7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in St Petersburg. 8.  The applicant is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party. 9.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President’s administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor. 10.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s administration Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor Mr Illarionov. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation. 11.  The intruders stayed in the office for one hour and a half until the police broke down the blocked door. They did not offer any other resistance to the authorities. 12.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the ground that he was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence, had no permanent residence in Moscow and was a Dutch national. It considered that there was a risk of his re-offending, absconding, interfering with the investigation or intimidating witnesses. 13.  The applicant appealed, complaining that the District Court had not cited any facts to justify the necessity of ordering his detention. On 3 February 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 14.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with an attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214). 15.  On 8 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charge. The applicant had no permanent residence in Moscow and there were reasons to believe that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation. 16.  The applicant’s counsel appealed. He asked the court to release the applicant, taking into account that he had no criminal record, had positive references and was of frail health. On 9 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. 17.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorders, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 18.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor requested the court to extend the applicant’s detention until 14 August 2005. On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons:
“There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [the applicant], once released, might abscond.
At the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months. This period will be sufficient for all parties to the proceedings to study effectively the entire case file.” 19.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant’s counsel appealed. He asked the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure, taking into account that the applicant had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence in Russia, studied at a university and suffered from a kidney disease. He also submitted that the applicant did not need so much time to study the case file. At the appeal hearing before the Moscow City Court the applicant confirmed that he had finished studying the case file. 20.  On 11 May 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 April 2005, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. 21.  On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine persons, including the applicant, were committed for trial. 22.  On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled the preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and held that all the defendants should remain in custody. 23.  On 30 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests to release them, citing the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding or obstructing justice. 24.  The applicant’s counsel appealed. He repeated the arguments advanced in the grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005 and added that the applicant’s father, Mr Jaap Jan Lind, a Dutch national and the former Governor of the New Guinea, was dying of cancer in the Netherlands. On 17 August 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 30 June 2005 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 25.  The trial started on 8 July 2005. 26.  On 14 July 2005 the applicant lodged an application for release, referring to his frail health and a need for a medical examination. On 27 July 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the request. It held that the applicant’s detention was lawful and justified. The applicant had not submitted medical certificates showing that his state of health was incompatible with custody. On 5 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 27.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant’s counsel filed a further application for release. He submitted medical certificates, confirming the applicant’s and his father’s diseases. A human-rights activist, Mr Ponomarev, offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond. The Dutch Embassy asked the court to release the applicant taking into account the precarious state of his health and his father’s terminal illness. Other defendants also lodged applications for release. 28.  On 10 August 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests. It held:
“The court takes into account the defence’s argument that the individual approach to each defendant’s situation is essential when deciding on the preventive measure.
Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist today. Therefore, having regard to the state of health, family situation, age, profession and character of all the defendants, and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file, the court concludes that, if released, each of the applicants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way.” 29.  The applicant appealed, complaining that the District Court had disregarded the medical evidence confirming his and his father’s poor state of health. On 2 November 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 10 August 2005 on appeal, finding that the applicant had not submitted medical certificates showing that his state of health prevented him from remaining in custody. 30.  On 16 September 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected a new application for release, repeating verbatim the wording of the decision of 10 August 2005. 31.  In September 2005 the applicant asked the domestic courts to release him for a few days so that he could see his father. Mr Jaap Lind had asked for euthanasia which was scheduled for 29 September 2005. The Dutch Ambassador seconded his request. 32.  On 27 September 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow refused to release the applicant. It found that since the applicant was a Dutch national he might abscond or interfere with the proceedings. 33.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was permitted a phone conversation with his father, in Russian only. The Dutch Embassy paid for the call. The conversation was interrupted by the facility administration a minute later. 34.  On 29 September 2005 Mr Jaap Lind died by euthanasia. 35.  On 27 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 27 September 2005 on appeal. It held that the information about the deterioration of the applicant’s father’s health and the Dutch Ambassador’s request to release the applicant had been considered. However, the refusal to release the applicant had been justified, given the gravity of the charge against him. The court found that the applicant had been living in Russia since 1989, had visited his father no more than once a year and had mainly communicated with him by mail and phone. He had been given an opportunity to talk to his father over the phone. It further held that the applicant’s state of health was satisfactory, therefore there was no reason to amend the preventive measure. 36.  In October 2005 the applicant lodged a new application for release. He submitted that his father had died and he wanted to attend the farewell ceremony. The applicant vouched that he had no intention of absconding and referred to his clean criminal record and positive references. The Dutch Ambassador for a third time asked the court for the applicant’s temporary release so that he could attend the farewell ceremony. 37.  On 3 October 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the request. It referred to the gravity of the charge and the applicant’s Dutch nationality which gave reasons to believe that he might abscond. 38.  The applicant appealed. He again asked the court to release him so that he could attend a farewell ceremony for his father. He also contended that he suffered from a chronic kidney disease and required constant medical supervision and treatment. He complained that his applications to the detention facility doctor had remained unanswered and that he had not been provided with any treatment for his disease. 39.  On 27 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. It found that the applicant’s father had donated his body to science, therefore there had been no funeral. The farewell ceremony was scheduled for 30 October 2005 in The Hague. Taking into account the gravity of the charge and the applicant’s previously rare contact with his father, it was inopportune to release him. 40.  On 8 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court convicted the applicant of participation in mass disorders and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment conditional on two years’ probation. The applicant was immediately released. 41.  The applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. 42.  According to a certificate of 23 November 2005 issued by the facility administration, produced by the Government, from 16 to 17 December 2004 and from 9 to 10 February 2005 the applicant was kept in cell no. 511. The cell measured 9.7 sq. m, was equipped with five bunks and accommodated three or four inmates. Cell no. 100 – where the applicant was held from 17 December 2004 to 9 February 2005 and from 10 February to 29 April 2005 – measured 54.7 sq. m, was equipped with twenty-two bunks and housed twenty inmates on average. From 29 April to 8 December 2005 the applicant was detained in cell no. 13 measuring 8.4 sq. m, containing four bunks and accommodating four inmates on average. The Government submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with bedding. 43.  The Government contended that the cells were naturally illuminated through the windows and were also equipped with fluorescent lamps which functioned during the day and at night. On 12 July and 18 October 2005 cells nos. 2, 85, 101, 121, 159, 144, 148, 160, 163, and 236 were examined by a sanitary officer who found the sanitary conditions satisfactory. No traces of insects or rodents were discovered. Relying on a certificate of 12 November 2005 from the facility administration, the Government further submitted that all cells were equipped with a lavatory pan. It was separated from the living area by a brick partition of 1.3 or 2.5 metres in height. 44.  The Government affirmed that inmates were provided with food three times a day. They had an hour-long walk daily. The detention facility housed a medical unit which was open twenty-four hours and had all the necessary equipment for high-standard medical assistance. However, the applicant never applied for medical aid. 45.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements, the number of bunks and the number of inmates per cell. He disagreed, however, with the Government’s description of the sanitary conditions. The cells swarmed with cockroaches, crickets and lice. There was no ventilation and it was stifling and smoky inside. The partition separating the toilet facilities from the living area did not offer sufficient privacy and the person using the toilet was in view of the other inmates. The artificial light was never switched off disturbing the applicant’s sleep. The applicant conceded that an hour-long walk was organised every day. However, the exercise yard was covered and measured no more than 15 sq. m. Food was scarce. Inmates were allowed to take a shower for ten minutes once a week. 46.  The applicant suffered from chronic glomerulonephritis (a kidney disease) and required constant medical supervision and treatment. He received no treatment. On 18 and 25 July 2005 he complained of an aching kidney and asked the facility doctor to examine him and prescribe medication. His request remained unanswered.


