4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant was charged with aggravated smuggling. The prosecution's case was that he had arranged for an aircraft to be sold to a Russian company in breach of the relevant customs rules. 6.  On 25 December 1996 an investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Security Service (Управління Служби Безпеки України по Харківській області hereafter “the USBU”) informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation had been completed and granted him access to the case-file. 7.  On an unknown date in early February 1997 the investigator drew up the bill of indictment and submitted it to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (Харківська обласна прокуратура, hereafter “the Prosecutor's Office”) for approval. On 14 February 1997 the Prosecutor's Office decided that further investigations were necessary and remitted the case to the USBU. 8.  By July 1997 the investigator had questioned over 40 witnesses.  On 25 July 1997 he declared the pre-trial investigation completed, and allowed the applicant to consult the case-file. 9.  On 12 August 1997 the Prosecutor's Office sent the case-file together with the bill of indictment to the Kiyevsky District Court of Kharkiv (Київський районний суд м. Харкова, hereafter “the Kiyevsky Court”) for trial proceedings. 10.  The trial commenced on 16 October 1997. 11.  On 1 December 1997, after eight hearings, the Kiyevsky Court remitted the case for further investigations. On 20 January 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Court rejected the prosecution's appeal against this ruling. On 24 June 1998 the Presidium of the Kharkiv Regional Court dismissed a protest (extraordinary appeal) of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region against these decisions. 12.  On 30 March 1998, in the context of the additional investigation ordered by the Kiyevsky Court, the applicant's charges were amended to include a forgery by an official. 13.  On 1 June 1998 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file. On 3 June 1998 the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the Prosecutor's Office for approval. On 24 June 1998 the Prosecutor's Office remitted the case for further investigations. 14.  On 10 July 1998 the investigator requested the Russian authorities to question several witnesses living in Moscow. On 26 August 1998 some of those witnesses were questioned and the minutes were provided to the Ukrainian authorities. A similar request for the Russian authorities to question witnesses living in Khabarovsk, filed on 20 October 1998, was not acted on. 15.  On 4 November 1998 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the whether the aircraft was fit to fly. 16.  On 25 December 1998 the investigator informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation in his case was completed. Between that date and 1 July 1999 the applicant and his co-accused Mr I. had access to the case‑file. 17.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant was additionally charged with abuse of power. 18.  On 1 July 1999 the Prosecutor's Office approved the bill of indictment and transmitted the case to the Kiyevsky Court. 19.  In the period to 5 July 2001 the court held 20 hearings, examined several motions of the applicant, Mr. I and the company which had bought the aircraft, which had joined the proceedings as a civil claimant. Between 15 and 22 June 2001 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's illness. 20.  On 6 July 2001 Kiyevsky Court remitted part of the case file for further investigations. The applicant appealed. On 22 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Харківської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant's appeal against this ruling. 21.  On 18 February 2002 the Kiyevsky Court decided that the remainder of the case also needed additional investigations. 22.  On 22 April 2002 the charges against the applicant were amended in accordance with the new Criminal Code which had entered into force on 1 September 2001. 23.  On 26 April 2002 the investigator completed the pre-trial investigation and granted the applicant and his co-accused access to the case file. On 12 July 2002 the case-file and the bill of indictment were sent to the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (Червонозаводський районний суд м. Харкова hereafter “the Chervonozavodsky Court”). The judge fixed the preparatory hearing for 22 August 2002; it was adjourned until 11 September 2002 because Mr I. was ill. 24.  On 11 September 2002 the Chervonozavodsky Court committed the applicant for trial and fixed the first hearing on the merits for 28 October 2002. 25.  Between October 2002 and November 2003 the trial court held three hearings. Eight sittings scheduled for this period were cancelled because investigator or the prosecutor failed to appear. On two occasions the hearings were adjourned due to the judge's illness and holiday. Two more sittings were cancelled on account of Mr I.'s and the applicant's absence. 26.  Between December 2003 and June 2004 the proceedings were suspended because the authorities had not provided the witnesses living outside Kharkiv with appropriate accommodation during the hearings. 27.  Between 15 June and 13 October 2004 the trial court held fourteen hearings. 28.  On 13 October 2004 the Chervonozavodsky Court acquitted the applicant, having found no corpus delicti in the imputed actions. The prosecution and the applicant appealed. The latter sought an acquittal on the ground that there had been no crime rather than no corpus delicti. The civil claimant also filed an appeal. 29.  On 31 March 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) decided not to entertain the prosecution's appeal on the ground that it was not signed by the prosecutor who had participated in the proceedings before the first instance court. The appeals of the applicant and the civil claimant were rejected as unsubstantiated. The same parties appealed in cassation. 30.  On 11 April 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 31 March 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh appellate hearing on the ground that the Court of Appeal's refusal to entertain the prosecutor's appeal had not been reasonable. 31.  On 1 August 2006 the Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor's appeal, quashed the judgment of 13 October 2004 and remitted the case to the Prosecutor's Office for further pre-trial investigations. 32.  Since 23 January 1997 the applicant has brought seventeen complaints with higher prosecutions authorities, challenging the conduct of criminal proceedings in his case. 33.  The investigation in the case is still pending.


8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 9.  The applicant and her family (her husband and two children, born in 1982 and 1987) moved into a dormitory in Volgograd in 1985. They occupied two rooms in the dormitory, with shared kitchen, shower and toilet facilities. They were registered as living in the dormitory permanently, which was their sole residence. In 1993 the ownership of the dormitory was transferred to a company called “VNIITMASH”. 10.  In 1995 the applicant, along with other residents, was ordered by the District Prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district of Volgograd to vacate the premises because the building required urgent structural renovation. The applicant was provided with temporary housing in another dormitory in Volgograd, although smaller and of inferior quality. In August 1995 the applicant was forcibly evicted from the building and her belongings were transferred. 11.  The applicant, along with other residents, brought an action against VNIITMASH and the administration of the Sovetskiy district for provision of permanent housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They alleged that though the status of the building was a dormitory, their contracts were not for dormitory-type accommodation, but for proper flats. On 24 April 1996 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed in the final instance the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court to reject the applicants’ claim. VNIITMASH undertook to allow the applicants to return to the dormitory after the renovation, which was scheduled to be completed in September 1996. 12.  The building was not renovated on time, and the applicant applied to the court again. The district administration accepted her claims. The Sovetskiy District Court by its judgment of 22 June 1999 ordered the administration to provide the applicant with “comfortable” (благоустроенное) housing. Neither of the parties appealed, and the judgment entered into force and was forwarded to the bailiff in July 1999. 13.  On 8 September 1999 the renovation in the original building was completed and the ownership of it was transferred to the district administration, with the status of a dormitory. 14.  On 24 September 1999 the administration of the Sovetskiy district issued a voucher (ордер) to the applicant’s family for two rooms of 34 square metres in the newly renovated dormitory building. It appears that the bailiff closed the enforcement procedures on 11 October 1999. 15.  The applicant refused to accept the accommodation offered, as she believed that the housing in the dormitory did not correspond to the definition of “comfortable”, as ordered by the court on 22 June 1999. She also alleged that the conditions had become worse since the renovation. In particular, the applicant and her family would only be able to register as temporary occupants of the building and the rooms offered to them were separated from each other and were connected by a corridor shared with other rooms. Further, they were required to share the toilet and kitchen facilities with a larger number of families, and the quality of the building remained very poor, even after the renovation. 16.  On her complaint, the bailiff reopened the enforcement procedures and on 23 February 2000 prohibited the issuing of housing vouchers by the district administration. 17.  On 27 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court, on the administration’s complaint, quashed the bailiff’s order of 23 February 2000. On 28 June 2000 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed this decision. The courts found that the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 had been executed by the administration which had provided her with “comfortable” housing in the dormitory, and the applicant’s refusal to accept it did not warrant continuation of enforcement procedures. 18.  On 18 July 2000 the administration offered three rooms in the dormitory to the applicant, totalling 53,5 square metres. The applicant and her family did not accept the places in the dormitory and refused to move in. 19.  On 6 June 2000 the rapporteur, under Rule 49 § 1 of the Rules of Court, asked the Russian Government the following questions:
“1. What is the current situation with respect to enforcement of the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd of 22 June 1999? 20.  The Government responded on 18 September 2000. They informed the Court that on 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review upon a request (протест) lodged by its president, had quashed the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 and returned the case for a new consideration at first instance. 21.  The applicant later informed the Court that she had not been aware of the session of the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court of 17 July 2000, as the information notice had been sent to her only on 13 July when she was out of town. The representatives of the administration and the District Prosecutor’s Office had attended the hearing and presented their arguments. 22.  On 26 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court again considered the case and rejected the applicant’s claim, stating that she was only entitled to housing in the renewed dormitory. The decision was confirmed on 30 August 2000 by the Volgograd Regional Court. On 27 September 2000 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings because the court decision of 22 June 1999 had been quashed. 23.  The applicant on several occasions attempted to challenge the court decision by way of supervisory review, but was unsuccessful. 24.  On 12 April 2001 the district administration confirmed the offer of three rooms in the dormitory to the applicant, but she did not accept it. 25.  On 5 October 2001 the complaint was communicated to the Russian Government. 26.  On 4 February 2002 a request for supervisory review was lodged with the Supreme Court by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court. On 4 March 2002 the Supreme Court, acting by way of supervisory review, quashed the following judicial decisions: the decision of the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court of 17 July 2000, the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 26 July 2000, the decision of the Volgograd Regional Court of 30 August 2000. It has thus restored the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999. 27.  On 12 April 2002 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review upon a request by the President of the Regional Court, again quashed the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of 22 June 1999 and returned the case for a new consideration. The new proceedings are still pending.


