9.  The first applicant was born in 1942 and at the time of the events he lived in Baku. 10.  He was a linguist and worked at the Linguistic Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He was of Talysh ethnicity and carried out research on the Talysh language. He also worked as editor-in-chief of the Tolishi Sado, a bilingual Azerbaijani-Talysh newspaper, and regularly published articles therein. 11.  At around 4 p.m. on 2 February 2007 the first applicant was arrested by agents of the MNS in Javid Park in Baku. He was taken to the premises of the MNS where he was questioned for twenty-three hours about his alleged collaboration with the Iranian intelligence service. 12.  He was deprived of water and food and was kept awake. He was also subjected to physical violence. In particular, the fingers of his right hand were several times squashed with a door and he got injuries on his left shoulder. His ill-treatment was stopped owing to his high blood pressure. 13.  At around 4 p.m. on 3 February 2007 the MNS’s agents took the first applicant by car to the area near the Elmler Akademiyasi metro station in Baku and released him there. The applicant was not provided with any document concerning his arrest and detention. 14.  Immediately after his release while the first applicant crossed the road, a police officer approached and arrested him because of his alleged failure to comply with the police officer’s request to identify himself. He was taken to Yasamal District Police Station no. 28, where an administrative-offence record was drawn up by police officers. The first applicant refused to sign the record. 15.  On the same day the first applicant was taken to the Yasamal District Court and appeared before a judge. The judge found him guilty under Article 310 § 1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 16.  On 5 February 2007 the first applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. He claimed that the first applicant’s administrative conviction had been totally unjustified and that the first-instance court had not examined any evidence proving his guilt. His lawyer further noted that the first applicant had been ill-treated on the premises of the MNS, where he had been unlawfully detained from 4 p.m. on 2 February 2007 to 4 p.m. on 3 February 2007. In that connection, the lawyer submitted that there were bruises on his hand and asked the court to order his forensic examination. The relevant part of the complaint reads as follows:
“It appeared at the court hearing [before the first-instance court] that N. Mammadov [the first applicant] had also been subjected to physical violence. In fact, the existence of bruises on his left hand was clearly seen.” 17.  On 9 February 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The appellate court’s decision made no mention of the lawyer’s particular requests and complaints. The hearing was held in the absence of the first applicant. 18.  Following his administrative conviction on 3 February 2007 by the Yasamal District Court, he was returned to the premises of the MNS where he was kept until 17 February 2007. He was again ill-treated by MNS agents during that period. In particular, although he suffered from hypertension, prostatitis and hyperthyroidism, he was not provided with the relevant medical care and medication. He was questioned in general at night and no record was drawn up in respect of those interviews. He was given false information about his family according to which his two sons had also been arrested and detained in the next cells and that his wife had been hospitalised and was suffering from a serious disease. He was not provided with clean clothing during this period. His family was not informed of his place of detention. 19.  It appears from the documents in the case file that an investigator at the MNS, N.Z., compiled on 9 February 2007 a record on the first applicant’s questioning as a witness on the premises of the MNS. The investigator questioned him about his travels to and relations with Iran. 20.  The Government submitted that they had been unable to obtain the files of the case concerning the first applicant’s administrative detention as they had been destroyed owing to the expiration of their term of storage. For this reason, the Government were not able to clarify the conditions of the first applicant’s detention and treatment to which he had been subjected during this period. 21.  As the first applicant’s family had no information about his place of detention following his administrative conviction, his lawyer sent numerous letters and telegrams to the MNS, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Court of Appeal asking for information about the first applicant’s place of detention. The lawyer also indicated in his submissions that there were bruises on the first applicant’s hand, and that the first applicant had to follow a special diet and be provided with the relevant medication because of his state of health. 22.  In reply to the above-mentioned requests, by a letter of 9 February 2007 the MNS informed the lawyer that the first applicant had not been arrested or detained on their premises. By a letter of 16 February 2007 the Ministry of Internal Affairs also informed the lawyer that the first applicant had not been taken to or detained in the detention facilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 23.  On 15 February 2007 the second applicant lodged a request with the Prosecutor General asking for the first applicant’s forensic examination in the presence of his lawyer. In that connection, she noted that at the hearing of 3 February 2007 before the Yasamal District Court the first applicant’s family members had noticed injuries to the index finger of his right hand. She further noted that she had not been informed of his place of detention and that the first applicant could not live without his medication because of his state of health. 24.  By a letter dated 20 February 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the second applicant that her request concerning the allegedly unlawful actions taken against her husband had been transferred to the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office and that she would be informed of the outcome. 25.  It appears from the case file that on 7 April 2007 the investigator in charge of the case ordered the first applicant’s forensic examination. According to forensic report no. 32/TM, during his examination by the expert on 12 April 2007, the first applicant complained of having been ill‑treated on the premises of the MNS on 2 February 2007. In particular, he stated that the index finger of his right hand had been squashed with a chair and that he had been struck on his left rib cage. The expert concluded that there was not at that time any objective sign of injury on the first applicant’s body. The first applicant was not provided with a copy of the report. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all the documents relating to the domestic proceedings, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the above-mentioned forensic report. 26.  On 8 October 2007 the first applicant lodged an action with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to find violations of his rights protected under Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the Convention. He alleged, inter alia, that he had been ill-treated by agents of the MNS between 2 and 17 February 2007, that his arrest and detention on the premises of the MNS from 2 to 3 February 2007 had been unlawful, and that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his ethnicity. The part of the complaint concerning the first applicant’s ill-treatment reads as follows:
“It appeared from the submissions that he [the first applicant] made to his representative in the presence of the investigator on 17 February 2007 that, although he had not officially asked for medical aid, he suffered from hypertension, prostatitis and poor eyesight. During the period when he had been administratively detained on the premises of the MNS, he had been subjected to unrecorded interviews with 200/220 mm Hg blood pressure, he had not been provided with the relevant medication, and on several occasions, he had not been allowed to go to the toilet with the intention of breaking his will.
... N. Mammadov had been threatened on several occasions and had been given false information according to which his two sons had also been arrested and detained in the next cells and his wife had been hospitalised on account of a serious heart disease ...