9.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Xanthi. 10.  In 1990 one of the two Muslim religious leaders of Thrace, the Mufti of Xanthi, died. On 15 February 1990 the local Prefect (Νομάρχης) appointed the applicant to act as a deputy (τοποτηρητής). 11.  In August 1990 the two independent Muslim Members of Parliament for Xanthi and Rodopi requested the State to organise elections for the post of Mufti of Xanthi. Having received no reply, the two independent MPs decided to organise themselves elections at the mosques on 17 August 1990 after the prayers. On that date the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by those attending Friday prayers at the mosques. 12.  On 24 December 1990 the President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Council of Ministers and under Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution, adopted a Legislative Act (πράξη νομοθετικού περιεχομένου) by which the manner of election of the Muftis was changed. Law no. 1920/1991 retroactively validated the Legislative Act of 24 December 1990. 13.  On 20 August 1991, in accordance with the new regulations, the Greek State appointed another Mufti. The applicant refused to step down. 14.  Eight sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion”. The Court of Cassation, considering that there might be disturbances in Xanthi, decided, under Articles 136 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the proceedings should take place in other cities. The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses. 15.  On 17 January 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on the ground that on 11 January 1993 and 19 April 1993 he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi. 16.  On 28 June 1996 the single-member first instance criminal court (Μονομελές Πλημμελειοδικείο) of Agrinio found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2206/1996). The applicant appealed (see below paragraph 19). 17.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged for having issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi on 3 January 1994, 19 January 1994 and 10 February 1994. 18.  On 28 June 1996 the single-member first instance criminal court of Agrinio found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2207/1996). The applicant appealed. 19.  On 29 April 1998 the three-member first instance criminal court (Τριμελές Πλημμελειοδικείο) of Agrinio upheld the applicant’s conviction in the first and second sets of proceedings. It imposed a global sentence of six months’ imprisonment and converted it into a fine (decision no. 682/1998). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that his conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention (see below paragraph 29). 20.  On 20 January 1996 a third set of proceedings was instituted against the applicant for the same offence on the ground that on 3 May 1995, 11 November 1995, 13 December 1995, 30 December 1995 and 17 January 1996 he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi. 21.  On 3 April 1997 the single-member first instance criminal court of Lamia found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment (decision no. 1336/1997). The applicant appealed. 22.  On 25 February 1998 the three-member first instance criminal court of Lamia upheld the applicant’s conviction and imposed a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment. The court converted this sentence into a fine (decision no. 641/1998). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that his conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention (see below paragraph 29). 23.  On 10 September 1996 a fourth set of proceedings was instituted against the applicant on the ground that on 8 August 1995 he had issued a message in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi. 24.  On 3 April 1997 the single-member first instance criminal court of Lamia found the applicant guilty and imposed on him an eight months’ prison sentence (decision no. 1335/1997). The applicant appealed. 25.  On 25 February 1998 the three-member first instance criminal court of Lamia upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced the prison sentence to six months and converted it into a fine (decision no. 640/1998). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that his conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention (see below paragraph 29). 26.  On an unspecified date a fifth set of proceedings was instituted against the applicant on the ground that on 6 March 1994, 15 May 1994, 14 August 1994, 22 November 1994, 24 December 1994 and 9 January 1995 he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi. 27.  On 7 May 1996 the single-member first instance criminal court of Thessaloniki found him guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment (decision no. 23145/1996). The applicant appealed. 28.  On 5 November 1998 the three-member first instance criminal court of Thessaloniki upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced the prison sentence to eight months and converted it into a fine (decision no. 14370/1998). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that his conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention (see below paragraph 30). 29.  On 12 March 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeals concerning the first, second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister’s office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. It further considered that the applicant’s conviction was not contrary to Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention, because the applicant had not been punished for his religious beliefs or for expressing certain views but for usurping the functions of a Mufti. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that the applicant was legally represented by lawyers of his own choice throughout the proceedings and that he had exercised all his defence rights (judgments nos. 592/1999 and 594/1999). 30.  On 2 June 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal concerning the fifth set of proceedings for the reasons set out in its judgments nos. 592/1999 and 594/1999 (judgment no. 1133/1999). 31.  Three more sets of proceedings were instituted against the applicant on the ground that on various dates he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi. The applicant was found guilty by the single-member first instance criminal court of Lamia (decisions nos. 4660/1997, 2552/1998 and 4699/1997). 32.  On 28 March 2001 the three-member first instance criminal court of Lamia acquitted the applicant in the light of the Court’s judgment in the Serif v. Greece case (no. 38178/97, ECHR 1999–IX). The court held that, by addressing religious messages to a group of people who voluntarily followed him as their religious leader, the applicant had not usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion”, but had simply exercised his right to manifest his religion, a right guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention (decisions nos. 1000/2001, 1001/2001 and 1002/2001).


4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Bitlis. 5.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant and his two brothers, E.B. and B.B., went to Darkolink hill[1] in Güroymak, Bitlis, with their two oxen to collect leaves and twigs. The sledge pulled by the oxen detonated a landmine and the animals died on the spot as a result of the explosion that ensued. The applicant and his brother E.B., both injured, were promptly taken to a health care centre in Güroymak by the gendarmerie, who were stationed at the Cevizyatağı gendarmerie station located approximately 500 metres from the scene of the incident. They were subsequently transferred to the Tatvan Military Hospital for further medical intervention. 6.  According to a medical report prepared by the Gölcük State Hospital on 28 March 2001, both of the applicant’s legs were amputated below the knee as a result of the serious injuries he had sustained. It appears, however, that his brother E.B. was only slightly injured. 7.  On 12 March 2002 he was declared disabled by a medical panel of the Van State Hospital, which established that his working capacity had been reduced by 80 %. 8.  Shortly after the incident, the gendarmes drafted an incident report and made a sketch map of the scene of the incident. The incident report indicated that the explosion had taken place on Darkolink hill located 500 metres from the Cevizyatağı Gendarmerie Station, in an area which had previously been regularly used by the gendarmerie for exploration and surveillance purposes. The gendarmes who drafted the report were of the opinion that the landmine had been planted by members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) after nightfall, when the area was not under surveillance, with the intention of targeting the security forces. There was no further information in the report as to when the landmine might have been planted. 9.  The gendarmes also took witness statements from the applicant’s brothers and five village guards between 10 and 15 November 2000. 10.  In his statement to the gendarmerie the applicant’s injured brother E.B. stated that they regularly used the site of explosion to collect leaves and that he did not want to bring any complaints in connection with the incident. 11.  The applicant’s other brother B.B., who was apparently a village guard, gave an account of the events in his statement to the gendarmerie. He submitted that the hill where the explosion took place had been used in the past by security officers from the Cevizyatağı gendarmerie station, as well as by village guards, for surveillance purposes. It was very likely that the area had been mined by the PKK to strike at the gendarmerie forces and the guards whilst on surveillance duty. 12.  The other five witnesses, all village guards, confirmed that the hill in question had served as a surveillance and exploration area in the past for both security forces and village guards. According to one of the witnesses, the PKK terrorists must have realised the purpose for which this hill was used and mined the area to harm them. 13.  In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 15 November 2000, the applicant said that he regularly went to the hill in question to collect leaves, but he did not know that the area was mined. He also told the gendarmes that he did not wish to lodge any complaints in relation to the incident. 14.  