5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 6.  By five judgments of different courts of first instance (the application no. 48249/07 concerns the non-enforcement of two judgments) of 22 January 2003, 5 October 1999, 25 June 2002, 19 December 2000 and 11 January 2000 which became final on 17 September 2003, 1 June 2001, 6 December 2004, 22 February 2001, 7 April 2004, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:
(i)  BAM 5,555.25 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 881 in respect of legal costs to Mr Jovan Janjić;
(ii)  BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Kandićs;
(iii)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 400 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,986.80 in respect of legal costs to the Brborovićs (this is the total amount awarded by the domestic judgments of 5 October 1999 and 25 June 2002); and
(iv)  BAM 28,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,015 in respect of legal costs to Mr Draženko Zavišić. 7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 27 August 2001, 22 December 2006, 12 October 2001 and 9 July 2004, respectively. In the case of Mr Jovan Janjić no writ of execution was issued. 8.  The applicants, except for Mr Jovan Janjić, complained of non‑enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court. On 8 March 2006 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of the Brborovićs. On 20 December 2005 and 26 June 2007 the Constitutional Court ruled likewise in the case of the Kandićs and Mr Draženko Zavišić. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37). 9.  After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 31 March 2008 and 26 May 2009 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:
(i)  on 7 October 2010 to Mr Jovan Janjić;
(ii)  on 30 October 2009 to Mr Nedeljko Brborović and MsBranislavka Brborović (in respect of the judgment of 25 June 2002);
(iii)  on 15 December 2008 to Ms Vojka Kandić, Mr Miloš Kandić and Ms Mirjana Kandić; and
(iv)  on 30 October 2009 to Mr Draženko Zavišić. 10.  Ms Vojka Kandić, Mr Miloš Kandić and Ms Mirjana Kandić have already sold all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange. 11.  Mr Nedeljko Brborović and Mr Milenko Brborović were not issued bonds in respect of the judgment of 5 October 1999.


5.  The applicant association was registered in 1990 and is located in the town of Kakhovka, Kherson region. 6.  In 1990 the applicant association entered into a contract with the Construction Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration (“the Department”; Управління капітального будівництва Херсонської обласної державної адміністрації), according to which the latter undertook to construct a block of flats for the applicant association’s members. 7.  In January 2002 the applicant association instituted proceedings in the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region against the Department, seeking compensation for defaulting on the construction project. 8.  On 5 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant association and ordered the Department to pay it 144,066.74 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation. On 27 March 2003 the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region quashed the decision of the first-instance court and adopted a new decision, ordering the Department to pay the applicant association UAH 2,227,269.40 in compensation. 9.  On 20 June 2003 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for failure to comply with procedural requirements. 10.  On 15 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region issued a writ of execution for the decision of the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region of 27 March 2003. 11.  On 11 August 2003 the Suvorovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings. 12.  By decisions of 22 September and 22 December 2003, the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for being lodged out of time. 13.  The decision of 27 March 2003 remains unenforced to the present date with reference to the debtor’s lack of funds and realisable assets.


4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Brzeg. 5.  On 21 May 1999 the Brzeg District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant and several other men in connection with an investigation into allegations made by six women, some of whom were minors, that a group of several men had raped them, threatened them, beaten them and forced them to take drugs. The warrant for arrest was issued after the prosecution service had established that the applicant had gone into hiding and the police had unsuccessfully attempted to arrest him. 6.  On 21 July 1999 the police attempted to arrest the applicant. However he managed to escape trying in the process to run over police officers while driving away. Two other men sought under the arrest warrant issued in connection with the same investigation were apprehended and arrested. 7.  On 9 August 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. At the time of arrest he was in possession of a firearm and a forged identification document. On 13 August 1999 the Opole District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the following offences: repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty while acting in an organised criminal gang; leading an organised gang; supplying minor victims with drugs; forging an identification document; and destroying a police car. The court also found that, given that he had absconded in the past, there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding again and try to influence the victims. 8.  The applicant appealed against the decision ordering his detention on remand but his appeal was dismissed on 3 September 1999 by the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). 9.  On 18 October 1999 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences and on the complexity of the investigation which had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor. 10.  On 13 December 1999 the court decided that the applicant's detention should be prolonged. It considered that, in addition to the strong suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and the risk of his tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses justified holding him in custody. In addition, the court relied on the risk that, given that he had absconded in the past, he might go into hiding again. The court also observed that only detention on remand would secure the applicant's appearance at the trial. 11.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. It appears that the first hearing was held on 26 April 2000. In 2000 the trial court held in total 13 hearings. 12.  Subsequently, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of 12 June and 13 November 2000 and 15 May 2001. The decisions were based on the reasons given for his detention on previous occasions. 13.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 28 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted a special circumstance justifying his remaining in custody. 14.  On 7 November 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal again decided to prolong the pre-trial detention of the applicant, finding that the initial reasons for the detention were still valid. Furthermore, the court examined the course of the proceedings before the Opole Regional Court and agreed that the case was particularly complex and time-consuming, given the number of accused and the considerable amount of evidence which had to be examined. It considered that the trial court had acted diligently as it had taken evidence from nineteen witnesses during the last seven hearings. 15.  On 13 February 2002 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 May 2002. The court noted that the applicant had been detained on remand for a long time. However, it considered that the particular circumstances of the case justified keeping him in custody until 15 May 2002 by which time the trial should have been completed. 16.  Nevertheless, the trial court again applied to prolong the applicant's detention. On 8 May 2002 the Court of Appeal granted the application. However, it criticised the Regional Court for the delay in the case and requested the trial court “to take adequate and more intensive action to finish the trial”. The court further took into account that the accused were partly responsible for the length of the proceedings because they had lodged vexatious applications for new evidence to be heard and had not complied with time-limits for filing new submissions. 17.  The applicant's numerous applications for release and appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail. 18.  The Opole Regional Court held 23 hearings in 2001 and 21 hearings in 2002. On 31 July 2002 the Opole Regional Court gave a judgment in which it found the applicant guilty of several counts of repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty and false imprisonment committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. The applicant was also convicted of administering an unknown psychotropic substance to some of the victims and use of a forged identity document. The court acquitted the applicant of being the leader of the organised criminal gang. The applicant was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. The applicant and other co‑accused appealed. 19.  On 2 June 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal gave a judgment. It amended the first-instance judgment with respect to the applicant reducing his prison sentence to 10 years and 8 months. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). 20.  On 11 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.