Although the application and request of his wife and representative concerning the violence against N. Mammadov had been addressed to the Prosecutor General’s Office, those complaints had been sent first to the Yasamal District Prosecutor’s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office, and then again to the Prosecutor General’s Office. The latter sent the complaints made on 9 March for a legal assessment two months later to the Investigation Department of the MNS. They were dealt with with delay on purpose so that the visible trace of injuries to the index finger of his right hand would disappear and recover; and the forensic examination had been ordered only in April 2007.” 27.  On 18 October 2007 the Sabail District Court, which examined the action under the procedure established by Articles 449-51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals against the prosecuting authorities’ actions and decisions, dismissed it without addressing any of the first applicant’s particular complaints. 28.  On 24 October 2007 the first applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints. 29.  On 16 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 18 October 2007. 30.  On 17 February 2007 the first applicant was charged with the criminal offence of high treason under Article 274 of the Criminal Code. 31.  On the same day the Sabail District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the first applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the preventive measure of remand in custody to be applied, ordered the first applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the seriousness of the first applicant’s alleged criminal acts, and the possibility of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. 32.  On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 17 February 2007. He claimed, in particular, that there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. He also complained that the court had failed to take into account his personal situation, such as his age and his having a permanent place of residence, when it had ordered his detention pending trial. 33.  On 1 March 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the detention order was justified. 34.  On 12 May 2007 the Sabail District Court extended the first applicant’s pre-trial detention until 3 August 2007. The court substantiated the need for the extension by the seriousness of the charges and by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative steps. 35.  On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that he had not committed any crime and that there was no reason for his continued detention. 36.  On 31 May 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. 37.  On 28 July 2007 the Sabail District Court extended the first applicant’s pre-trial detention until 3 December 2007. The court substantiated the necessity of this extension on the grounds that a number of investigative steps needed to be carried out and thus more time was needed to complete the investigation. 38.  On 3 August 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. 39.  On 15 November 2007 the first applicant’s case was sent to the Assize Court for trial. 40.  On 7 December 2007 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. The first applicant complained at the hearing that he had been ill-treated and had been unlawfully detained on the premises of the MNS and asked the court to return the case to the investigators for a new examination. On the same day the Assize Court dismissed his applications. The court further decided that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the first applicant should remain “unchanged”, as there were no grounds for his release. 41.  In the course of the proceedings before the Assize Court, the first applicant reiterated his previous complaints relating to the alleged violation of his rights protected under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. In this regard, he claimed that he had been ill-treated by agents of the MNS between 2 and 17 February 2007 and that he had been unlawfully arrested and detained by them. 42.  It appears from the case file that on 5 March 2008 a judge of the Assize Court ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination, asking the expert to clarify the conclusions of forensic report no. 32/TM (see paragraph 25 above). Following the first applicant’s examination on 3 April 2008, the expert concluded in his report, no. 54/TM, that there was no objective sign of injury on the first applicant’s body. The expert also concluded that the first applicant’s pain in his left shoulder had not been noted in the conclusions of forensic report no. 32/TM as it had not constituted an objective sign of injury. It further appears from report no. 54/TM that the first applicant complained of pains in his left shoulder and these pains were having an effect on the fourth finger of his left hand. However, there was no sign of injury to his finger or left shoulder. 43.  On 5 March 2008, following a request from the first applicant’s lawyer, a judge at the Assize Court asked the MNS to inform the court, inter alia, whether the first applicant had been on the premises of the MNS on 2, 3 and 9 February 2007, whether he had been questioned on the premises of the MNS on 9 February 2007, and whether he had been subjected to a medical examination and what his diagnosis had been. 44.  In reply to the judge’s letter of 5 March 2008, by a letter dated 16 April 2008 the MNS informed the judge that the first applicant, who was at that time detained in the MNS pre-trial detention facility, had been diagnosed with hypertension and was being provided with the relevant treatment. However, the MNS’s letter was silent as to the judge’s requests for information concerning the first applicant’s presence on the premises of the MNS on 2, 3 and 9 February 2007. 45.  On 24 June 2008 the Assize Court convicted the first applicant of high treason and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment and confiscation of his property. The Assize Court also held, relying on the conclusions of forensic report no. 54/TM, that there had been no objective sign of injury to the first applicant’s body. 46.  On 26 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Assize Court’s judgment of 24 June 2008. 47.  On 27 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 26 December 2008. 48.  According to the first applicant, he suffered from various medical conditions, including hypertension, prostatitis and hyperthyroidism and poor eyesight before his arrest. He regularly received medical treatment in connection with the above-mentioned conditions. 49.  It appears from the documents in the case file that the first applicant was detained from 17 February 2007 to 25 June 2008 in the MNS pre-trial detention facility, from 25 June 2008 to 14 January 2009 in pre‑trial detention facility no. 1, from 14 January to 28 July 2009 in prison no. 15, and from 28 July 2009 until his death on 17 August 2009 in the medical facility of the Prison Service (“the medical facility”). 50.  It appears from the extracts of the first applicant’s detention-facility medical record (tibbi kitabça) no. 353, as well as from the documents in the case file, that in 2007 and 2008 the first applicant was examined on numerous occasions by doctors. During this period the first applicant’s state of health was stable and he mainly complained of high blood pressure and headaches. According to medical record no. 353, which covered the first applicant’s detention from 17 February 2007, the first applicant was subjected to initial examination (ilk baxış) upon his arrival at the detention facility. The initial examination did not contain references to any injury on his body. The date of the initial examination was not indicated in the medical record, but there was a stamp dated 20 February 2007 on that page of the medical record indicating the result of the first applicant’s blood test. 51.  It appears from two letters dated 1 and 12 September 2007 sent from the first applicant’s lawyer to the head of the MNS pre-trial detention facility that the lawyer asked for information about the first applicant’s medical treatment. The lawyer also expressed his gratitude for the conditions created for the first applicant’s medical treatment in detention. 52.  It also appears from a request from the first applicant dated 30 June 2008 that he asked the head of pre-trial detention facility no. 1 to allow his lawyer to provide him with the medication. 53.  As regards the period of his detention from 14 January to 28 July 2009 in prison no. 15, on 14 January 2009, upon his transfer to that facility, the head of that prison decided to place the first applicant in a punishment cell for a period of fifteen days. It appears from the case file that following the intervention of the Azerbaijani Committee against Torture, a local non-governmental organisation, on 21 January 2009 the first applicant was transferred to a normal cell. 54.  On 26 January and 19 February 2009 the first applicant’s lawyer wrote to the head of prison no. 15, complaining about the first applicant’s conditions of detention. The lawyer noted that the first applicant had been placed in a punishment cell for a period of fifteen days without any reason and asked for a copy of the decision in this regard. The lawyer further submitted that although the first applicant suffered from various medical conditions, he had not been provided with the adequate medical assistance. 55.  On 23 February 2009 the first applicant’s lawyer lodged an action with the Nizami District Court, complaining of the first applicant’s conditions of detention and the violation of his rights protected under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. In particular, he pointed out that the first applicant had been unlawfully placed in a punishment cell and had not been provided with the adequate medical assistance. 