On 16 November 2000 the commander of the mine-sweeping unit issued a report, where he stated that the pieces collected at the scene of the incident were parts of mortar ammunition, which was used by the PKK to make “homemade” mines (yapma mayın). 15.  On an unspecified date the Güroymak public prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation of its own motion into the circumstances of the incident. On 8 January 2001 the public prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant valid for twenty years from the date of the incident. The search warrant instructed the security forces to carry out a rigorous investigation into the identification of the perpetrator(s) and to report to the public prosecutor’s office every three months. 16.  On 14 November 2007 the Van public prosecutor’s office instructed the Güroymak public prosecutor’s office to continue the investigation until the statutory time-limit expired, and to report to it every three months. 17.  On 4 August 2003 the applicant filed an action for compensation against the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior before the Güroymak Civil Court of First Instance for the alleged pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage he had sustained on account of the explosion of the landmine, including the loss of his oxen. 18.  On 11 February 2004 the Güroymak Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the action in question fell under the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. The first‑instance court held that the criminal investigation conducted by the public prosecutor had not yielded sufficient information to determine whether the landmine that had injured the applicant had been laid by security forces or terrorists. However, even in the latter case, the State could be held responsible for the damage sustained on account of the “social risk” doctrine, which was a no-fault based principle adopted by the administrative courts on the basis of the reasoning that the burden of the damage caused in the fight against terrorism should be shared by society as a whole in accordance with the principles of “justice” and “the social State”. 19.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant brought a new action for compensation against the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior, this time before the Van Administrative Court. 20.  On 16 December 2004 the administrative court requested the applicant, via a letter, to deposit postal costs in the amount of 50,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL[2]) (approximately 26 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) within thirty days of the service of the letter. The letter was served on the applicant on 27 December 2004. Upon the applicant’s failure to make the payment, the administrative court repeated its request on 4 March 2005, and warned the applicant that the proceedings would be discontinued in the event of failure to make the requested payment within thirty days of service of the second letter. This second payment request was received by the applicant on 17 March 2005. 21.  On 28 April 2005 the Van Administrative Court discontinued the compensation proceedings on procedural grounds, on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the postal costs despite two warnings that had been sent in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577) (davanın açlmamış sayılması kararı). The Van Administrative Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 11 May 2005. 22.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision of the Van Administrative Court. However, on 13 May 2005 he filed a petition with that court, arguing that he had made the requested payment on 15 April 2005. 23.  On 28 November 2006 the applicant filed a new action against the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior before the Van Administrative Court, requesting compensation in relation to the same incident. 24.  In a decision dated 23 February 2007 the administrative court held that it had already delivered a decision on 28 April 2005 on the applicant’s compensation claim against the same parties in relation to the same incident, and the relevant decision had become final by reason of the applicant’s failure to appeal. In view of the “final decision” concerning the dispute in question, the new compensation claim filed by the applicant could not be examined on the merits. The Van Administrative Court accordingly decided to dismiss the action. 25.  On 25 July 2007 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Van Administrative Court. He argued mainly that contrary to the finding of that court, its earlier decision of 28 April 2005 did not constitute a “final decision” on the merits of the case, as it had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. He further stated that he had not appealed against the relevant decision at the time to avoid loss of time. 26.  On 6 September 2007 the Van Administrative Court requested the applicant to pay court fees of TRY 53.90, within fifteen days of the service of the request. 27.  On 24 September 2007 the applicant made the requested payment, approximately two months after lodging the appeal. 28.  On 30 September 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal request. Although it accepted the applicant’s argument that the Van Administrative Court’s earlier decision could not be considered to be a “final decision” on the merits of the dispute, it nevertheless found that the applicant had failed to lodge his compensation claim within the relevant statutory time-limit. 29.  On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request.


7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and currently lives in Switzerland.
Background to the case 8.  The applicant, convicted of membership of an illegal organisation, was serving his prison sentence in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison in Istanbul at the time of the events. 9.  In December 2000 a large number of prisoners, including the applicant, started a hunger strike to protest against the F-Type prisons. On 19 December 2000 the security forces conducted an operation in several prisons to stop the protests. In the course of these operations, numerous prisoners and members of the security forces were wounded and 32 persons died. Following these events, on 22 December 2000 the applicant was transferred from Ümraniye E-Type Prison to the Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison, together with several other prisoners. The Government stated that the applicant showed resistance to the security forces during the operation in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison. In a medical report issued by the Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison doctors on 22 December 2000, it was noted that the applicant had scars on the right side of his jaw and nose; bruises on his eye lids, a round hyperaemic oedema on his head measuring 3 cm and sensitivity on his abdomen. The report concluded that the applicant was unfit to work for one week. The applicant maintained that he was beaten on admission to the Kandıra F-Type Prison.
The applicant's detention in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison 10.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Tekirdağ F‑Type Prison. On admission to the prison, he was allegedly strip searched and beaten and his hair and moustache forcibly cut. He also stated that he was put in a cell alone and was forced to listen to loud music. According to the applicant, as he refused to stand up and shout his name during the daily headcounts, he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards, in particular falaka (beating on the soles of the feet). 11.  On 24 February 2001 and 3 March 2001, respectively, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who did not find any signs of ill-treatment on the applicant's body. 12.  On 4 March 2001 the applicant's lawyer filed a petition with the Tekirdağ public prosecutor's office and complained about the ill-treatment which the applicant had suffered in the Tekirdağ prison. He also requested that the applicant be examined by a forensic doctor. 13. The Tekirdağ public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the applicant's allegations. Upon the order of the public prosecutor, on 8 March 2001 the applicant was examined once again by the prison doctor, who reported that there were no signs of ill-treatment on his body. On the same day, the Tekirdağ public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant. Before the prosecutor, the applicant explained that, on admission to the Tekirdağ Prison, the prison personnel had shaved his hair and moustache by force and that he had been stripped naked. He further maintained that he had been placed in a single cell and subjected to falaka twice. 14.  On 14 March 2001 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non‑prosecution relying on the medical reports dated 24 February, 3 March and 8 March 2001, according to which there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant's body. 15.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor. 16.  On 19 April 2001 the Kırklareli Assize Court rejected the applicant's appeal. 17.  Following the introduction of the present application, on 31 May 2001 the Court requested the Government to conduct further medical examinations on the applicant, namely a bone scintigraphy and a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan (MRI). 18.  On 26 June 2001 the Government submitted two medical reports dated 13 and 14 June 2001 which had been drawn up as a result of the MRI scan and the bone scintigraphy respectively.
The MRI report dated 13 June 2001 stated the following:
“Bone signal intensity was normal. Bone contours were regular. Achilles tendon signal characteristics and thickness were normal.
No pathology in the soft tissues was detected.
Result: Normal
Note: An increased intensity observed in the fat suppression sequences in the medial regions of both feet is attributed to the coil artefact.”
The bone scintigraphy report dated 14 June 2001 read as follows:

“Examination of dynamic, blood flow and blood pool images of both feet taken following intravenous injection of 20mCi Tc-99m MDP and of delayed static and anterior/posterior images of the whole body taken four hours later revealed the following:

In both feet, blood flow was normal; increased activity uptake was observed in the blood pool phase in the areas of the lower extremity of the left tibia and the ankle.