4.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1945 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the parents of Mr Bayram Duran, aged 26, who died in a police station in Istanbul on 16 October 1994, as a result of having been beaten by four police officers. 5.  On 12 October 1994 a certain M.Y. filed a complaint with the police maintaining that a man had threatened his son and taken his money. 6.  On 15 October 1994 M.Y. saw Bayram Duran on a bus and told the bus driver to go to the police station. Once in front of the police station, M.Y. asked the police officers to arrest Bayram Duran, maintaining that the latter was the person who had threatened his son. Subsequently, at around 11 a.m. Bayram Duran was arrested on suspicion of having committed robbery (gasp). 7.  On 16 October 1994 at around 5 a.m. Bayram Duran was found dead at the Gazi police station. 8.  On the same day, at 12.35 p.m. a “scene of incident and examination of the corpse” report was drafted and signed by the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor, a medical expert, the director of the Gaziosmanpaşa police headquarters and four other persons. According to the report, there was no sign of ill-treatment or bullet wound on Bayram Duran’s body. The medical expert concluded that an autopsy was necessary to discover the cause of death. The report also contained details concerning the detention conditions, according to which the cell where Bayram Duran had been found dead had not been cleaned for around one week. There were several cigarette butts on the floor and spider webs on the walls. Furthermore, a sketch plan of the cell where Bayram Duran was found dead was drawn. 9.  On the same day, the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor took statements from the police officers who were on duty. The officers all contended that Bayram Duran had not been tortured or subjected to ill‑treatment while in custody and that they had found him dead in his cell when they had gone there to offer him a cup of tea. 10.  On 17 October 1994 an autopsy was carried out on Bayram Duran’s body. In the autopsy report drafted on 14 December 1994 and signed by four doctors from the hospital at the Cerrahpaşa University, the cause of death was identified as cardiac failure. The forensic experts found a haemorrhage of 3 x 8 cm in the left scapular region. They nevertheless considered that the haemorrhage had not directly caused Bayram Duran’s death. 11.  On 29 December 1994 the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of Bayram Duran’s death. Basing his decision on the autopsy report of 14 December 1994, the public prosecutor noted that the cause of death was not the haemorrhage. 12.  On 21 February 1995 the first applicant, Ali Duran, filed an objection with the Beyoğlu Assize Court against the decision of 29 December 1994. He maintained that the content of the autopsy report was inadequate as, inter alia, it did not specify how the haemorrhage in Bayram Duran’s body could have been caused. He further contended that the public prosecutor had questioned only the police officers before rendering his decision. Ali Duran finally submitted that his son had been tortured to death and that the decision not to prosecute constituted a violation of his right to life. 13.  On 30 May 1995 the Beyoğlu Assize Court requested the Gaziosmanpaşa Magistrates’ Court to hear evidence from the first applicant and a witness and to conduct an examination of the case. 14.  On 15 September 1995 the Gaziosmanpaşa Magistrates’ Court heard evidence from the first applicant and two witnesses, H.K. and Ü.Y. The court then ordered the Forensic Medicine Institute to draft a report in order to determine whether the haemorrhage in Bayram Duran’s body could have been caused by ill‑treatment and whether there was a link between the haemorrhage and Bayram Duran’s death. 15.  On 13 March 1996 a report was drafted and signed by six forensic medicine experts, including the director of the Forensic Medicine Institute. Having examined the autopsy report, the experts noted that Bayram Duran had suffered from a heart condition. They further considered that the haemorrhage had been caused by a direct trauma to the scapular region. The experts concluded that the stress caused by the trauma and the material conditions in which he had been detained had aggravated Bayram Duran’s heart condition and had given rise to a cardiac failure. 16.  On 9 April 1996 the Beyoğlu Assize Court annulled the decision not to prosecute and decided to initiate criminal proceedings against the seven police officers who had signed the documents concerning Bayram Duran’s arrest on 15 October 1994. In its decision, the court noted that Bayram Duran’s death might have ocurred as a result of torture inflicted on him and it therefore considered that criminal proceedings should be initiated. 17.  On 6 June 1996 the Eyüp public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Eyüp Assize Court charging seven police officers with causing death unintentionally as a result of an act of violence, under Articles 452 § 2 and 251 of the former Criminal Code. 18.  On 28 August 1996 the Eyüp Assize Court decided to transfer the case to the Denizli Assize Court on the ground of public security. 19.  On 18 November 1996, upon the request of the Denizli Assize Court, the Silopi Assize Court heard evidence from one of the accused police officers, A.K., who denied the allegations against him. 20.  On 26 November 1996, at the request of the Denizli Assize Court, the Istanbul Assize Court heard evidence from the persons who had alleged that Bayram Duran had committed robbery. 21.  On 11 December 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court heard evidence from two of the accused police officers, H.A. and M.S., who denied the allegations against them and contended that Bayram Duran had died as a result of a heart attack. 22.  On 20 December 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court heard evidence from the first applicant, H.K. and Ü.Y. The court postponed the hearing as a third witness was not present. 23.  On 24 January 1997 the Istanbul Assize Court heard evidence from the third witness. 24.  On 26 February 1997, at the second hearing before the Denizli Assize Court, the first applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party seeking redress for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss (müdahil). 25.  On 26 March 1997 the Istanbul Assize Court heard evidence from one of the accused officers, A.Ç., who contended that he had not inflicted ill-treatment on Bayram Duran. 26.  On the same day, at the request of the Denizli Assize Court, the Edirne Assize Court heard evidence from a doctor who had worked at a medical centre close to the Gazi police station at the time of the incident. The doctor maintained that he had been called to the police station by police officers in order to examine Bayram Duran, but that when he arrived there, Bayram Duran had already died. 27.  Between 7 July 1997 and 10 May 1999 the Denizli Assize Court postponed hearings due to the absence of one of the accused, police chief A.Ş., whose statements had to be taken. 28.  On 10 May 1999 the first-instance court ordered A.Ş.’s detention in his absence. 29.  On 22 June 1999 the second applicant made a request to the Denizli Assize Court to join the proceedings as a civil party, seeking redress for her pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. The first-instance court did not take a decision regarding the applicant’s request. 30.  On 3 December 1999 A.Ş. made statements before the Denizli Assize Court and denied the allegation that Bayram Duran had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. A.Ş. maintained that Bayram Duran had been in custody on account of a simple accusation and that there had been no reason for inflicting ill-treatment on him. On the same day, the first-instance court reversed its order to detain A.Ş. 31.  On 31 January and 6 April 2000, upon the request of the Denizli Assize Court, the Istanbul Assize Court and the Bakırköy Assize Court once again heard evidence from A.Ç., H.A. and M.S., who reiterated their previous statements. 32.  On 6 September 2000 the Denizli Assize Court gave its judgment in the case. In the judgment, the assize court noted that M.S. had retired from public service and the other accused were serving as police officers. The Denizli Assize Court acquitted A.Ş., A.Ç. and H.A. of the charges against them, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict them since they had left the police station at around 7 p.m. on 15 October 1994 and since the applicant had visited Bayram Duran a number of times up until 7 p.m. on 15 October 1994. The court considered that M.S., A.A., A.K. and İ.U., the officers who had been on duty between 7 p.m. on 15 October 1994 and 5 a.m. on 16 October 1994, had caused Bayram Duran’s death unintentionally by beating him, for reasons that could not be determined, and convicted them. Noting that the death had occurred as a result of the officers’ acts combined with a circumstance that had existed prior to the act which had not been known to the officers, namely Bayram Duran’s heart condition, the court sentenced M.S., A.A., A.K. and İ.U. to five years’ imprisonment pursuant to Articles 448 and 452 § 2 of the former Criminal Code. The court did not apply Article 243 of the former Criminal Code applicable at the time of the commission of the offence as it was unable to establish that the convicted officers had beaten Bayram Duran with a view to extracting a confession of guilt. In its judgment, the court noted that Bayram Duran had been beaten by the convicted police officers and that he had died as a result of the stress caused by this trauma. Taking into account the fact that the actual offender who had caused the trauma to Bayram Duran’s head could not be identified, the assize court reduced the police officers’ prison sentences to two years and six months pursuant to Article 463 of the former Criminal Code. Having regard to the fact that the officers had committed an offence while on duty, the first‑instance court increased the sentence to three years and four months pursuant to Article 251 of the former Criminal Code. The assize court finally reduced the sentence to two years, nine months and ten days of imprisonment for each convict pursuant to Article 59 of the Criminal Code, having regard to the fact that some of the convicted police officers’ statements had been of help to the authorities during the investigation and the criminal proceedings in establishing the circumstances of the case. The first-instance court held that the applicants’ right to redress for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that they had suffered should be reserved. 