56.  On 6 March 2009 the Nizami District Court partially allowed the action, holding that the first applicant’s placement in a punishment cell had been unlawful. The court also found that the first applicant had not been subjected to a medical examination upon his arrival at the prison and ordered the latter to carry out a medical examination of the first applicant and to provide him with adequate medical care. It further appears from the judgment that the head of the medical department of prison no. 15 stated at the court hearing that he had been on leave when the first applicant had been placed in a punishment cell and that he had requested to be transferred to a normal cell immediately after his return to work. He further stated that the first applicant suffered from hypertension and that he had informed the first applicant of the necessity of his transfer to a specialised medical establishment, but the first applicant had rejected that suggestion. 57.  On 29 March 2009 the first applicant appealed against that judgment, noting that the first-instance court had failed to acknowledge the violation of his rights protected under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. In particular, he noted that he had been detained from 14 to 21 January 2009 in a punishment cell which had been windy, wet and not heated. He also pointed out that the cell had not received natural light and that he had not been provided with the relevant clothing. During this period, he had been obliged to remain standing from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day as there had been no chair in the cell. In his appeal the first applicant confirmed that the head of the medical department of prison no. 15 had proposed his transfer to a specialised medical establishment. In that connection, he submitted that he had refused that proposal because of his financial situation as he had not considered that he would have been provided with the adequate medical assistance free of charge. 58.  On 16 April 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellate court’s decision was not amenable to appeal. 59.  It appears from the documents in the case file that in the meantime, as evidenced by a document dated 30 March 2009 and signed by the first applicant, the latter refused to be transferred to a specialised medical establishment. He substantiated his refusal by the poor quality of medical treatment in that particular medical establishment. 60.  It appears from the documents in the case file that on 7 July 2009 the first applicant again refused to be transferred to a specialised medical establishment. In that connection, he submitted that he had not had any financial means and that he had not thought that he would have been provided with the adequate medical assistance there. 61.  It further appears from the extracts of the first applicant’s medical records that he refused on several occasions to be examined by the doctors. Various medical records were compiled by the doctors in this connection. 62.  On 28 July 2009 the first applicant was transferred upon his consent to the medical facility with the diagnosis of osteochondrosis of the cervical vertebrae (boyun fəqərələrinin osteoxondrozu) and right shoulder plexus (sağ tərəfli çiyin pleksiti). 63.  It appears from a letter dated 14 August 2009 and signed by the head of the medical facility, sent in reply to an information request from the first applicant’s lawyer, that upon his arrival at the medical facility the first applicant mainly complained of neck pains, general weakness and dyspnea. On various dates indicated in the letter the first applicant was examined by a number of specialists, including a neurosurgeon, an endocrinologist, a urologist and an ophthalmologist, who confirmed the diagnosis of osteochondrosis of the cervical vertebrae and right shoulder plexus. The doctors also confirmed that the first applicant suffered from various other medical conditions such as hypertension, prostatitis, acute cholecystitis, bronchitis, hyperthyroidism and cataracts. 64.  On 17 August 2009 the first applicant died. According to the death certificate, the death resulted from an ischemic cerebral infarction (baş beyinin işemik infarktı). 65.  Following the death of the first applicant, the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office launched a criminal inquiry into the circumstances of his death. 66.  On 18 August 2009 the deputy prosecutor of the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office ordered a post-mortem examination of the body, which was carried out on the same day, for the purposes of determining the cause of death. Report no. 105 dated 29 August 2009 showed that death had resulted from an acute ischemic cerebral infarction (baş beyinin kəskin işemik infarktı). 67.  On 24 August 2009 the second applicant lodged a request with the Prosecutor General, claiming that the first applicant had died in detention because he had not been provided with the adequate medical treatment after January 2009. In that connection, she submitted that the first applicant’s state of health had worsened following his placement in a punishment cell between 14 and 21 January 2009 in prison no. 15 and that his medical treatment following that had not been adequate. 68.  By a letter dated 27 August 2009, the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office returned the documents of the criminal inquiry to the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office, finding that the inquiry into the first applicant’s death had not been conducted thoroughly. In particular, the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office held that the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office had failed to determine the medical conditions from which the first applicant had suffered and whether he had been provided with adequate medical assistance. It further found that the first applicant’s cellmates and the doctors examining him in prison had not been questioned by the prosecuting authorities. 69.  On 31 August 2009 the deputy prosecutor of the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic examination by a panel of experts. The prosecutor asked the experts to establish whether the first applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance, whether his medical conditions had been correctly diagnosed and whether his death had resulted from a lack of adequate medical treatment in detention. 70.  Report no. 177/KES dated 1 September 2009, which examined only the period of the first applicant’s treatment following his transfer to the medical facility on 28 July 2009, showed that the first applicant’s medical conditions had been correctly diagnosed and treated in the medical facility. The three experts furthermore found that, although the first applicant had been suffering from numerous conditions (such as osteochondrosis, hypertension, prostatitis, cataracts), the latter could not have developed during a short period of time and could only have appeared following long pathological processes in his body. The report further found that the death had resulted from a cerebral infarction as a result of thrombosis inside cerebral blood vessels and was not related to his medical treatment. 71.  On 28 September 2009 the deputy prosecutor of the Nizami District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the first applicant’s death because of the lack of evidence of a crime in his death. He relied in this connection on the findings of the above-mentioned two forensic expert reports, concluding that the first applicant’s medical treatment had been adequate and that there had been no causal link between his medical treatment and death. The decision also referred to the statements from various doctors and the first applicant’s cellmates according to which the medical treatment had been adequate and that the first applicant had not made any complaint in this connection during his treatment. In particular, the head of the medical department of prison no. 15 stated that although the first applicant’s transfer to the medical facility had been proposed on several occasions, he had refused that proposal. 72.  On 21 October 2009 the second and third applicants lodged a complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 28 September 2009 with the Nizami District Court, asking the court to overrule it. They claimed that the first applicant had not been provided with adequate medical assistance in detention and that his unlawful placement in a punishment cell on 14 January 2009 had resulted in the development of numerous diseases. In that connection, they complained that the first applicant had been transferred to the medical facility only on 28 July 2009, despite the fact that on 6 March 2009 the Nizami District Court ordered prison no. 15 to provide the first applicant with adequate medical care. They further submitted that they had not been provided with a copy of the first applicant’s medical records and the forensic reports relating to his death and that they had been provided with a copy of the prosecutor’s decision of 28 September 2009 only on 19 October 2009. 73.  On 2 November 2009 the Nizami District Court dismissed the complaint. The court found that the first applicant had been provided with adequate medical care. It further noted that although his transfer to the medical facility had been proposed on several occasions before 28 July 2009, he had rejected these proposals. 74.  On 5 November 2009 the second and third applicants appealed against that decision, reiterating their previous complaints. 75.  On 17 November 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. As to the argument that the Nizami District Court’s decision of 6 March 2009 had not been executed, the appellate court found that the first applicant had refused to be transferred to the medical facility. That decision was not amenable to appeal.