The delayed static images revealed increased radiopharmaceutical uptake in the lower extremities of both tibias and in the bones of the big toe (more noticeable in the right foot). Increased radiopharmaceutical uptake was also observed in the left-tibia joint and the upper fibula.
Apart from in the regions indicated above, radiopharmaceutical distribution and uptake in the skeletal system fell within normal limits.

Both kidneys were visualised slightly.

Conclusion: The increased radiopharmaceutical uptake in the regions described above is indicative of traumatism.” 19.  On 19 July 2001, taking into account the applicant's poor health due to the hunger strike, the authorities released him from prison for six months. 20.  On 25 September 2001 the Tekirdağ public prosecutor requested the Forensic Medicine Institute to make an assessment of the applicant's bone scintigraphy result, in particular to indicate the cause of the findings mentioned in the report. 21.  In the meantime, on 16 October 2001 having regard to the findings indicated in the bone scintigraphy, the International Law Department of the Ministry of Justice consulted the Directorate General of Criminal Law Issues as to whether a writ of mandamus (yazılı emir) should be issued to restart the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. On 17 October 2001 the General Directorate of Criminal Law Issues wrote to the Tekirdağ public prosecutor, requesting his opinion on the matter. In his reply dated 28 December 2001, the public prosecutor argued that, as the bone scintigraphy test did not reveal the exact cause or the timing of the injuries, a writ of mandamus to quash the decision of the Kırklareli Assize Court could not be issued in the circumstances of the present case. 22.  On 30 November 2001 the Forensic Medicine Institute replied that the findings mentioned in the bone scintigraphy report could not have resulted from rheumatism or the hunger strike, but were caused by a trauma. 23.  On 7 December 2001 the Tekirdağ public prosecutor asked the Forensic Medicine Institute to clarify whether it was possible to determine the date when these injuries had been sustained. 24.  On 12 December 2001 the Forensic Medicine Institute replied that it was not possible to make such an assessment. 25.  The applicant returned to the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison on 5 April 2002, but was released once again on 12 April 2002 for another six months. 26.  On 2 September 2006 the applicant's lawyer requested an additional expert report from Dr Şebnem Korur Fincancı, a forensic expert. Dr Fincancı was asked to evaluate the findings of the bone scintigraphy test dated 14 June 2001 and to assess whether the findings indicated in the report matched the applicant's allegation of falaka. In this connection, Dr Fincancı was provided with a written statement by the applicant, in which he gave a detailed description of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison. In this statement, the applicant explained that, as a protest against the F-Type prison system, he had refused to stand up and shout his name out during the daily headcounts. When he did not obey the warnings of the prison guards, a large group of guards entered his cell and started beating him, while two guards held his arms and another two secured his feet. Then one guard sat on the applicant's abdomen and another placed his hand over the applicant's mouth. After they had tied his feet with a belt, several guards struck his feet with their belts. 27.  In her report dated 11 September 2006, Dr Fincancı concluded that when the static and dynamic images of the bone scintigraphy test were examined together, the findings in the report corresponded to the applicant's allegation of falaka. She further opined that the trauma complained of was inflicted on the applicant about three months prior to the test. While drafting her report, Dr Fincancı had regard to the applicant's previous medical reports dated 22 December 2000, 24 February 2001, 3 March 2001 and 8 March 2001. 28.  In response to the report of Dr Fincancı, the Government submitted another report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute dated 9 January 2007 which contradicted Dr Fincancı, stating that the findings in the bone scintigraphy test did not reveal the cause of the injuries on the applicant's feet and that it was not possible to make an evaluation as to when these injuries could have been sustained.


4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region. 5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought proceedings against the local welfare authority. 6.  On 20 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court held for the applicant, awarded arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic benefits with subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 2 March 2004 and, according to the Government, was gradually enforced by January 2006. 7.  Later, the applicant sued the welfare authority for its failure to enforce the judgment in time, but on 16 December 2004 the Kaluga Regional Court rejected this claim. 8.  The applicant also believed that the judgment remained unenforced with regard to the adjustment for the cost of living. For this reason, he sued the welfare authority, but on 7 April 2005 the Town Court rejected this claim as unfounded.


5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Pyatigorsk, the Stavropol Region. 6.  On 29 September 2002 a certain Ms Sh. was murdered. On the next day the police initiated criminal proceedings in that connection. 7.  On the same day a certain Mr M., who had been arrested for the administrative offence of public drunkenness, complained to the police that the day before the applicant had allegedly sworn at him and attempted to start a fight. 8.  On 2 October 2002 an administrative offence record was drawn up in respect of the applicant by police officers K. and B. The applicant denied Mr M.’s allegations. 9.  On 3 October 2002 he was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to five days’ administrative detention by the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Circuit of the Kirovskiy District of the Stavropol Region. 10.  On 3 October 2002, pursuant to the aforementioned judgment of the same date, the applicant was placed in the temporary holding facility of the Kirovskiy District Police Department of the Stavropol Region (“the district police department”). 11.  According to the applicant, between 3 and 6 October 2002 police officers forced him to confess to the murder of Ms Sh. by beating him up and threatening him with rape with a rubber truncheon. 12.  On 6 October 2002 the applicant signed a confession to the murder of Ms Sh. He stated, in particular, that he had strangled her with a TV power cable. 13.  On 7 October 2002 the investigator in charge recorded the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of murder. 14.  The investigator also ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was carried out on 7 October 2002 by a medical expert with ten years’ experience, who certified that he had no injures (certificate no. 181). 15.  On 8 October 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s placement in custody as a preventive measure, stating that he was suspected of having committed a particularly serious criminal offence, might abscond from justice and had been given negative character references at the place of his residence. The applicant was then transferred to the remand centre “SIZO-26/2” of Pyatigorsk. 16.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder. 17.  On 6 December 2002 the District Court extended the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 7 January 2003. The applicant’s counsel argued that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant might abscond, that he had a permanent place of residence and permanent work and had confessed to the crime. The fact that he was accused of a serious criminal offence could not, as such, be the basis for his continued pre-trial detention. The court decision read as follows:
“Bearing in mind that it is impossible to complete the pre-trial investigation within two months ... there are no grounds to change or quash the preventive measure [with regard to the applicant], considering that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious crime associated with a high risk to society, which does not exclude the possibility of him absconding from the investigating bodies and the court, the judge finds it necessary to grant the investigator’s request for the extension of the term of detention ...”
The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 18.  On 27 December 2002 the applicant requested the investigator to exclude his self-incriminating statements of 6 October 2002 from the body of evidence, alleging that he had confessed to the murder under physical and psychological pressure by the police officers during his administrative detention. The applicant alleged that every night they had taken him out of his cell to their office and had psychologically pressurised him to confess. 19.  On 30 December 2002 the District Court examined the investigator’s application for the extension of the applicant’s detention. The applicant stated that he had no intention of absconding or influencing witnesses and asked to be released. The court extended the term of his pre-trial detention until 7 February 2003 for the following reasons:
“Bearing in mind that it is impossible to complete the pre-trial investigation within two months ... there are no grounds to change or quash the measure of restraint [with regard to the applicant], considering that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious crime, and might impede a thorough, comprehensive and objective investigation or abscond from the investigating bodies, the judge finds it necessary to grant the investigator’s request for the extension of the term of detention ...”