33.  The first applicant, through the lawyer who had represented him during the proceedings before the assize court, and the convicted police officers appealed. 34.  In his appeal, the first applicant’s lawyer submitted that the application of Article 452 of the former Criminal Code and the lack of severity of the prison sentences rendered the first-instance court’s judgment ineffective, and thus constituted a violation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 35.  On 1 October 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 6 September 2000 on procedural grounds. The court held that the Denizli Assize Court had failed to take a decision in respect of the second applicant’s request to join the proceedings. The case file was then remitted to the Denizli Assize Court. 36.  On 10 December 2001 the first-instance court decided to allow the second applicant’s request to join the proceedings as a civil party. 37.  On 25 March 2002 the Denizli Assize Court heard evidence from the accused police officers, who denied the allegations against them. On the same day, the first-instance court once again convicted M.S., A.A., A.K. and İ.U. as charged and sentenced each of them to two years, nine months and ten days’ imprisonment and reserved the applicants’ right to redress for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that they had suffered. 38.  The applicants, through their lawyer, appealed. They alleged that their son had been killed as a result of torture inflicted on him and that the first-instance court had failed to interpret the facts of the case correctly. They contended that the police officers should have been convicted of homicide as a result of torture under Articles 243 and 450 § 3 of the former Criminal Code in accordance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The applicants finally claimed that the convicted officers should have been debarred from employment in public service. 39.  On 10 June 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of 25 March 2002. 40.  On 1 June 2005 the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) entered into force. 41.  Subsequently, A.A., A.K. and İ.U. filed requests with the Denizli Assize Court asking that their convictions be revised in the light of the provisions of the new Criminal Code. They maintained that their acts should be considered as “inflicting minor injury”. They further submitted that they had been debarred from public service. A.A., A.K. and İ.U. finally noted that the execution of their prison sentences had been suspended pursuant to Law no. 4616, which governed conditional release, suspension of proceedings and execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999. 42.  On 24 November 2005 the Denizli Assize Court reviewed the sentences of A.A., A.K. and İ.U. and decided not to reverse its judgment of 25 March 2002. 43.  A.A., A.K. and İ.U. appealed against the judgment of 24 November 2005. 44.  According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.


5.  On 13 June 2007 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region found the applicant guilty of inflicting grave bodily harm which caused the death of the victim and sentenced him to a prison term. The applicant appealed, claiming in general terms that the proceedings had been unfair, and that the court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously. He further alleged that the court had failed to examine two witnesses and had delivered its judgment in the absence of one of the co‑defendants. 6.  On 1 October 2007 the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 7.  On 20 March 2009 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of the same offence and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed. Giving no further details, he alleged that the Town Court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously, and that it had rejected the majority of the motions lodged by the defence. He further complained about the change of his counsel during the proceedings. 8.  On 5 October 2009 the Irkutsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint and upheld the judgment on appeal. 9.  Between 26 September 2005 and 9 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-38/2 of the Irkutsk Region. The prison was severely overcrowded. Thus, cell 95 measuring 24 sq. m was equipped with 8 sleeping places and accommodated up to 17 inmates. In addition, the applicant claimed that he had contracted tuberculosis during his stay there. 10.  From 23 February to 27 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-38/1 of Irkutsk and from 17 July to 3 August 2008 he was transferred to penitentiary medical facility LIU-27 in the Irkutsk Region for treatment of his tuberculosis.


5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is serving a prison term in the Ryazan Region. 6.  The applicant was a student of a State University, which trained law enforcement officers. On 3 March 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. By a judgment of 23 April 2002, the Omsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of theft and murder, and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment. On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment. 7.  From 5 to 13 March 2001 the applicant was detained in a temporary detention centre in the town of Omsk. From 14 March 2001 to 10 June 2003 the applicant was detained in Omsk remand centre no. 55/1. 8.  According to the applicant, he was kept in the remand centre in cell no. 163 (designed for eight persons) together with at least twenty other inmates. Owing to an insufficient number of beds, they had to sleep in shifts. The cell windows were covered with metal shutters that barred access to natural light and air. In 2003 the applicant was kept in the cell together with eight to ten other persons. 9.  The applicant subsequently indicated that in 2001-02 he had been afforded less than two square metres of living space in the cell. The toilet was not separated from the living area. In the absence of any ventilation, the smell spread into the cell. He also alleged that on the days of court hearings in April 2001 he had to get up at 4 a.m. and was taken back at 8 p.m. without any food or drink. 10.  The applicant was kept in the remand centre from 15 March 2001 to 10 June 2003. The applicant was placed in cell no. 163, which measured twenty-one square metres and had five beds. This cell was assigned to former law enforcement officers, who had to be kept separately from the other (potentially hostile) detainees. With reference to certificates issued in February 2008 by the acting director of the remand centre, the Government stated that this cell had accommodated three to five detainees during the relevant periods. In support of the above, the Government enclosed statements made in 2008 by three officers serving in the remand centre, who confirmed that the above information was correct and that the conditions of the applicant's detention during the relevant periods had been appropriate. The Government also enclosed a statement made in 2008 by a convict who had been detained in cell no. 163 from April to July 2001. This person stated that during that period there had been five beds and only four detainees and that the material conditions had been acceptable. A similar statement was made in 2008 by another detainee who had been kept in that cell from December 2002 to February 2003. 11.  From 30 August to 4 September 2002 the applicant was also kept in cell no. 53, which measured 4.8 square metres and had one bed. 12.  According to the Government, the applicant was provided with an individual bed and bedding in both cells. He had access to a shower once a week. He had daily outdoor walks. The metal shutters on the cell window(s) were aimed at preventing inter-cell communication and did not impede access to natural light. The works for removing the shutters were carried out between November 2002 and March 2003. 13.  On the days when investigative measures were carried out or hearings were held (June 2001 – September 2002), the applicant had had to get up 6 a.m. and was taken back to the cell before 10 p.m. On those days, he had been fed and had also been able to take food bought by him or received from next of kin. 14.  As can be seen from the certificate submitted by the Government, the cell record cards for October 2000 – October 2002 were destroyed on 8 August 2004 after the expiry of the one-year retention period. The registers concerning the population of the remand centre between July 2001 and December 2003 were destroyed on 30 August 2004 after the expiry of the one-year retention period. 15.  The following data is given on one of the certificates submitted by the director of the remand centre. The “maximum design capacity” of the remand centre was 1,025 detainees. Between December 2002 and 2004 the design capacity went up to 1,515 detainees owing to the construction of new buildings. As can be seen from another certificate, in 2001 the remand centre accommodated an average of 2,685 persons (to 2,887 beds); in 2002 the figure was 1,999 persons (to 2,305 beds) and in 2003 there were 1,905 persons (to 2,305 beds). 16.  The applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Omsk Region alleging that he had been ill-treated at the temporary detention centre and that his state of health had deteriorated while in detention. On 11 April 2001 the prosecutor's office rejected his complaints as unfounded. By a letter of 18 December 2003, the prosecutor's office rejected the applicant's further complaint concerning conditions of detention and stated, in particular, that his state of health had been satisfactory, except for a slight deterioration of his eyesight. 17.  In February 2004 the applicant complained to the Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences about the allegedly degrading conditions of his detention, referring in particular to the overpopulation in the remand centre and lack of access to natural light and airflow in the cells. By a letter of 2 March 2004, the Penitentiary Office acknowledged the overpopulation problem in “certain cells” in the remand centre in 2001 and 2002 and stated that in 1999 the metal shutters had been partly removed from the cell windows and had been completed removed in March 2003.