6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is detained in Sivas. 7.  According to a report drawn up by the police officers and signed by the applicant, on 19 November 2002 at 1.30 p.m., the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah following an hour long armed conflict with the police officers during which he had resisted, had thrown a grenade and had fired back at the police officers. 8.  On the same day at 1.50 p.m. the applicant was examined at the Silvan State Hospital, in Diyarbakır, by a doctor who observed the following on the applicant’s body: 2 cm-long scrape on his lower left chest, handcuff marks on his wrists, a traumatic scrape on the front side of his right leg. The doctor observed no unfitness for work. Also on the same day at 5.45 p.m. the applicant was examined at the Diyarbakır State Hospital by another doctor who made similar findings as those mentioned in the first medical report. 9.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant was interviewed by police in the absence of a lawyer in the course of which he had allegedly sustained both physical and psychological ill-treatment. According to the applicant’s submissions, he was allegedly forced to sign some documents, as well as a declaration to waive his right to legal assistance. He further maintained that when he had wished to read the documents that he had been made to sign he had been threatened with further ill-treatment. 10.  On 23 November 2002 at the end of his police custody, the applicant was examined at the Diyarbakır State Hospital by a doctor who noted that there were no new signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. According to the applicant, during the examination the police officers intervened and ordered the doctor to write that the applicant had some grazes on his wrists and ankles. 11.  On 23 November 2002 the applicant gave a statement to the public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer in which he accepted the accusations against him. On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who took his statements in the absence of a lawyer in which he had accepted most of the statements he had given to the police. According to his submissions before the Court, the applicant claimed that he had admitted being a member of the Hizbullah before the public prosecutor and the judge on account of the duress and the intimidation exerted on him by the police. He further claimed that the police officers had threatened him with excessive length of proceedings and had told him that if he had accepted the charges they would help him and release him from detention. 12.  On 27 November 2002 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State. 13.  On 19 March 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence without a lawyer in which he denied his previous statements and the accusations. He further stated, without providing any details, that he had been subjected to pressure while in police custody and that he had pressurised to sign his police statements without reading them.
When asked about his statements before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant stated that he had given self-incriminating statements as a result of the pressure from the police officers. 14.  At a hearing held on 18 September 2003 the applicant submitted, without providing any details, that he had been tortured during the preliminary investigation. 15.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Therefore, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case. 16.  On 22 June 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found that, inter alia, on the basis of the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge that the applicant had committed the offence under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Relying on the medical report dated 23 November 2002, it also rejected the applicant’s contention that he had been tortured while in police custody. 17.  On 10 April 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s judgment.


4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1940 and 1975 respectively and live in Teghout village. 5.  In the 1970s a copper-molybdenum deposit (‘Teghout’) was discovered about four and six km from the villages of Teghout and Shnogh respectively, in the Lori Region. 6.  In 2001 a private company, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC, was granted a mining licence for the exploitation of the Teghout copper‑molybdenum deposit for a period of twenty-five years. 7.  On 1 November 2007 the Government adopted Decree no. 1279-N approving the designation of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region as expropriation zones, to be taken for State needs, thus changing the category of land use. According to the Decree, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC or Teghout CJSC, founded by the former for the implementation of the Teghout copper-molybdenum deposit exploitation project, were to acquire the units of land listed in its annexes. The plot of land belonging to the applicants was listed among the units of land falling within these expropriation zones. 8.  The applicants, a family of three, live in Teghout village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 0.430 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family, gardening and feeding their livestock. 9.  On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plot of land for 231,000 Armenian drams (AMD, approximately 500 euros (EUR)) plus an additional 15% as required by law, making the final offer AMD 265,650 (approximately EUR 578). 10.  The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they were unable to obtain a valuation of their property by another company. They claim that no other valuer was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land. 11.  On 12 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia, on a valuation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed valuation company. According to the report the market value of the applicants’ plot of land was estimated at AMD 231,000 (approximately EUR 500). 12.  In proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicants argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated, since the lowest market prices had been considered during the valuation, while several plots of land had been acquired for much higher prices. They also argued that no account had been taken of the presence of fruit trees and that the valuation report erroneously stated that their plot of land did not have a water supply whereas it did have such a supply, which had actually been cut off because of the plaintiff’s activities on the property. 13.  On 3 July 2008 the first hearing at the Lori Regional Court was held. According to the Government, the applicants were duly notified of the date of the proceedings, but they did not appear. 14.  In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted another valuation report on the applicants’ property, stating that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the land was AMD 262,000 (approximately EUR 570). The final amount of compensation with the additional 15% would thus be equal to AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655). 15.  On 6 October 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim, awarding the applicants a total of AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655) in compensation. 16.  The applicants lodged an appeal, complaining that they had not been duly notified about the dates and times of the rescheduled hearings. 17.  On 29 January 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 18.  On 27 February 2009 the case was set for trial in Lori Regional Court. The court hearing was scheduled for 2 April 2009. The Government argued that the applicants had been duly notified of the hearing and that the notification letter, as always, had been sent to their addresses. 19.  On 2 April 2009 the applicants’ representative requested adjournment of the examination of the case. The court examination was adjourned and rescheduled for 22 April 2009. 20.  On 21 April 2009 the applicants’ representative lodged an application with the Lori Regional Court, asking for the examination of the case to be adjourned. Accordingly, on 22 April 2009 the court examination was adjourned and rescheduled for 29 April 2009. 21.  On 27 April 2009 the applicants’ counsel requested the Regional Court to order a forensic expert examination to determine the market value of the applicants’ plot of land, and to order that this examination was to be performed by experts of the State non-profit organisation “Expertise Center of the Republic of Armenia” (“Հայաստանի Հանրապետության փորձագիտական կենտրոն” պետական ոչ առևտրային կազմակերպություն). 22.  