It does not appear that the applicant appealed against this decision. 20.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant was served with a copy of the bill of indictment for the murder. 21.  On 6 February 2003 the case was sent to the District Court for trial. 22.  Upon receipt of the case file, on 6 February 2003 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 17 February 2003. It also ordered that the preventive measure of detention should remain unchanged. It does not appear that the applicant appealed against this decision. 23.  On 19 May 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It relied, in particular, on his self-incriminating statements. It took into account statements by the police officers, who denied ill-treating the applicant, and the medical expert report, according to which the applicant’s examination on 7 October 2002 had not revealed any injuries on him, and dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. 24.  On 20 July 2003 the applicant’s counsel obtained written statements from a certain Mr I. Sh. who stated that he had been detained in the same cell as the applicant in the temporary holding facility of the district police department from 3 to 5 October 2002. He stated that the applicant had been taken out of his cell in the night. After his return the applicant had told him that the police officers had beaten him up and that they had threatened him with rape with a rubber truncheon. 25.  On 31 July 2003 the Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against his conviction. It found that the evidence on which the judgment was based contained a number of discrepancies which had not been resolved by the trial court and that the failure to summon witnesses for the applicant properly had undermined the adversarial nature of the trial. It also held that the applicant’s allegations that his self-incriminating statements had been obtained under duress had not been thoroughly examined; that the police officers’ statements did not constitute sufficient evidence of their proper conduct; and that the applicant’s counsel’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Kirovskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) about the unlawful acts of the police had been left unanswered and no inquiry in that connection had been conducted. The Regional Court thus quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the first-instance court. It also ordered that the applicant remain in custody. 26.  On 11 August 2003 the case file arrived at the District Court. 27.  On 12 August 2003 the District Court extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 6 November 2003, stating that the applicant was charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that, if released, he might impede the criminal proceedings or evade trial. It also noted that the case had been before the courts for more than six months; that the initial term of the applicant’s detention established in Article 255 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure had expired and that it should be extended for the next three months. The applicant, who was neither present nor represented at the hearing, did not appeal against this decision. 28.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant’s lawyer obtained further written statements from Mr I. Sh., who stated that he had been detained in the same cell as the applicant in the temporary holding facility of the district police department in October 2002. The applicant had been taken out of his cell in the night. After his return the applicant had told him that the police officers had beaten him in the area of the kidneys and liver. Mr I. Sh. further stated that he had seen fresh scratches on the applicant’s left shoulder and elbow and that the applicant’s lower lip had been hurt. 29.  On 6 November 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for release under an undertaking not to leave a specified place and, with reference to Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, extended his detention for three months until 6 February 2004 on the same grounds as those given in its decision of 12 August 2003. The applicant’s lawyers referred to the length of detention, the applicant’s innocence and the deterioration of his health. The applicant appealed against the decision, arguing, in particular, that it was insufficiently reasoned. 30.  On 10 December 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 6 November 2003, referring to the absence of a transcript of that hearing in the materials of the case, and remitted the matter to the same court for a fresh examination. 31.  On 8 January 2004 the District Court ordered, under Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, that the term of the applicant’s detention be extended until 6 February 2004. It relied on the same reasons as those which were set out in the decision of 12 August 2003. The applicant’s lawyers referred to the absence of reasons for the applicant’s continued detention, in particular the lack of grounds for the risk of him absconding, his permanent place of residence and work, positive references and the length of his detention. The court stated that at that stage it could not take into account the argument concerning the applicant’s innocence. It did not address any other arguments put forward by the applicant’s lawyers. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 32.  On 5 February 2004 the District Court again examined the question of the preventive measure applied to the applicant. The applicant asked to be released, referring to the deterioration of his health and stomach complaints. His lawyers referred to the excessive length of his detention, the absence of reasons to believe that he might abscond or otherwise impede the proceedings and the fact that he had received positive character references. The court dismissed their request for release and extended, on the basis of Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant’s detention for a further three months, until 6 May 2004, for reasons identical to those cited in its previous decisions. It did not address the applicant’s lawyers’ arguments. It does not appear that the applicant appealed against that decision. 33.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant’s father’s flat was searched. The applicant’s father’s complaints about the unlawfulness of the search were dismissed by the district prosecutor’s office on 13 April 2004 and by the District Court on 14 May 2004. 34.  On 26 April 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It examined, in particular, witness I. Sh. (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above) who stated before the court that the applicant had not complained about any ill-treatment by the police officers and that he had not seen any injures on the applicant. According to Mr I. Sh., his previous statements to the contrary had been false and had been given at the request of the applicant’s parents and defence counsel in order to help the applicant. Two other witnesses, Mr R. and Mr S., who had also been held in the applicant’s cell at some point in October 2002, also stated that they had neither heard from the applicant about any pressure by the police nor seen any injures on him. 35.  On appeal, on 3 August 2004 the Regional Court found that the trial court had failed to assess the arguments put forward by the defence properly and that the applicant’s right to defend himself had been violated. It quashed the judgment of 26 April 2004 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. The Regional Court also ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand as a preventive measure remain unchanged. 36.  On 18 August 2004 the case file arrived at the District Court. 37.  On 23 August 2004 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the case for 1 September 2004. It also ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant in the form of detention on remand remain unchanged. It does not appear that the applicant appealed against that decision. 38.  On 1 September 2004 the District Court extended, with reference to Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the term of the applicant’s detention for three months, to be calculated from 13 August 2004 until 13 November 2004. The court noted that the term of the applicant’s detention, as previously extended on 5 February 2004 (see paragraph 32 above), had expired on 13 August 2004, and that it had received the case file from the Regional Court only on 18 August 2004. The applicant requested the court to release him, referring to the deterioration of his state of health and his stomach ulcer. The court held as follows:
“... the accused ... is charged with a particularly serious crime; the circumstances of the case were not ... established in detail ... in the course of the trial, the evidence which could have determined [his] guilt [or innocence] was not examined ...
The positive character references of the accused ... do not constitute sufficient grounds to release him ... because, if released, he might abscond ... and hinder the establishment of the truth in the case.
The court cannot take into account ... the claim that the accused is ill and needs medical treatment as he has not submitted any relevant documents.