4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara. 5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place. 6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 27 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable. 7.  On 29 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. 8.  On 9 February 1998 the amount of 2,800,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.


4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Plovdiv. 5.  On 20 July 1997 she brought proceedings before the Madan District Court against her five siblings for the division of a piece of real property. Between January and April 1998 the court held three hearings and admitted two expert reports in evidence. On 30 April 1998 it allowed the division of only part of the property. 6.  The applicant appealed to the Smolyan Regional Court, claiming that the lower court should have allowed the division of the whole property. A hearing listed for 30 June 1998 was adjourned owing to improper summoning of one of the respondents. The court held two hearings, in May and October 1998, and on 30 April 1999 upheld the lower court's judgment. 7.  The applicant appealed on points of law. A hearing listed for 28 February 2000 was adjourned owing to improper summoning of four of the respondents. It was held on 25 September 2000. On 7 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Cassation, finding, inter alia, that the Smolyan Regional Court had seriously breached basic rules of procedure, quashed its judgment and remitted the case back to that court. 8.  Between December 2000 and March 2002 eight hearings were listed. Medical and financial expert reports were prepared. The case was adjourned once because the applicant and some of the respondents had not been summoned in due time. Another adjournment was ordered because an expert report had not been filed in due time, and another because an expert could not attend the hearing. Two adjournments were ordered because the applicant requested additional tasks to be assigned to the experts. 9.  On 28 March 2002 the Smolyan Regional Court partly reversed the Madan District Court's judgment of 30 April 1998. The applicant appealed on points of law. After hearing the appeal on 10 February 2003, on 4 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment. 10.  After that the second phase of the proceedings, during which the court was due to carry out the division of the property (see paragraph 14 below), began before the Madan District Court. The court held hearings on 14 April and on 2 June 2003. At the hearing on 2 June 2003 it ordered the case to be sent to the Smolyan Regional Court for the correction of two obvious factual errors in the operative provisions of the judgment of 28 March 2002. That entailed the suspension of the proceedings before the Madan District Court. 11.  On 21 July 2003 the Smolyan Regional Court agreed to make one of the requested corrections but refused to make the other one. One of the respondents appealed. After hearing the appeal on 13 April 2004, on 29 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the ruling of the Smolyan Regional Court. 12.  The proceedings then resumed before the Madan District Court. The court held two hearings at which it admitted in evidence a technical expert report and a number of documents. On 1 December 2004 it allocated the property to one of the respondents. None of the parties appealed against that judgment and it became final. 13.  As the Madan District Court omitted to award costs, on an unspecified date the parties lodged requests seeking a costs order. In additional decisions of 10 and 14 January 2005 the court ordered the respondents to reimburse part of the applicant's costs. After that, there were appeal proceedings and proceedings for correction of obvious factual errors in the two decisions. Those proceedings ended on 5 July 2005.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and resides in Riga. 6.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant was the chairman of the State-owned joint stock company L. On 14 June 2010 the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs) opened a criminal investigation into suspected unlawful activity by the company’s officials. 8.  On 15 June 2010 at 7 a.m. investigator A.R. ordered a search of the applicant’s apartment. It was possible that he was involved in the offences under investigation, and there was reason to believe that unlawfully obtained money and some other items were located there. 9.  Between 7.40 and 10.40 a.m. officers from the Bureau carried out the search. The applicant was allowed to telephone his lawyer who, according to him, arrived at 9.38 a.m. 10.  The applicant submitted that during the search he had not been free to leave the apartment. 11.  The search record, however, stated that he and his wife had been informed of their right to remain present and make remarks about the investigators’ actions. They had attended the search. His lawyer had noted down in the record that the decision authorising the search did not comply with certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law (Kriminālprocesa likums). It was signed by all three of them. 12.  At about 11 a.m. the applicant telephoned a security guard at company L. to ask that his driver place his briefcase in a car. 13.  At 11.15 a.m. the officers informed the applicant he was under arrest. 14.  Between 11.21 and 11.34 a.m. investigator G.B. drew up an arrest record specifying that the applicant had been arrested at 11.15 a.m. on suspicion of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering, and that a witness had identified him as a perpetrator. He and his lawyer signed the record, noting also that his arrest was unjustified. 15.  At 6.30 p.m. the applicant was interviewed. 16.  The investigating authorities performed thirty searches in total that day and, according to the applicant, arrested seven other individuals. The Government submitted, without indicating when, that nine individuals had been arrested. They further drew attention to the large scale of the crimes under investigation and various investigative actions. 17.  On 17 June 2010 at about 9 a.m. A.R. served on the applicant a decision declaring him a suspect and an application addressed to the Riga City Centre District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa) for his pre-trial detention. His lawyer was present at the time. 18.  According to A.R. there was a strong suspicion that, between 1 January 2006 and 15 June 2010 the applicant, in his position as chairman of company L., had secured decisions favourable to companies ANS and GGSMT for the reconstruction of hydro units and regarding a thermal power plant project. A sum of no less than 1,130,000 euros (EUR) obtained as a result of this unlawful activity had allegedly been laundered through companies registered in Latvia and abroad, by way of property transactions and investments in companies owned by the applicant and K.M. By doing so, the applicant had allegedly committed the offences of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering. 19.  The applicant, referring to his lawyer’s handwritten application, contended that at 9.20 a.m. that morning his lawyer had applied to A.R. for leave to consult, prior to the detention hearing, the documents in support of the application for detention. She had refused the request. The Government, however, submitted that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had made any complaints about access to the case file. 20.  Between 10.04 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. an investigating judge of the Riga City Centre District Court held the hearing. 21.  The applicant’s lawyer requested A.R. to provide evidence in support of the application for detention. She refused to do so and the hearing continued. 22.  The lawyer submitted that the officers had controlled the applicant’s movements in the apartment from the start of the search. He had therefore requested them to draw up a record of his client’s arrest. In this connection, he pointed out that no one could be held in custody for more than forty-eight hours. 23.  The investigating judge granted A.R.’s application and ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial. With regard to the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the judge reasoned as follows:
“...search records, inspection records, statements [and] other material of the criminal proceedings give rise to grounds for suspicion that [the applicant] has committed the offences in relation to which the criminal proceedings have been instituted...” 24.  As regards access to the case file, the judge stated:
“Section 375(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that case material is a secret of the investigation ... material and evidence that justify [the applicant’s] detention contain secret information ... [the investigator] has the right to disclose this material ... only to officials involved in the criminal proceedings.” 25.  On 21 June 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision. On 5 July 2010 he submitted his arguments in support thereof. 26.  He requested the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) to grant him access to the case file so as to be able to effectively challenge the applicant’s detention. It did not grant the request. 27.  On 6 July 2010 an appeal hearing was held. The lawyer maintained that he had the right to access the documents upon which the applicant’s detention had been based. 28.  The Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling. With regard to the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, the judge stated:
“The court has had sufficient time to examine the case material furnished to it. The court, like [the lower court], concludes that information has been obtained ... giving rise to grounds for suspicion that [the applicant] has committed the accused offences. The court reached that conclusion having examined ... records of investigative actions [and] witness statements, and with special attention paid to information obtained by ... special investigative actions ... carried out long before the criminal proceedings were instituted.” 29.  As regards access to the case file, the judge reasoned as follows:
“An official in charge of criminal proceedings presents case material to an investigating or higher judge for them to assess grounds of pre-trial detention. An investigating or higher judge examines the case material ... [which] is kept secret from the parties not conducting the proceedings.” 30.  No appeal lay against this decision. 31.  On 18 August 2010 the investigating judge released the applicant on bail. 32.  On 30 June 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint regarding his client’s arrest with the Office of the Prosecutor General. 33.  On 8 July 2010 prosecutor V.J. dismissed it. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer had noted in the search record that the applicant’s freedom of movement or his liberty had been restricted during the search; they had not noted anything in the arrest record to say that he had been deprived of his liberty before this either. The applicant’s lawyer had not specified the manner in which his client had been deprived of his liberty. It could not therefore be established that he had been deprived of his liberty during the search. 34.  By a final decision of 11 October 2010 chief prosecutor A.K. dismissed the complaint.