On 29 April 2009 the Lori Regional Court held a court hearing. During the hearing it became clear that there was no information concerning whether the applicants had been notified. In these circumstances, the Lori Regional Court decided to adjourn the examination, taking into consideration the fact that the applicants were not duly notified about the court hearing. The next hearing was scheduled for 20 May 2009, a notification to that effect was sent both to the applicants’ representative and the applicants. 23.  On 20 May 2009 both the applicants’ representative and the applicants were present at the hearing. The applicants’ representative requested that the court ordered that a forensic expert examination be made to determine the market value of the applicants’ plot of land. Furthermore, the Lori Regional Court refused the applicants’ representative’s request, which was based on the domestic legislation, according to which each party to the proceedings must itself present evidence on the facts. 24.  On 2 June 2009 the Lori Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim finding, inter alia, that the valuation reports prepared by Oliver Group LLC were lawful and acceptable evidence to determine the market value of the applicants’ property to be taken for State needs. The Regional Court dismissed counsel’s request and awarded the applicants AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655) in equal shares as compensation. 25.  On 22 June 2009 the applicants’ counsel lodged an appeal, claiming, inter alia, that the amount of compensation was not adequate. He argued that the Regional Court had accepted the reports submitted by the applicants’ opponent as established proof of the market value of their property, and that it had refused to order a forensic examination without any grounds. He further argued that the Regional Court should have exercised its statutory discretion to order an expert examination, since the necessity for it had arisen in the course of the proceedings and the applicants had no opportunity to provide an alternative valuation themselves. 26.  According to the case file, on 10 July 2009 the notifications of the hearing of the Court of Appeal scheduled for 24 July 2009 were sent to the applicants, but they did not appear at that hearing. 27.  On 24 July 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal hearing was held; the applicants and their representative were not present. 28.  On 7 August 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment, finding that the latter’s decision not to order a forensic examination was well grounded, since there was no necessity for it. The Court of Appeal further found that the amount of compensation had been correctly determined, on the basis of the corrected valuation report prepared by Oliver Group LLC, given that that report was the only lawful and acceptable piece of evidence produced during the proceedings. 29.  According to the applicants, the decision of the Court of Appeal was not served on their counsel. 30.  On 1 October 2009 the applicants’ counsel requested permission from the Regional Court to consult the case file. After the counsel’s request was granted, he made a copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision in order to lodge a cassation appeal. 31.  On 9 October 2009 the counsel lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar complaints to those raised before the Court of Appeal. The counsel also submitted that the Court of Appeal had not duly notified him of the proceedings and had examined the appeal in his absence. Additionally, he requested to have the missed time-limits for lodging an appeal on points of law restored, explaining that the reason for late submission was the failure of the Court of Appeal to serve on him a copy of the decision of 7 August 2009, despite the fact that he was the applicants’ authorised representative in the proceedings. 32.  On 28 October 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the cassation appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time. In doing so, it found that the reasons for late submission advanced by counsel were not justified in view of the fact that the applicants had been served with a copy of the decision in due time.


4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Galashki, Ingushetia Republic. 5.  On 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. The applicant’s mother opposed the marriage and on the same day S.’s relatives took the applicant back to her mother’s house. 6.  On 12 December 2009 the relatives of the applicant’s deceased father made the applicant go back to S.’s, because of the presumed consummation of the marriage. They also threatened to kill S., should the applicant decide to leave him. 7.  The applicant had to live with S.’s family as his wife. The marriage was not officially registered. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.’s family. S. moved to a different town. On rare occasions S.’s sister let the applicant use her mobile phone so that she could call her mother. She complained that S.’s family, especially her mother-in-law, treated her poorly. She did not feel well and complained about dizziness, numbing of the lower jaw and difficulty to breathe. According to the applicant’s mother, the applicant told her once that her mother-in-law did not let her see S. and claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness and foamed at the mouth. 8.  On 28 December 2009 the applicant was taken to a municipal hospital. The doctor diagnosed her with renal colic. 9.  On 29 December 2009 during another visit to hospital the applicant was diagnosed with poisoning by unknown substance. 10.  On 1 February 2010 the applicant foamed at the mouth again and was taken to hospital. She was released on the same day. 11.  On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. A general practitioner and a neuropathologist examined her. She was diagnosed with stress and overdose of sedatives and placed in an intensive care unit. Subsequently she was diagnosed with post-hypoxic encephalopathy and vegetative state. She has not regained consciousness since then. 12.  In April 2010 the applicant was released to her mother’s care. 13.  On 23 September 2010 the applicant’s mother complained to the local police department and prosecutor’s office that the applicant had been forcefully held by S.’s family in inhuman conditions which led to deterioration of her health and coma. 14.  On 10 October 2010 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.’s family on the charges of incitement of suicide and causing damage to health. 15.  On 24 October 2011 the applicant’s mother lodged another complaint with the local police department alleging that the applicant had been poisoned while staying at S.’s house. She also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten up and deprived of her liberty. 16.  According to the forensic medical report completed on 8 November 2011, a vegetative state, similar to the applicant’s, could be caused primarily by intoxication. The expert, however, was unable to determine the cause of the applicant’s condition. 17.  On 24 November 2011 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.’s family. The applicant appealed. 18.  On 29 July 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 24 November 2011 and ordered further inquiry into the matter. 19.  On 3 August 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of attempted murder. 20.  On 1 October 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant appealed. 21.  On 26 July 2013 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic quashed the decision of 1 October 2012. The court noted that the inquiry had been incomplete. The investigator had failed (1) to question a number of important witnesses and (2) to determine the cause of the applicant’s condition. 22.  On 26 September 2013 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings reiterating verbatim his reasoning set out in the decision of 1 October 2013. 23.  On 15 January, 14 March and 21 May 2014 the deputy head of the district police department ordered a new inquiry noting that the previous inquiry had been incomplete. 24.  On 18 January and 18 March 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation reproducing verbatim the earlier decisions of 1 October 2012 and 26 September 2013. 25.  On 21 May 2014 the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation. In addition to his earlier findings, he studied the applicant’s medical case-file and concluded that it did not contain information accounting for the cause of her medical condition. 26.  On 28 February 2015 the district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 May 2014 and ordered a further inquiry. 27.  The case-file materials submitted by the Government contain two decisions dated 6 March 2015. The first decision was taken by the investigator who refused to institute a criminal investigation in the applicant’s case. The second decision was taken by the district deputy prosecutor who ordered a new inquiry. The Government did not inform of the outcome of the proceedings.