The court has not established any procedural violations in respect of his detention on remand.” 39.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against the decision of 1 September 2004, arguing that the previously authorised term of the applicant’s detention had expired on 13 August 2004 and had not been extended by the court. According to them, the applicant had therefore been detained unlawfully for 18 days from 13 August to 1 September 2004. 40.  On 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 September 2004 on appeal. It stated that the fact that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious criminal offence had rightly been taken into account by the first-instance court; that the applicant’s state of health did not preclude his being kept in custody and that there had, therefore, been sufficient reasons for extending his detention. 41.  On 1 November 2004 and 26 January 2005 the District Court further extended the term of the applicant’s detention on remand until 13 February and 13 May 2005 respectively. In its similar decisions the court relied on the same reasons to justify the applicant’s continued detention as those set out in the decision of 1 September 2004. The applicant did not appeal against either of those two decisions. 42.  On 25 April 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. During the hearing witness I. Sh. (see paragraphs 24, 28 and 34 above) stated that the applicant had sometimes been taken out of his cell for interrogation after 10 p.m., that he had seen a scratch on the applicant’s lip and that the applicant had told him that he had been beaten up. According to Mr I. Sh., he did not remember whether there had been other injuries on the applicant. Mr I. Sh. also stated that he had lived at the applicant’s parents’ home for several days and had done some work for them and that the applicant’s family had supported him when he had been detained in the context of another criminal case. 43.  On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. It found, in particular, that the first-instance judgment was based on conflicting evidence. It also held that the preventive measure should remain in place as there were no grounds to release the applicant. 44.  On 11 October 2005 the case file arrived at the District Court. 45.  On 26 October 2005 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case for the purpose of taking a decision on the preventive measure to be applied in respect of the applicant. The applicant requested the court to replace his detention with any preventive measure other than deprivation of liberty. His counsel requested that the preventive measure be changed to an undertaking not to leave a specified place and an undertaking of good behaviour, since the applicant had been held in custody for more than three years, had positive character references and did not intend to evade the trial. The prosecutor asked for the preventive measure to remain the same. 46.  The District Court noted that the applicant’s criminal case had been pending before the court since 6 February 2003, and that from that date onwards his detention had been regulated by Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed it to be extended beyond the initial six-month period for further periods of three months. It further noted that the term of the applicant’s detention had been extended on numerous occasions, and that the last time, on 26 January 2005, the District Court had authorised his detention until 13 May 2005. It also noted that before the expiry of that period, on 25 April 2005, the applicant had been convicted by the trial court. The court then noted that the term of the applicant’s detention, as extended on 26 January 2005, should be considered as having run out on 9 October 2005, provided that the period between 25 April 2005, the date of the conviction, and 22 September 2005, the date of its quashing on appeal, was excluded from the term of detention on remand, in accordance with paragraph 26 of resolution no. 1 of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 5 March 2004. The court thus held that the term of the applicant’s detention had not been extended in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and that therefore, despite the seriousness of the charge against him, there were no legal grounds for his further detention on remand. It ordered that the preventive measure be changed to an undertaking not to leave a specified place and an undertaking of good behaviour and that the applicant be released immediately. 47.  On 3 November 2005 the prosecutor appealed against that decision, arguing that the District Court had erred in its interpretation of paragraph 26 of resolution no. 1 of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 5 March 2004, since it followed from the meaning of Article 255 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure that the term of detention should run from the day of a criminal case’s arrival at a first-instance court and not from the day of delivery of an appellate court’s decision. Therefore, in the prosecutor’s opinion, the term of the applicant’s detention should have run out on 29 October 2005. The applicant disagreed, pointing out the fact that he was employed, that he did not intend to evade justice and that he simply wanted the trial to be concluded as soon as possible and his good name restored. 48.  On 30 November 2005 the Regional Court found that the District Court had violated Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, as the term of detention of a person who had committed a serious or particularly serious criminal offence had to be extended by a court decision each time, and such extension could not be authorised for a period longer than three months at any one time. It went on to agree with the prosecutor’s submissions and stated that the term of the applicant’s detention should have started running on 11 October 2005, the date when the case file had been received by the District Court, and that therefore it should be regarded as having expired on 29 October 2005. The court then held that this procedural breach was grounds for the annulment of the decision of 26 October 2005, and ordered that the case be sent to the District Court for a new examination. According to the applicant, he attended the hearing of 30 November 2005 and was placed in detention immediately after that hearing. 49.  On 21 December 2005 the District Court ordered the applicant’s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. It stated that the applicant had been held in detention on remand for more than three years, that after his release on 26 October 2005 he had immediately started working and that he had been given positive character references from his employers. The court held that there were no reasons to believe that he would evade the trial or put pressure on witnesses and thus obstruct the establishment of the truth, and therefore there were no grounds to keep him in detention. The applicant was released immediately. 50.  On 2 May 2006 the District Court examined the criminal case against the applicant for the fourth time. At the hearing, the applicant insisted that he was innocent and reiterated that he had made his confession at the pre-trial stage because he had been beaten and threatened by the police. 51.  The District Court observed that the charge against the applicant had mainly been based on his self-incriminating statements and written confession made during the preliminary investigation, which he had later repudiated as having been made under duress. It further noted, as regards the applicant’s medical examination on 7 October 2002, which had not revealed any injuries on him, that the applicant had not been apprised of the investigator’s order to carry out that examination until it had been over. Therefore, in the District Court’s opinion, a note on the resulting expert report to the effect that the applicant had had no comments or questions for the expert, and had not wished to call into question the expert’s authority, was devoid of any legal meaning. 52.  The court further stated that on 6 February 2006 the decision of 27 January 2003, by which the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during his administrative detention in October 2002, had been quashed, and that on 15 February 2006 the district prosecutor’s office had again refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence in the police officers’ actions. In the District Court’s opinion, however, the applicant’s allegation that he had made self-incriminating statements and had signed his confession as a result of coercion by the police was corroborated by the evidence in the case. 53.  In particular, the court examined the register of detainees of the temporary holding facility where the applicant had been held and noted that the applicant had been taken out of his cell on 3 October 2002, from 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., and on 4 October 2002 from 6.25 p.m. to 6.50 p.m. and from 9.40 p.m. to 9.55 p.m. The court further observed that, according to the applicant’s written confession, it had been given on 6 October 2002 in office no. 36 of the temporary holding facility and not in his cell. However, the register did not contain any records confirming that he had been taken out of his cell on that day. Therefore, the District Court doubted the reliability of the official records. It found that the applicant’s confession could not be regarded as having been given voluntarily and was therefore inadmissible as evidence. 54.  The District Court also noted that, when the applicant had been interviewed as a suspect on 7 and 9 October 2002, he had not been warned that his statements could be used as evidence, in breach of the domestic law. Having examined the body of evidence in the case, the District Court further stated that it had been contradictory in a number of aspects. In particular, a report on the medical forensic examination of Ms Sh.’s body had attested to the presence of numerous internal injuries. The investigating authorities, however, had never attempted to establish the circumstances in which the victim had sustained those injuries, and the applicant had never admitted inflicting any such injuries on the victim, simply having confessed to having strangled her (see paragraph 12 above). In this respect the District Court noted that, as was clear from the materials of the case, at the time when the applicant had made his self-incriminating statements and signed his confession, the aforementioned expert examination had not yet been carried out and the investigating authorities had not known of the existence of those injuries. 55.  The court further listed a number of other shortcomings in the preliminary investigation and discrepancies in the adduced evidence. It found it unproven that the applicant had committed the imputed offence. The court thus acquitted the applicant and acknowledged his right to rehabilitation. 56.  On 4 July 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It agreed with the trial court’s finding that the confession had been signed as a result of coercion by the police officers. The court noted in this respect that the very fact that the applicant had been taken out of his cell in breach of relevant regulations had been the proof of coercion, and therefore the arguments of the prosecuting party in the appeal submissions to the effect that the trial court had failed in its judgment to specify the methods of that coercion and to identify those responsible were unfounded. It also agreed with the trial court that the applicant’s self-incriminating statements, which he had later repudiated, had contradicted the other evidence in the case. 57.  