6.  The applicants, Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L., are two companies incorporated under Moldovan law. 7.  On 18 November 1993 the State Service for the Supervision of Insurance by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova (“the Service”) (Serviciul de Stat pentru supravegherea asigurărilor pe lângă Ministerul Finanţelor al Republicii Moldova) registered the insurance company Tudor and Co. S.R.L., founded by three private parties T.N., V.N. and L.R. (“the founders”). On an unspecified date the founders lodged with the Service a request to register two other insurance companies, which on 3 November 1995 were registered as Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Triplu‑Tudor‑Auto S.R.L. They also sought the registration of changes in the companies’ founders, namely the replacement of T.N. and V.N. with other founders, and in one of the company’s names from Triplu-Tudor-Auto S.R.L. into Tudor-Auto S.R.L. On 25 and 27 December 1995 and on 11 January 1996 the Service granted their requests. 8.  On 10 June 1997 the Government adopted Decision no. 533 “on certain regulatory measures of insurance activity” (see paragraph 31 below), according to which insurance companies had to fulfil certain formalities and to obtain new registration certificates before 1 August 1997. 9.  On 31 July 1997 Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. submitted to the Service the required documents together with the evidence of increase in their statutory capital up to 300,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (65,197 euros (EUR) at the time), as provided for by section 1 of decision no. 533, and requested to register the changes in the constitutional documents and to be issued with new registration certificates for insurance activity (“the certificates“). Since the Service refused to comply with their requests, on an unspecified date each of the applicant companies brought actions against the Service, seeking to order it to register the requested changes and to issue new registration certificates. 10.  On 15 January 1998, during the proceedings before the first-instance court, the Service only registered the changes in the companies’ statutory capital. 11.  On 31 March 1998 the Chişinău Economic Court ruled in favour of the applicant companies and ordered the Service to issue them with new registration certificates. On 15 April 1998 the applicant companies were issued with enforcement warrants which stated “for immediate enforcement”. The Service appealed. 12.  On 24 June 1998 the Appellate Chamber of the Chişinău Economic Court rejected the appeals of the Service in both cases. No further appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable. 13.  The Service took a number of steps designed to either annul the final judgments or to prevent their enforcement. On 21 July 1998 and 1 June 1999 the Service annulled its decisions of 25 and 27 December 1995 and of 11 January 1996. 14.  On 1 December 1998 the Service requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings, which was dismissed by the Chişinău Economic Court on 12 February 1999. 15.  On an unspecified date it asked for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. On 15 July 1999 the Chişinău Economic Court dismissed the request as unfounded. 16.  On 8 February 2000 the Service lodged a new request for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. By a final decision of 6 September 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the request. 17.  In a separate set of proceedings, on 28 September 1999 the Rîşcani District Court fined the Director of the Service for failure to comply with the judgments in favour of the applicant companies. Following an appeal lodged by the Director, on 4 July 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 28 September 1999 and discontinued the proceedings against him as statute-barred. Nevertheless, in a separate decision of the same date the Supreme Court of Justice specifically addressed the Ministry of Finance about the need to enforce the final judgments in order to avoid subsequent damage to State interests. 18.  On 24 January 2001 the Service issued each of the applicant companies with certificates, but the Minister of Finance did not sign them so that they had no legal force. In February 2001 the applicant companies requested a bailiff to fully enforce the judgments and to obtain the signature of the Minister of Finance on the certificates. 19.  On 18 May and 4 June 2001 the State Registration Chamber requested the applicant companies to submit certain documents in order to re-register the companies, as provided for by a new law on State registration of enterprises. Since the requests specifically stated that the applicant companies should have submitted the originals of their registration certificates, the latter failed to comply with the requests. 20.  The judgments of 31 March 1998 have not been enforced to date. 21.  On 19 April 2000 T.P. (it appears from the case file that the founder T.N., see paragraph 7 above, had changed his name) lodged a request to join the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of 31 March 1998 as a third party. He claimed that he was the owner of a 50% share in the applicant company and that the changes to the applicant company’s statutory documents, introduced on 11 January 1996, had been adopted without his knowledge. 22.  By a final decision of 20 September 2000 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court dismissed T.P.’s request as unsubstantiated. 23.  On 6 October 2003 T.P. lodged with the Economic Court of Appeal a request for a revision of the judgment of 31 March 1998, relying mainly on the same grounds as in his request of 19 April 2000. On 8 December 2004 the Economic Court of Appeal dismissed the request as unsubstantiated and statute-barred, since it had been lodged more than three months after the date on which T.P. had found out about “new relevant circumstances”. T.P. lodged an appeal on points of law. 24.   On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld his appeal on points of law and quashed the judgment of 31 March 1998. It ordered a full re-examination of the case. The Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of the three-month time-limit for lodging the revision request. 25.  The outcome of the reopened proceedings is unknown.