6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the Poltava region. 7.  According to the applicant, who lived in Donetsk at the material time, on 27 May 2008 a police officer called him and invited him to attend the Donetsk regional police station to discuss his past service in the police. When he arrived there at about 10 a.m. he was told that he would not be able to leave because he was going to be arrested. His mobile telephone was taken away and switched off. Two hours later police officers from the Volnovakha police arrived and took him to the Volnovakha police station, where at about 2 p.m. police officers G., P. and S. started threatening him and told him to confess to the murder of A. He refused and at about 9 p.m. they twisted his arms behind his back, put handcuffs on his wrists, pushed him down to the floor, put a plastic bag on his head blocking his airway, connected and switched on an electric shock device attached to his right wrist, and started hitting him in the head and body. After thirty minutes of ill-treatment he lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, G. put the plastic bag on his head again. Afraid of further ill-treatment, he agreed to make written statements, dated 28 May 2008, concerning A.’s murder. One of the police officers forced him to write his signature in an empty entry of the police visitors’ book (книга обліку відвідувачів). He was then held at the police station until the next evening when, at 7.52 p.m., he was taken to appear before the investigator, Sh. When the latter started drawing up the arrest report pursuant to Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, T., a lawyer from Donetsk hired by the applicant’s father, entered Sh.’s office and informed Sh. that she would provide legal assistance to the applicant. 8.  According to the Government, at 7.10 p.m. on 27 May 2008 the applicant attended the Volnovakha police station to “give explanations” and left at 9.10 p.m. the same evening. At 9.10 a.m. on 28 May 2008 he attended the police station again to “give explanations” and left at 11.40 a.m. At 7.52 p.m. he was arrested there in the presence of his lawyer, T. 9.  According to the police visitors’ book, on 27 May 2008 the applicant arrived at the police station at 7.10 p.m. and left at 9.10 p.m. On 28 May 2008 he arrived at the police station at 9.10 a.m. and left at 11.40 a.m., while T. came to the police station at 7.10 p.m. Only the above two entries were made on 28 May 2008. The photocopy of the visitors’ book provided by the Government does not contain a column with visitors’ signatures. 10.  According to the police arrestees’ logbook (книга обліку доставлених), at 7.52 p.m. on 28 May 2008 the applicant was brought to the police station on suspicion of aggravated murder. 11.  The arrest report drawn up by Sh. between 7.52 and 8.12 p.m. on 28 May 2008 contained the applicant’s complaint that at about 9 p.m. on 27 May 2008 he had been beaten by police officers. It also contained a request by him to be taken to hospital for a medical examination. It also stated that the applicant’s father had been notified of the applicant’s arrest. 12.  It appears from the case file that on the evening of 28 May 2008 Sh. allowed T. to talk briefly with the applicant. During their conversation G. allegedly approached them, shouting at T. and threatening her. Later T. made a complaint against G. in the police visitors’ book. 13.  The search report, drawn up on 28 May 2008 and attested by witnesses K. and B., stated that nothing had been seized from the applicant during his search. 14.  At about 10 p.m. the same evening the applicant was examined in the local hospital. Doctors noted in a medical certificate that he had informed them that at about 9 p.m. on 27 May 2008 he had been beaten by police officers. They documented numerous bruises, haematomas and abrasions on his face, head, wrists and shoulders. 15.  At 10.45 p.m. the same evening the applicant was placed in the Volnovakha temporary detention facility (“the ITT”). The ITT officers noted numerous injuries on the applicant’s face, forehead, wrist joints, shoulder joints and right thigh. The ITT duty officer then reported those injuries to the head of the Volnovakha police station. 16.  On 29 May 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the town prosecutor regarding his alleged ill-treatment at the Volnovakha police station on the evening of 27 May and unlawful detention on 27 and 28 May 2008. In particular, he described in detail the alleged ill-treatment (as stated in paragraph 7 above). He also stated that his detention in that police station had not been recorded and that the duty officer had only made an entry in the police visitors’ book about his alleged visit to that police station at 9.10 a.m. on 28 May 2008 after T.’s arrival. 17.  On the same day T. complained to the prosecutor that on the evening of 28 May 2008 G., who had ill-treated the applicant the day before, had threatened her during her conversation with the applicant in the police station corridor. 18.  On the same day the applicant was questioned. In addition to the statements made in his complaint to the prosecutor, he stated that one of the alleged perpetrators had forced him to write his signature in an empty entry of the police visitors’ book. 19. On the same day, at Sh.’s request, P. conducted a forensic medical examination of the applicant. According to his expert report, completed on 2 July 2008, the applicant had a number of bruises, haematomas and abrasions, which were classified as minor bodily injuries. They had been caused by blunt objects or by impact with them. Some of them (abrasions on the right forearm and left wrist) had been sustained up to one day before the examination, while others had been sustained three to four days (some bruises on his face, right shoulder joint and right shoulder) or five to seven days (haematomas in the right groin area and on the left shoulder joint) before the examination. A number of others (haematomas on the head, neck, face, left hip and forearm, left wrist and knee, abrasions on the right forearm, left leg, and a scratch on the right leg) could have been sustained during the period indicated by the applicant. There were no signs of electric shock treatment. 20.  On 12 November 2008 the applicant acquainted himself with the above-mentioned report. He stated that he disagreed with it, because he still had signs of electric shock treatment, the injuries on his wrist joints had not been examined, and the manner in which they had been inflicted had not been established. He added that all the injuries had been sustained at the police station. 21.  On 3 June 2008 the prosecutor questioned the applicant as a suspect in A.’s murder. According to the interview record, the prosecutor’s first question concerned the vehicles which the applicant had used from 1 January 2008 “until the time of [his] arrest on 27 May 2008”. 22.  