On 24 January 2003 the applicant’s counsel lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police officers from the district police department. An inquiry was carried out in connection with that complaint. Several police officers were questioned. They all denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 58.  On 27 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office decided, relying on their statements and medical expert certificate no. 181 of 7 October 2002, to dispense with criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment owing to the absence of evidence that any crime had been committed. The applicant did not appeal against the decision in court. 59.  On 4 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received a complaint from the applicant’s mother about alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the officers of the district police department. 60.  On 5 December 2003 a decision not to prosecute the police officers was taken. The Court has not been furnished with a copy of that decision. It does not appear that the applicant attempted to challenge the decision in question before a court. 61.  On 11 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 5 December 2003 and ordered an additional inquiry. 62.  During that inquiry Mr A., the head of the investigation department, responsible for the investigation of Ms Sh.’s murder at the time of the events in question, and Mr Z., deputy head of the temporary holding facility of the district police department at the material time, were interviewed. They stated that no physical or psychological pressure had ever been exercised on the applicant and that the applicant had voluntarily confessed to the murder and later confirmed his self-incriminating statements during an interview in the presence of his lawyer. 63.  On 18 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office, with reference to the aforementioned statements of Mr A. and Mr Z., decided not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence in the police officers’ actions. The applicant did not appeal against that decision in court. 64.  On 6 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office of the Stavropol Region quashed the decisions of 27 January 2003 and 18 August 2005 as unlawful and unfounded in view of the investigating authorities’ failure to establish all the relevant facts. In particular, it pointed out that the applicant had not been questioned; that the materials of the inquiry lacked an extract from the official records of requests for medical aid in the period from 3 to 6 October 2002; that the register of detainees of the temporary holding facility, where the applicant had been held during the relevant period, had not been examined with a view to establishing when and by whom the applicant had been taken out of his cell(s) for interrogation and to identifying who had been in the cell(s) with him so that they could be questioned in respect of his allegations; that a police officer who had been present when the applicant had signed his confession had not been questioned in that connection; that another police officer who had drawn up the administrative offence record in respect of the applicant had not been questioned in that connection; and that Mr R. and Mr S., who had allegedly shared a cell with the applicant, had not been interviewed either. The district prosecutor’s office was thus ordered to eliminate those defects in the course of an additional inquiry. 65.  In a decision of 15 February 2006 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in their actions. 66.  According to the decision, when interviewed during an additional inquiry, the applicant had stated that on 2 October 2002 he had been taken from his home to a police station where he had met police officers G. and B. The latter had drawn up, on Mr G.’s instructions, an administrative offence record which stated that that the applicant had used obscene language in public. The applicant had been held at the police station from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. and then transported to the district police department. On 3 October 2002 he had been placed under administrative arrest for five days and placed in the temporary holding facility of the district police department. Each night the officers of the Kirovskiy district police department, Mr A. and Mr G., had taken him to an office on the third floor in which they had subjected him to psychological pressure. On 6 October 2002, because of that pressure, he had been compelled to make a written confession to the murder of Ms Sh., which had been dictated to him by Mr G. 67.  The decision went on to quote police officer A., who had stated that he had been present when his subordinates, Mr P. and Mr G., had interviewed the applicant. No physical or other form of coercion had been used on the applicant, who had voluntarily confessed to the murder and then confirmed his statements in the presence of his counsel. 68.  Mr Z., deputy head of the temporary holding facility of the district police department at the material time, had stated that no force had ever been applied to the applicant, who had made no complaints during his detention in that facility. Mr Z. also stated that the applicant, Mr R. and Mr S. had never been held in the same cell at the same time. 69.  Mr G. had stated that on 6 October 2002 he had been told that the applicant wished to see him. He had met the applicant at the temporary holding facility. The applicant had told him that he had killed Ms Sh. and had voluntarily written out his confession. 70.  Mr B. had stated that on 2 October 2002 Mr M. had complained to him that the applicant had sworn at him. He had drawn up an administrative offence record and sent it to the court. 71.  Mr R., who had been detained in the temporary holding facility from 1 to 6 October 2002 for committing an administrative offence, had confirmed that he had shared a cell with the applicant and stated that the applicant had not made any complaints concerning the police officers who had questioned him. Mr S., another detainee during the relevant period, had also been interviewed but had not given any relevant information regarding the applicant’s allegations. 72.  The decision then indicated that, according to the temporary holding facility records concerning medical aid, the applicant had never applied for medical assistance. Nor had he made any complaints concerning his health. 73.  The decision further stated that, according to the temporary holding facility register of detainees, the applicant had been taken out of his cell on 4 October 2002 at 6.45 p.m. by Mr G. and brought back at 6.50 p.m.; on the same day he had been taken away at 9.40 p.m. by Mr P. and brought back at 9.55 p.m. On 7 October 2002 the applicant had been taken out of his cell from 9 a.m. until 6.15 p.m. for the examination of his statements on the scene of the crime. For the rest of the time the applicant had stayed in his cell. 74.  The decision thus concluded that during the inquiry the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had proved unfounded. The applicant did not appeal against that decision in court.


8.  The first five applicants are individual Spanish nationals who live in Itoiz (Navarre province). The third applicant is also the chairperson and legal representative of the sixth applicant, the Coordinadora de Itoiz association. The first, second, fourth and fifth applicants are members of this association. 9.  The case originated in an engineering project of February 1989 for the construction of a dam in Itoiz (Navarre province) which would result in the flooding of three nature reserves and a number of small villages, including Itoiz, where the applicants live. According to the Government, the total number of landowners affected by the dam's construction is 159, thirteen of whom live in Itoiz itself. 10.  On 6 May 1988 the Coordinadora de Itoiz association was set up; its articles of association state, inter alia, that its aim is “to coordinate its members' efforts to oppose construction of the Itoiz dam and to campaign for an alternative way of life on the site, to represent and defend the area affected by the dam and this area's interests before all official bodies at all levels, whether local, provincial, State or international, and to promote public awareness of the impact of the dam”.
By a ministerial decree of 2 November 1990, the Ministry of Public Works adopted the Itoiz dam project. 11.  In 1991 the villages concerned by the dam and the applicant association brought an administrative appeal before the Audiencia Nacional against the ministerial decree of 2 November 1990. The appeal was based on several allegations of unlawfulness which, in their opinion, had tainted the procedure for informing the public about the proposed dam, the fact that the project had been adopted without the prior approval of the hydrological plans for each river basin or of the national hydrological plan and the lack of any public or social interest served by the project. They also claimed that the project breached the legislation on environmental protection, since no environmental impact study had been commissioned. Finally, the court's attention was drawn to the project's impact on the nature reserves and habitat within the relevant area in the light of the Council of Europe's recommendations on engineering works in the Pyrenees and the European Union's common agricultural policy. 12.  In a judgment of 29 September 1995, the Audiencia Nacional partly upheld the appeal, considering in particular that, according to the law, the planned dam should have been based on the national hydrological plan, which had not been drawn up when the project was approved. The court also accepted the request for precise designation of the protection zones around the nature reserves affected by the dam and for a breakdown of the quarry use that would be necessary for its construction. 13.  The applicant association applied for immediate enforcement of the judgment and, in particular, for suspension of construction work on the dam. By a decision of 24 January 1996, the Audiencia Nacional granted a suspension order but directed that the necessary measures be taken to ensure the completion of work already begun and for the maintenance and safety of the work already completed, subject to the payment of security by the applicant association. 14.  All the parties to the proceedings lodged súplica appeals against the decision of 24 January 1996. In the context of the interim enforcement of its judgment of 29 September 1995 and, in particular, with a view to maintaining the protection zones around the three nature reserves affected by the project, the Audiencia Nacional, by a decision of 6 March 1996, prohibited the filling of the reservoir and displacement of the population concerned. 15.  On 17 June 1996 the parliament of the Autonomous Community of Navarre (parlamento foral de Navarra) passed Autonomous Community Law (foral) no. 9/1996 on natural sites in Navarre (“the Autonomous Community law of 1996). This law amended Autonomous Community Law no. 6/1987 of 10 April 1987, particularly with regard to the possibility of reclassifying the protection zones or carrying out activities within them for the purpose of introducing infrastructure that had been declared in the general or public interest. According to the applicants, this Law enabled construction work on the dam to continue, with the consequent deterioration of the protected natural site.
