which is relevant to the determination of the civil claim, since a civil court cannot establish facts which are different from those established by the criminal court.” 56. On 8 September 1999 the applicants filed a motion for a change of venue which the Supreme Court rejected on 13 October 1999. 57. On 6 December 1999 the Slovenj Gradec District Court informed the applicants that the reasons for staying the proceedings still obtained. 58. On 12 March 2001 the applicants filed a supervisory appeal requesting that the stay of the civil proceedings be lifted. On 19 May 2001 Judge P.P. scheduled a hearing for 13 June 2001. However, that hearing was subsequently cancelled at the applicants'request after their representative explained that she had been injured in a road accident and was on sick leave. 59. On 11 June 2001 the applicants filed a further motion for a change of venue. On 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court decided to move the venue to the Maribor District Court on the grounds of “tension that was impeding and delaying the trial”. 60. The case was subsequently assigned to Judge M.T.Z. On 3 April 2002 the Maribor District Court held a hearing which was adjourned as the applicants indicated that they wished to lodge a request for the judges officiating at that court to stand down. 61. After lodging a criminal complaint against some of the judges (see paragraph 45 above), the applicants filed a motion on 8 April 2002 for all the judges at the Maribor District Court and Maribor Higher Court to stand down. Having been asked to comment on the applicants'request, Judge M.T.Z. stated, inter alia, that she had realised at the hearing on 3 April 2002 that one of the defendants, with whom she had shaken hands at the hearing, was a close acquaintance (“ dober znanec ”) of her father. She added that the applicants were constantly lodging objections which had made it impossible to conduct the proceedings properly. It would appear that Judge M.T.Z subsequently herself requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 12 August 2002 the request for the judges to stand down was granted in so far as it concerned Judge M.T.Z. The case was assigned to Judge K.P. 62. On 21 November 2002 and 20 March 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants'motions for a change of venue. 63. A hearing scheduled for 12 June 2003 was adjourned at the applicants'request, after they had alleged that their lawyer was unwilling to represent them since her daughter had been denied medical care in the Ljubljana Clinical Centre. They subsequently informed the court that their lawyer would, in fact, continue to represent them. 64. On 28 October 2003 the Maribor District Court held a hearing at which it examined F.V. and M.E. It would appear from the records of the hearing that the applicants were not allowed to ask a series of twelve questions they wished to put. The judge's decision not to allow the questions was based mostly on objections made by the defendant, although on four occasions the court does appear to have stated reasons for its decision not to allow the question concerned. 65. On 8 December 2003 the applicants filed a motion for Judge K.P. to stand down. That request was rejected on 18 December 2003. 66. A hearing scheduled for 16 January 2004 was adjourned because the applicants had lodged a further motion for a change of venue. On 5 March 2004 the applicants lodged another motion. Both motions were rejected by the Supreme Court (on 22 January 2004 and 13 May 2004 respectively). 67. It appears that hearings scheduled for 23 and 24 March 2005 were adjourned because of the applicants'newly appointed lawyer's commitments in another, unrelated case. 68. On 4 May 2005 the applicants filed written submissions and amended their claim for damages. They also requested that the proceedings be expedited. 69. On 12 October 2005 Judge D.M., to whom the case had apparently meanwhile been assigned, was ordered by the President of the Maribor District Court to treat the case with priority and to report every sixty days on the status of the proceedings. The President explained his decision by referring to the length of the proceedings, the case's high profile and the intervention by the Ombudsman ( Varuh človekovih pravic ). 70. A hearing was held on 23, 25 and 27 January 2006 before Judge D.M. The applicants withdrew their claims in respect of F.V. and D.P. After the hearing, they requested Judge D.M. to stand down on the grounds that she had refused to allow them adequate time to reply to their opponent's extensive submissions which had been filed on the same day. Their request was rejected by the President of the Maribor District Court on 30 January 2006. However, on 31 January 2006 Judge D.M. herself asked to withdraw from the proceedings on the ground that her full name had been mentioned in a newspaper article on 28 January 2006 which had also stated that she had been asked to stand down owing to the alleged unequal treatment of the parties in the proceedings. The president of the court upheld her request as being “certainly well-founded”. 71. The case was subsequently assigned to Judge A.Z. 72. Hearings were held on 16 June and 25 August 2006. 73. On 25 August 2006 the Maribor District Court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicants'claim, which ultimately amounted to SIT 10,508,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and SIT 5,467,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicants were ordered to pay legal costs to the defendants. Relying on the expert opinions, the court concluded that M.E. could not have foreseen the applicants'son's reaction to the drugs that were administered to him and that she and the hospital staff had acted in accordance with the required standard of care. In addition, the court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicants'claim that the hospital was not properly equipped. 74. On 25 October 2006 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Maribor Higher Court. They argued that the first-instance court had not correctly established all the relevant facts, had wrongly applied the substantive law and had committed a procedural error by not allowing or taking into account certain evidence and, in particular, by refusing to obtain a further expert opinion. 75. On 15 January 2008 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated and upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 76. On 28 February 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ). 77. On 10 July 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants'appeal on points of law after noting that, apart from the reference to the European Court of Human Rights'judgment finding a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, it raised essentially the same complaint as their appeal to the Higher Court, namely the refusal to obtain or consider certain evidence the applicants considered relevant. It rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated, finding that the lower courts had acted in accordance with the law. It further held that the European Court of Human Rights'judgment, which related to the requirement for the prompt examination of cases concerning death in a hospital setting, could not have influenced its conclusion as to the lawfulness of the refusal to obtain or consider the evidence in question. 