7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Grozny. 8.  At the material time the applicant lived with his family in his own house at 148 Klyuchevaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, in the residential quarter referred to by the local residents as Ivanovo. The applicant has two sons and two daughters. The oldest son, Magomed Umarov, born in 1975, was a fourth-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute. In November 1999 the applicant and his family left Grozny because of the shelling and lived in railway carriages in a camp for internally displaced persons in Ingushetia. In February 2000 the applicant’s mother died and he and his family came back to Chechnya to bury her. They then remained in Grozny. 9.  On 27 May 2000 at around 6 a.m., when the applicant and his family were asleep at home, a group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived in a Ural military vehicle at 148 Klyuchevaya Street. In his submissions before the Court the applicant also referred to statements of his neighbours to the effect that there had been another car in the street – a UAZ vehicle with the number 469. The men were armed with automatic firearms and some of them were masked. According to the applicant, they were federal servicemen, whilst the Government claimed that they were “unidentified persons”. 10.  The men entered the applicant’s house, having broken down the door. According to the applicant, the first man who entered the house was tall and had a bright complexion and blue eyes. The applicant found out later that the man’s name was Yuriy. The men spoke Russian without an accent. They threatened the applicant’s wife and daughters with firearms, swore at them and beat the applicant. They also searched the house. The men then dragged the applicant out to the courtyard, kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. There were about 30 masked men in the courtyard. The applicant enclosed statements of his wife and daughter corroborating his account of the events. 11.  Magomed Umarov slept in an extension to the house located in the same courtyard. He rushed out into the courtyard, screaming “Why are you beating him?” According to the applicant, the men seized him, beat him and threw him into the Ural truck in which they had arrived. The vehicle had no registration plates. The men then left. Magomed Umarov was not allowed to dress or to put shoes on. Later that day the men returned and collected his son’s passport and student identity card issued by the Grozny Oil Institute. The applicant has had no news of his son since then. 12.  The applicant’s brother immediately took him to Grozny hospital no. 3 where he underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with bruises on his face, chest and feet and the fracture of two ribs. The applicant received first aid at the hospital and was then released. 13.  In the meantime the applicant’s neighbours noted that the Ural truck in which Magomed Umarov had been taken away bore the inscription “Maestro”. According to the applicant, the inscription indicated that the vehicle belonged to the Temporary Department of the Interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District (временный отдел внутренних дел Старопромысловского района – “the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD”). The Government claimed that the vehicle referred to by the applicant had not been listed among those belonging to the federal forces. 14.  The applicant’s relatives and neighbours went to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and to the local military commander’s office, which were only 100 metres away from the applicant’s house. The officials there did not tell them anything and advised them to apply to the Grozny prosecutor’s office (прокуратура г. Грозного). 15.  On the same day at about 9 a.m. the applicant and his relatives went to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. He met the Grozny prosecutor, B., and submitted a written complaint about the attack on his house, his beatings and his son’s detention. He requested that those responsible be identified and prosecuted and that his son’s whereabouts be established. 16.  According to the applicant, the prosecutor immediately summoned the head and senior officers of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and berated them in his presence for “dirty work in masks” and that during that meeting the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD warned the personnel of the VOVD about the events by telephone. After the meeting the prosecutor, a senior investigator from his office, the applicant and the others went to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and to the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District. 17.  At the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD the applicant and his wife identified one of the servicemen who had beaten him that morning at his house. The officers of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD explained to the prosecutor that they had conducted two “special operations” in the Ivanovo quarter that morning, but that they knew nothing about the Ural truck with an inscription “Maestro”. According to the applicant, the deputy military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy District who introduced himself as Valeriy invited the prosecutor, investigators and the identified officers from the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD for a separate talk, first on the spot and then at the location of the nearest military unit in the building of a local concert hall. They questioned the officers about what they had seen or heard that morning. Thereafter the prosecutor and the investigator assured the applicant that everything would be “sorted out” and left. 18.  The applicant returned home and learnt that on the same morning two other men had been detained in their quarter, the M. brothers. They were released four days later, apparently for a ransom, and told the applicant that they had been detained in a ground pit together with the applicant’s son. There had been ten persons in the pit. The M. brothers told him that they had been brought there with bags over their heads, but believed that it was at the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the Russian military in Chechnya, because they could hear helicopters landing and taking off, and because they had crossed some railway lines on the way. Furthermore, when Magomed Umarov and two other persons had been taken out of the pit, somebody said: “Take them to the Khankala post!”. Twelve days later another young man who had been detained in a Grozny suburb on 25 May 2000 and then released met with the applicant and told him that he had been detained with his son in a pit in terrible conditions and that his son had asked him to do everything possible for his release. 19.  The applicant continued the search for his son. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, he applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to courts and the administrative authorities in Chechnya and beyond. In dozens of letters addressed to the authorities the applicant stated the facts of his son’s detention and asked for assistance and details on the investigation. He also wrote about his son’s alleged detention at the Khankala military base, referring to the witnesses who had been released, allegedly, for a ransom. Most of the letters were submitted by the applicant during his visits to officials in an attempt to find out Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts. The applicant has submitted copies of some of those letters to the Court. The applicant was given hardly any substantive information concerning his son’s disappearance and the investigation into these events. On several occasions he received copies of letters by which his requests had been forwarded to the different prosecutors’ services. 20.  According to the applicant, during his visits to the prosecutors’ offices he had received hints on several occasions that he should not complain about his son’s abduction, but should rather, like the relatives of those who had been released, seek “middlemen” who could help him find his son, and that otherwise his son could “disappear”. The applicant allegedly tried to act through “middlemen” but failed. 21.  On 28 May 2000 a number of residents of the Staropromyslovskiy District signed a petition addressed to the military commanders of the Staropromyslovskiy District and of Chechnya, with a copy to the Russian President. They complained of a “bullying attitude” on the part of the military stationed in the Staropromyslovskiy District, which included systematic and open extortion of money, cigarettes and alcohol at check-points, disregard of traffic regulations by the drivers of large military vehicles, random shooting and shelling both day and night and robbery and beatings during so-called “sweeping” operations. They referred, in particular, to the beating of the applicant and his son on 27 May 2000 and the absence of information about the latter’s whereabouts since his apprehension. 22.  In a letter of 16 June 2000 the applicant requested the military commander of Chechnya to assist him in locating his son. The commander replied that the Grozny prosecutor’s office (прокуратура г. Грозного) and the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD were responsible for investigating the applicant’s allegations. He further informed the applicant that following the residents’ petition of 28 May 2000 the superiors of the local detachments of the Ministry of the Interior had discussed the issues raised and increased control over their staff at check-points. 23.  On 9 September 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (прокуратура Чеченской Республики – “the Republican prosecutor’s office”) informed the applicant that on 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal investigation into his son’s abduction and that the criminal case file had been assigned the number 12050. 24.  On 19 September 2000 the head of the criminal investigation service of the Chechen Department of the Interior informed the applicant that his letter of 27 June 2000 had been forwarded to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD for the purposes of organising the search for his son. 25.  By letter of 25 October 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny prosecutor’s office “for examination”. 26.  On 14 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant’s complaint concerning the inefficiency of the investigation into his son’s disappearance to the Republican prosecutor’s office. 27.  On 15 November 2000 and 12 February 2001 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of the Chechen Republic (военный прокурор Чеченской Республики) about the attack on his house, his beatings and his son’s detention, as well as of inefficiency in the investigation and asked for help in finding his son. 28.  On 27 November 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that following his complaint “the decision to suspend investigation was quashed and the case file remitted for further investigation with instructions to take more active steps”. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 29.  By letter of 30 November 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office referred the applicant’s complaint concerning his son’s detention and disappearance to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. 30.  On 19 December 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (военная прокуратура – войсковая часть 20102) referred the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny Temporary Office of the Interior (временный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозного). The letter stated that there had been no grounds to send the applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 since it had not been established that military personnel had been involved in the abduction of the applicant’s son. 31.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant wrote to the Memorial Human Rights Centre and to the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights. 32.  According to the applicant, in late February 2001 he found out that there were a number of unidentified corpses in the premises of a nearby railway station. The applicant went there and saw around 60 bodies that had been taken from the mass grave near the village of Dachnoye. Some of them showed signs of torture, their legs and hands were tied with iron wire. One of the corpses resembled that of the applicant’s son, as it had clothes similar to those Magomed Umarov had been wearing on the day of his detention. The applicant, however, was unable to identify the body, as its head was missing. He felt unwell and left. The next day the applicant returned with his wife to study the body, but was unable to find it. He was told that the corpses had been taken to another village, situated 15-20 km way from Grozny. The applicant went there and was informed that the remains had been photographed and then buried. The applicant looked through the photographs but did not find the headless body. 33.  