In application of the Autonomous Community law of 1996, the Autonomous Community's government adopted Decree no. 307/1996 of 2 September 1996, which identified the peripheral protection zones for certain nature reserves and strict nature reserves in Navarre. 16.  In the meantime, Counsel for the State and the government of the Autonomous Community of Navarre had appealed on points of law against the Audiencia Nacional's judgment of 29 September 1995. In a judgment of 14 July 1997, the Supreme Court definitively cancelled the dam project in so far as it concerned the 500-metre protection zones around nature reserves RN 9, 10 and 11. As a result of the judgment, the size of the planned dam, and thus of the area to be flooded, was reduced, so that the village of Itoiz, where the applicants' immovable property was located, was saved from flooding. 17.  In application of the Supreme Court's judgment, by a decision of 4 September 1997, the Audiencia Nacional declared final the interim enforcement measures ordered on 6 March 1996 concerning the prohibition on filling the reservoir and other related work. Before ruling on the question of the possible suspension of construction work on a dyke, the Audiencia Nacional invited the parties to appear before it so that they could submit observations on the consequences of the new Autonomous Community law of 1996, particularly with regard to the protection zones around all the nature reserves provided for in that law, and on the impact of the maximum flood levels on the protection zones of the reserves to which the cancelled project had referred. 18.  The central State authorities and the Navarre Autonomous Community's government argued before the Audiencia Nacional that it had become legally impossible to enforce the Supreme Court's judgment of 14 July 1997, in so far as the Autonomous Community law of 1996 had removed protection-zone status from the area within the nature reserves that was due be flooded. Accordingly, taking that legislative amendment into account, it had become possible to carry out the public-works schemes planned within those protection zones. 19.  The applicant association contested the authorities' argument, claiming that the Autonomous Community law of 1996 was inapplicable in the instant case, since it had been enacted following the administrative decisions in the proceedings in issue and subsequent to the Audiencia Nacional's judgment and the two interim enforcement orders. In the alternative, the applicant association requested that certain provisions in the Autonomous Community law be referred to the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling on their constitutionality, particularly those authorising the removal of protection-zone status from the three nature reserves in the area to be flooded, which, in the applicant association's submission, would allow the work to be completed and make the reservoir cover the area specified in the original plans. 20.  By a decision of 1 December 1997, the Audiencia Nacional asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the preliminary question submitted by the applicant association.
By a decision of 21 May 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible on account of certain errors in its presentation which could nonetheless be corrected. 21.  In order to rectify the above-mentioned errors, the Audiencia Nacional summoned the parties on 28 May 1998 so that it could hear their submissions on certain aspects of the Autonomous Community law whose constitutionality had been challenged before the Constitutional Court, and on the constitutionality of section 18(3) (A.1.) and (B) of that law. The applicant association submitted its observations on 10 June 1998.
 By a decision of 17 June 1998, the Audiencia Nacional again asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the preliminary question as to constitutionality and extended the question to include a new point raised by the applicant association, namely section 18(3) (B) (B.1.) of the Autonomous Community law. 22.  By a decision of 21 July 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the issues raised in the preliminary question admissible. Under section 37(2) of the Judicature Act, it gave notice of the questions to the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the government and parliament of Navarre and the Spanish government, and invited them to file their observations within fifteen days. The Constitutional Court received Counsel for the State's observations on 4 September 1998. The government and parliament of Navarre submitted their observations on 11 and 15 September 1998 respectively. The Attorney General's observations were submitted on 29 September 1998. The Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies indicated that the Chamber would present no observations. The Speaker of the Senate asked that the Senate be considered a party to the proceedings and offered its assistance. On 1 March 2000 the Audiencia Nacional forwarded to the Constitutional Court the written pleadings submitted by the applicant association during the proceedings before it. These pleadings, dated 29 September 1997, 10 June 1998 and 28 February 2000, were formally included in the case file at the Constitutional Court. 23.  In a judgment of 14 March 2000, the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full court, held that the impugned provisions of the Autonomous Community law of 1996 were compatible with the Constitution. It observed at the outset that enforcement of the Supreme Court's judgment of 14 July 1997, delivered in accordance with Navarre Autonomous Community Law no. 6/1987, had become impossible since the entry into force of the Autonomous Community law of 1996, in that the cancelled project complied with the new law. 24.  Examining the purpose of the Autonomous Community law of 1996, the Constitutional Court held as follows:
“... Its purpose is to establish a general system for environmental protection of the natural sites in the Autonomous Community of Navarre. Accordingly, this protection system [was] applicable ... to the nature reserves already identified in the previous Autonomous Community law, even though the essential difference between the legal rules established by those two laws lies in the arrangements regarding the peripheral protection zones.” 25.  The Constitutional Court held, firstly, that this was not to be seen as a legislative solution for the particular problem of the three peripheral zones around the three nature reserves affected by construction of the Itoiz dam and, secondly, that statements and parliamentary initiatives by certain politicians which, in the opinion of the Audiencia Nacional, demonstrated that the main aim of the Autonomous Community law of 1996 was to prevent execution of the Supreme Court's judgment, were immaterial in assessing whether there had been a violation of the principle of lawfulness. The Constitutional Court also ruled that, given the significance of the question raised by the Itoiz dam's construction, which could not simply be ignored, it was justifiable that the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Autonomous Community law of 1996 specifically mentioned the aim and means of environmental protection in the peripheral protection zones around the three above-mentioned nature reserves. 26.  As to the alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing, in so far as the Autonomous Community law of 1996 now prevented execution of the Supreme Court's judgment partly cancelling the Itoiz dam project, the Constitutional Court considered that the fact that in the meantime a new law had been passed amending the legal system applicable to the peripheral protection zones and replacing the previous law on the basis of which the project had been declared partly void was not in itself incompatible with the right to execution of judicial decisions as enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution. 27.  Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, to the judgments in Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece (9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B) and Papageorgiou v. Greece (22 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI), the Constitutional Court examined whether the impossibility of executing the Supreme Court's judgment as a consequence of the enactment of the Autonomous Community law of 1996 was justified in view of the values and assets protected by the Constitution. Having held that environmental protection was enshrined in the Constitution, the Constitutional Court examined whether the prejudice arising from the failure to execute the judgment in issue was proportionate to the protected or disputed interests or was on the other hand purposeless, excessive or the cause of a clear imbalance between the interests at stake. It found that both the Supreme Court's judgment of 14 July 1997 and the new Autonomous Community law of 1996 were intended to guarantee the existence of a peripheral protection zone around the three nature reserves affected by the dam's construction. The Constitutional Court further noted that the system of peripheral protection zones introduced by this new law had not in itself been considered arbitrary in the Audiencia Nacional's decision; nor had the zones' new boundaries been held responsible for the serious deterioration of the environment. Accordingly, it held that the balance of general interests had been respected and that there was no clear lack of proportion between the conflicting interests. Consequently, the impugned provisions could not be held to be contrary to Article 24 § 1 of the Constitution. 28.  As to the argument that the new legal rules governing the peripheral protection zones around the nature reserves appeared in a law rather than in regulations, as had previously been the case, and that this deprived the applicants of the possibility of overseeing the administration's actions through an administrative appeal or enforcement proceedings, the Constitutional Court noted that there was no legal provision requiring that certain subjects be dealt with by regulations. It added that the new law did not amount to ad causam legislation, being general in form and in substance, and pointed out that laws could be challenged before the Constitutional Court through the remedy provided for in Article 163 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application for a preliminary ruling. The judgment was published in the Official Gazette on 14 April 2000.