78. On 15 September 2008 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of the following constitutional guarantees: the right to equality before the law, the inviolability of human life, the right to equal protection, the right to judicial protection and the right to legal remedies. The proceedings are still pending. C. The criminal complaint filed against the first applicant 79. On 29 April 2002 the Maribor District Public Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment ( obtožni predlog ) against the first applicant alleging that she had engaged in insulting behaviour by saying to an official at the Maribor District Court “I have had enough of this f*** court, the damn State does not do anything, isn't it aware that our son was killed!”. The prosecution was based on a criminal complaint filed by the Maribor District Court. 80. On 5 October 2004 the Maribor District Court withdrew the criminal complaint as a result of the Ombudsman's intervention (see paragraph 85 below). The Maribor Local Court subsequently dismissed the bill of indictment. D. Findings of the Ombudsman 81. The applicants lodged several petitions with the Ombudsman's office concerning the conduct of the civil proceedings. Their case was reported in the Ombudsman's Annual Reports of 2002, 2003 and 2004. 82. In a letter to the President of the Slovenj Gradec District Court on 24 April 2001, the Deputy Ombudsman stressed that the issue of criminal liability could not be regarded as a preliminary question in the civil proceedings instituted against the doctor and the hospital. He further stated that there was no justification for staying the civil proceedings. 83. In a letter to the applicants of 29 August 2002 and his Annual Report of 2002 (pp. 42 and 43), the Ombudsman criticised the conduct of Judge M.T.Z. He stressed that the judge had expressed concerns about her ability to appear impartial only after the applicants had filed the request for her to stand down and after the Ombudsman's intervention in the case, although she had been aware of the reasons for the concerns beforehand. 84. The section of the Ombudsman's Report of 2003 (pp. 226-228) dealing with the applicants'case and in particular criticising aspects of the judge's conduct of the civil proceedings states, inter alia : “In the record of the hearing [of 28 October 2003] reference is made to twelve questions which the plaintiffs were not permitted to ask. ... As regards the majority of these twelve questions, the record contains no indication why the judge did not allow the plaintiffs to put the questions. In each instance, there was a prior objection by the defendants'representatives to the question. ... Although [the applicants'] reactions, statements and proposals were perhaps extreme on occasion, the authorities, including the courts, ought to have taken into account their emotional distress ... [a factor which] may necessitate the trial being conducted in a particularly tolerant and flexible way, [though] without breaching procedural rules to the detriment of the defendants. However, the record of the hearing gives the impression of a tense rather than dispassionate atmosphere at the hearing, an impression that is reinforced also by the records of the exchanges between the judge and the plaintiffs'representative.” 85. In his Annual Report of 2004 (pp. 212-214), the Ombudsman criticised the Maribor District Court for filing the criminal complaint against the first applicant. The report drew attention to the Maribor District Court's explanation that it was required by law to file and pursue the criminal complaint as it would be guilty of a criminal offence if it did not. The Ombudsman stressed that there was no legal basis for such a conclusion. On the contrary, a criminal charge for an offence of insulting behaviour could only be pursued on the basis of the aggrieved party's criminal complaint, which in the instant case was the Maribor District Court's complaint. Following the Ombudsman's intervention and in view of the arguments set out in his letters, the Maribor District Court decided to withdraw the criminal complaint against the first applicant. III. DECLARATION OF SLOVENIA UNDER FORMER ARTICLES 25 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION OF 28 JUNE 1994: 105. On 28 June 1994, when depositing the instrument of ratification of the Convention with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia made the following declaration: “The Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes for an indefinite period of time, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 7 of Protocol No. 7, the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to deal with petitions addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe by any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of [a] violation of the rights set forth in the Convention and its Protocols, where the facts of the alleged violation of these rights occur after the Convention and its Protocols have come into force in respect of the Republic of Slovenia. The Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes for an indefinite period of time, in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 7 of Protocol No. 7, as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and its Protocols and relating to facts occurring after the Convention and its Protocols have come into force in respect of the Republic of Slovenia.”

The applicants’ 20-year-old son, who sought medical assistance for nausea and itching skin, died in hospital in 1993 after he was injected with drugs to which he was allergic. The applicants complained that their son died because of medical negligence and that there had been no effective investigation into his death.

(Suspected) terrorists

"I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently being held in R(...TRUNCATED)

"This case concerned the extradition, which had been effected despite the indication of an interim m(...TRUNCATED)

Way of life, forced evictions and alternative accommodation

"I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7. The individual applicants are mostly travellers ( gens du voyag(...TRUNCATED)

"This case concerned eviction proceedings brought against a number of traveller families who had bee(...TRUNCATED)

Taking of children into care

"I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10. The applicants are German nationals who were born in 1966 and (...TRUNCATED)

"The applicants, a married couple, complained that the withdrawal of their parental authority in res(...TRUNCATED)

Prevention of terrorism

"THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1969. 6. At the relevant time she was de(...TRUNCATED)

"This case concerned the refusal to allow the applicant, an active member of ETA until her arrest in(...TRUNCATED)