Following the pre-investigation inquiries, on 7 June, 7 August and 28 November 2008, 21 January and 10 April 2009 the town prosecutor or his assistant refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint of 29 May 2008. While mentioning the applicant’s explanation that he had been beaten at the police station on 27 May 2008 and the expert report of 2 July 2008, which had established that he could have sustained a number of injuries during the period indicated by him, the prosecutor found that there was no evidence that those injuries had been inflicted at the police station and not elsewhere, because on 27 and 28 May 2008 the applicant had not been at the police station all the time. The prosecutor relied on statements given by the alleged perpetrators, the investigator Sh. and police officer K., who had been on duty on 28 May 2008. According to them, on 27 May 2008 G. had received a call from the Donetsk regional police informing him that they were holding the applicant, who was suspected of a crime committed on the territory of the Volnovakha district. G. and another police officer had gone by car to Donetsk, where they had arrived at about 5 p.m. They had taken the applicant and at about 7 p.m. had returned to the Volnovakha police station. The applicant had not been questioned that day because he had given confused answers to their questions and had asked for some time to think things over. He had left the police station at about 9 p.m. and written his signature in the police visitors’ book. The following day he had come back at around 9 a.m. and had written a statement concerning A.’s murder. He had then been invited to wait to be questioned by Sh., but he had said that he would wait for him outside and had left the police station premises at about 11 a.m., having put his signature in the visitors’ book. At 7.52 p.m. G. and S. had taken the applicant to the police station and then to appear before Sh. Nobody had seen any injuries on him, and he had not been handcuffed. When Sh. had started drawing up the arrest report, T. had entered Sh.’s office, informing him that she had been appointed as the applicant’s lawyer. 23.  The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decisions. In his appeals he again described his alleged ill-treatment in detail (as stated in paragraph 7 above). Furthermore, he stated that his signatures in the police visitors’ book had been forged and that when he had asked for the book to state his complaints, it had been hidden from him. Only T. had been able to write her complaint against G. in it. 24.  On 21 July and 4 November 2008, 18 January, 30 March and 21 September 2009 the higher prosecutor or the Volnovakha Court set aside the above-mentioned decisions on the grounds that the inquiries were superficial and had not examined all the circumstances stated by the applicant. In decisions of 30 March and 21 September 2009 the latter court also instructed the prosecutor to order a handwriting analysis of the applicant’s signatures in the police visitors’ book. 25.  On 14 January 2010 the town prosecutor ordered a handwriting analysis of two signatures allegedly written by the applicant in the visitors’ book on 27 and 28 May 2008. However, on the same day he again refused to institute criminal proceedings, largely for the same reasons as before. 26.  On 27 April 2010 a specialist, S., concluded that the signatures were authentic. In complaints lodged with the Volnovakha Court the applicant stated that he had only been informed of the results of the above-mentioned analysis in a letter from the prosecutor, but had not been provided with the document containing those results. 27.  On 30 April 2010 the prosecutor ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant as per the court’s instructions of 22 October 2009 (see paragraph 34 below). On 6 May 2010 P. supplemented his expert report of 2 July 2008 by adding that injuries which could have been sustained during the period indicated by the applicant had also included haematomas on his back. 28.  On 1 June 2010 the applicant complained to the Volnovakha Court about the decision of 14 January 2010. He stated, inter alia, that if the prosecutor had established that he had been taken to the police station on 28 May 2008 at about 8 p.m. without any visible injuries, and the medical examination at 10 p.m. had found numerous injuries on him, that meant that he had received them on 28 May 2008 between 8 and 10 p.m. The applicant also complained that those who had attended the police station on 27 and 28 May 2008 and could have been witnesses to the events on those days had not been identified. 29.  On 8 October 2010, following a request from the applicant’s father, who was acting as his representative, two experts, G. and K. from the Kharkiv State Medical Academy, issued an expert medical report. That report, based on the material of the expert medical examination of 29 May 2008, established that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by rubbing, compression and hyperextension of the skin and by blows. He had sustained at least twenty-two blows from blunt solid objects. Formation of haematomas on the neck and back of the head as a result of the tightening up of a plastic bag was “not excluded”. A haematoma and abrasion on the forearms were “typical” handcuff injuries; their being sustained as a result of sharp raising by another person of the applicant’s hands twisted behind his back was “not excluded”. A haematoma on the applicant’s left knee had been sustained upon impact of that area with a blunt object; it could have resulted from him falling over. Haematomas in the right part of the head and on the cheeks could have been caused by punches. 30.  On 27 April 2011 the Volnovakha Court set aside the decision of 14 January 2010 on the grounds that the inquiry was incomplete and one-sided. In particular, the prosecutor had not complied with the court decision requiring a handwriting analysis. He had not assessed the fact that, according to the expert report of 2 July 2008, some of the applicant’s injuries had been sustained during the period indicated by him. Nor had he questioned the officer who had been on duty on 27 May 2008 and a doctor who had examined the applicant on 28 May 2008. 31.  On 6 July 2011 the prosecutor again refused to open criminal proceedings. The applicant’s father complained to the higher prosecutors, pointing to a contradiction between the prosecutor’s decisions in which it had been established that the police officers had not seen any injuries on the applicant when he had been taken to the police station on 28 May 2008, and the expert report of 2 July 2008, which stated that a number of injuries could have been sustained by the applicant on 27 May 2008. Therefore, those officers would have seen the injuries and had therefore given false statements. 32.  On 18 July 2011 M. and G., who shared a cell with the applicant for some time during his pre-trial detention, sent letters to the prosecutor stating that on 14 July 2011 S., one of the alleged perpetrators, who was later arrested on charges of bribery, had been placed in their cell for thirty minutes. M. and G. asked him whether he had participated in the applicant’s ill-treatment. He had answered in the affirmative, adding that he would have been fired if he had not participated in the ill-treatment. 33.  On 25 July 2011 the higher prosecutor set aside the decision of 6 July 2011. The parties did not inform the Court of the subsequent events. 34.  The applicant also raised complaints of ill-treatment within the criminal proceedings against him. On 22 October 2009 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal sent the criminal case against him for further investigation, inter alia, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s inquiry into his complaints was incomplete. In particular, the expert report of 2 July 2008 had not mentioned the injuries on the applicant’s back and the expert had to establish the manner in which the injuries had been sustained and whether they could have been sustained in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. 35.  The parties did not inform the Court of the subsequent events. Publicly available material shows that on 3 April 2014 the Dokuchayivsk Town Court acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence against him. In examining various pieces of evidence, it also referred to the applicant’s statement given during the trial that, inter alia, on 27 May 2008 he had been ill-treated at the Volnovakha police station.