By letter of 1 April 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had studied his complaint, quashed the decision to suspend the criminal investigation and remitted the case for further investigation. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 34.  On 29 May 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office replied to the applicant’s complaint, stating that the decision to suspend the investigation had been quashed and the case had been remitted for further investigation. The investigation was being supervised by the Republican prosecutor’s office. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 35.  In a letter of 19 June 2001 the applicant requested the Republican prosecutor’s office to question the investigator from the Grozny prosecutor’s office, who had been present on 27 May 2000 during the questioning at the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District, about the identity of the servicemen and the content of their statements made on that day. 36.  In letters of 24 August and 13 September 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office instructed the Grozny prosecutor’s office to take more active steps in investigating Magomed Umarov’s disappearance. 37.  On 9 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the Republican prosecutor’s office, with a copy to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic. The applicant complained that the investigation into his son’s abduction had been inadequate and plagued with shortcomings, that those responsible had not been identified so far despite compelling evidence exposing them and that he had never been notified of any steps taken during the investigation or of its progress. 38.  On 22 October 2001 the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that his letter of 9 October 2001 had been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office. 39.  In November 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the decision to suspend the investigation of the criminal case concerning his son’s abduction had been quashed and that the ongoing investigation was supervised by them. The letter contained no further details. 40.  On 18 December 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office replied to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, with a copy to the applicant, that on 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Magomed Umarov and the infliction of injuries on the applicant. On 30 July 2001 the investigation had been suspended owing to failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. The letter further stated that on 14 December 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office had quashed that decision and remitted the file for further investigation and that measures aimed at establishing Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts and identifying those responsible were being taken. 41.  In a letter of 25 December 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation into his son’s disappearance was currently under way. 42.  On 19 March 2002 the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе) forwarded the applicant’s complaint about the inadequate investigation into his son’s disappearance to the Republican prosecutor’s office and ordered them to submit before 1 April 2002 information regarding the investigation. 43.  On 23 May 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the decision of 28 January 2001 to suspend proceedings in criminal case no. 12050 had been quashed and the investigation re-opened. 44.  By letter of 6 June 2002 the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office transmitted the applicant’s complaint to the Republican prosecutor’s office. 45.  In a letter of 10 June 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office stated that the applicant’s complaint of 29 May 2000 had been left without examination, as it had contained no new arguments other than those which had previously been examined and replied to. 46.  On 25 June 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had taken up the case opened in connection with the injuries inflicted on him and the disappearance of his son. 47.  By letter of 21 October 2002 the Chechen Department of the Interior informed the applicant’s wife that all necessary measures aimed at establishing Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts and identifying those involved in his abduction were being taken. 48.  On 21 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District (прокуратура Старопромысловского района г. Грозного – “the Staropromyslovskiy prosecutor’s office”) notified the applicant that the proceedings in criminal case no. 12050 had been suspended on 30 August 2002 and then resumed on 18 August 2003. In a letter of 27 January 2004 they further informed the applicant that the proceedings had been adjourned on 3 September 2003 in view of the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators. 49.  The Government submitted, with reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the following information concerning the investigation into the events of 27 May 2000. 50.  On 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant and the abduction of his son, under Articles 126 (2) (aggravated abduction) and 286 (3) (aggravated abuse of power) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned the number 12050. 51.  The investigating authorities took a number of steps during the investigation. In particular, on 23 June 2000 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which established abrasions and bruises on his face, chest and left foot. In the Government’s submission, those injuries had “caused no harm to the applicant’s health”. 52.  The applicant was granted victim status on 30 May 2000 and questioned on that date and on 27 February 2001. His numerous requests were included in the case file. The applicant’s wife was interviewed on 21 June 2001. 53.  On 24 March 2001 and 18 January 2002 the investigators questioned one of the M. brothers, who had also been detained on 27 May 2000. M. stated that at around 5 a.m. on the date in question he had been abducted from his house in Klyuchevaya Street by unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic firearms, taken outside Grozny and put in a pit approximately two metres deep. In the pit he had seen Magomed Umarov who had then been taken away. 54.  On 28 March 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office received information to the effect that the personnel of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD had not carried out any operations in the vicinity of Klyuchevaya Street on 27 May 2000. 55.  On 6 November 2001 the investigators questioned the military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy District, who stated that his office had been organised on 22 June 2000 to replace the temporary military commander’s office and that he had no information regarding documents of the temporary commander’s office. 56.  On 23 September 2003, 19 and 29 January and 18, 20 and 24 June 2005 the investigating authorities also questioned ten other witnesses, who “gave no information relevant for establishing the circumstances of Magomed Umarov’s abduction”. 57.  According to the Government, in the context of the investigation into the applicant’s beatings and his son’s disappearance, the investigators inspected the scene of the incident at 148 Klyuchevaya Street on 14 October 2004 and 27 June 2005, but those inspections “brought no positive results”. 58.  During the investigation, the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia (Управление Федеральной службы безопасности РФ по Чеченской Республике) submitted information to the effect that Magomed Umarov had never participated in illegal armed formations. 59.  The investigating authorities sent a number of queries concerning the operation of 27 May 2000, those responsible for the abduction of the applicant’s son, or those who had information about the events of 27 May 2000, to various official bodies and sought lists of persons who had been serving in the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD in May 2000. They also checked registers of unidentified corpses, medical establishments and detention centres so as to establish whether Magomed Umarov was listed or kept there, but to no avail. 60.  On 18 June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned K. A., apparently the applicant’s neighbour, who submitted that on the day of Magomed Umarov’s abduction he had seen two Ural vehicles and men wearing camouflage uniform near the Umarov household. He had learnt about the abduction later. 61.  On 20 June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned I. H., apparently also a neighbour, who submitted that he had learnt about Magomed Umarov’s abduction from other neighbours. 62.  On 24 June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned T. M., the applicant’s neighbour. She submitted that at approximately 4 a. m. she had heard the sound of engines and had gone outside. Near 148 Klyuchevaya Street she had seen servicemen in camouflage uniform and had returned home. Later she had learnt that the servicemen had taken Magomed Umarov with them. 63.  On 18 August 2006 the investigating authorities questioned S. B., on 26 August 2006 they questioned F.D. and on 4 September 2006 S.-E. M., but those individuals submitted that they knew nothing about Magomed Umarov’s abduction. It is not clear who they were and why their statements could have been relevant. 64.  According to the Government’s submission, the investigation had been suspended and resumed on eighteen occasions, but had failed to date to identify the alleged perpetrators or to establish Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts. After the most recent resumption on 21 April 2007 the investigation was being carried out by the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and supervised by the Prosecutor General’s Office. 65.  In June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against the inactivity of the military and law-enforcement authorities, during the investigation into his son’s abduction and his own beatings, with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. In August 2001 the applicant was summoned to that court, which at the time was situated in the village of Beno-Yurt in the Nadterechny District of Chechnya, about 100 kilometres from Grozny. According to the applicant, during a meeting a judge asked him to withdraw his complaint, and then promised to help him obtain free legal aid in the proceedings. The judge allegedly explained to him that his complaint could not be examined because he had not indicated the names and positions of the officials against whom he complained. She also told him that the court would issue a procedural decision rejecting his complaint. 66.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant wrote to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court. He enquired whether he could benefit from legal aid in his case and whether the aforementioned procedural decision had been issued and requested the court to furnish him with a copy of it. He received no reply to that letter. 67.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant wrote to the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, complaining about the lack of progress in his case lodged in June 2001 with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court. 68.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant received a letter from the Staropromyslovskiy District Court, in which the judge informed him that, upon his request, his submissions to that court had been forwarded to the “Novaya Gazeta” newspaper and suggested that he contact a journalist from that newspaper. According to the applicant, he had never given his consent to the transfer of his submissions to the said newspaper. 69.  On 23 January 2002 the applicant addressed a letter to the Supreme Court of Russia. He complained about the failure to act on the part of the Staropromyslovskiy District Court and the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. He also complained about the inefficiency of the investigation and referred to the fact that five investigators had been in charge of the case. He stated that all his complaints had been forwarded to the Grozny prosecutor’s office with the result that the criminal investigation file consisted almost entirely of his own complaints to various authorities. It appears that the applicant received no answer to that letter. 70.  Despite specific requests made by the Court on several occasions, the Government did not submit a copy of the investigation file concerning the abduction of Magomed Umarov. They submitted case-file material on 44 pages, which contained mostly decisions on suspension and resumption of the investigation and records of interviews with the applicant and another witness. Copies of those records were of very poor quality and almost illegible. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file and to transmit it to others”.