4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Yerevan. 5.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by daily protest rallies held at Yerevan’s Freedom Square from 20 February onwards by the supporters of the main opposition candidate, Mr Ter-Petrosyan. The applicant was the head of Mr Ter‑Petrosyan’s election headquarters in the town of Abovyan and regularly attended the rallies. On 1 March 2008 the assembly at Freedom Square was dispersed by the police, causing mass protests throughout Yerevan. 6.  On 8 March 2008 the applicant was summoned to a local police station in Abovyan where he was questioned about the leaflets that he had prepared and distributed among the demonstrators during the rallies. 7.  On 11 March 2008 the applicant was charged with organising mass disorder and an attempt to usurp State power. 8.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, namely until 8 May 2008, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence and the severity of the punishment prescribed for it. By the same decision the District Court refused the applicant’s request to be released on bail. 9.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the investigating authority had not presented any evidence to substantiate the need for his detention. 10.  On 21 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, holding that the fact that the applicant had been accused of a grave offence punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment increased the probability of his evading criminal punishment. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to release the applicant on bail in view of the fact that, if at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence, evade responsibility and punishment, and continue to breach public order. As to the applicant’s good character, mentioned by him in his appeal, this was not sufficient to justify lifting the detention order. 11.  On 4 May, 2 July, 3 September and 30 October 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention on the same grounds, on each occasion by two months. 12.  On 19 May, 18 July, 19 September and 16 November 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals against those decisions. 13.  On 10 December 2008 the trial court decided to set the case down for trial, ruling in the same decision that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged. 14.  On 22 June 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty of making public calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government, and imposed a two-year sentence. It further decided to absolve the applicant from serving his sentence under a general amnesty declared by the Armenian parliament on 19 June 2009. The applicant was immediately released from detention.


5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Grimăncăuți. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant is a farmer who grows and sells potatoes. On 5 February 2008 he and his brother went to the Varnița village, in the vicinity of the city of Bender/Tighina. The latter is controlled by the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdiestria” (“the MRT”), while Varnița itself is under Moldovan control. 8.  Having sold potatoes for some time in various places in Varnița, with authorisation from the local administration, on 5 February 2008 at around 2.30 p.m. the applicant was approached by plain clothed officers of the “MRT” customs authority. The latter asked for documents for the merchandise, including evidence of payment of taxes for importing merchandise into the “MRT”. The applicant explained that he had all the relevant documents and had paid taxes to the Moldovan local authorities in Varnița. Shortly thereafter two more officers from the “MRT” security and customs authorities arrived in a car. When the applicant’s brother announced that he had called the Moldovan police, the applicant was attacked by the “MRT” officers, forced into their car and driven away. The Moldovan police arrived after the impugned event. 9.  Later in the evening, the applicant’s car with the remainder of merchandise was seized by the “MRT” customs authority. According to the applicant, an officer of the Moldovan police was present and did not interfere. 10.  On 6 February 2008 the Bender city court (an “MRT” court) found the applicant guilty of having committed the administrative offence of resistance to the customs officers. The applicant explained that he considered having been arrested on Moldovan territory (Varnița village) and not having seen any signs warning that he was about to cross into the territory under the “MRT” control. The court sentenced him to three days’ detention. According to the applicant, the hearing took place in Russian, a language which he understood only to a limited degree, and in the absence of a translator. He was refused the right to be assisted by a lawyer when preparing for the hearing, and a court-appointed lawyer was only present at the court hearing, not assisting him in any manner. The applicant was given neither a copy of the record of his arrest prior to its examination by the court, nor a copy of the court decision of 6 February 2008. 11.  The decision was enforced immediately and the applicant served all three days until the evening of 8 February 2008, when he was released. He could recover his car and merchandise at 11 p.m. on the same day. 12.  On 15 February 2008 the applicant lodged a summary appeal against the decision of the first-instance court, noting that he would submit a full appeal once he received a copy of the decision of 6 February 2008. At his request, on 17 March 2008 he obtained a copy of that decision. 13.  On 18 March 2008 the “MRT” Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s decision because of the failure to specify the exact place where the offence had been committed. The case was sent for re-examination by the lower court. The applicant was not informed of that decision. On 25 April 2008 the “MRT” Supreme Court accepted an extraordinary appeal lodged by the president of that court’s chair and decided that the case was to be re-examined by that court. The applicant was not informed of that decision. 14.  On 27 May 2008 the applicant received by fax a letter dated 12 May 2008 summoning him to the hearing of the “MRT” Supreme Court on 27 May 2008 at 10 a.m. Because of this late summoning he could not appear at the hearing. On the same day the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 6 February 2008, finding that he had been arrested on the territory of the city of Bender after refusing to abide by orders of the “MRT” customs authority. 15.  On 6 February 2008 the applicant’s brother made a criminal complaint in the applicant’s name to various Moldovan authorities, including the Prosecutor General’s Office, about the applicant’s unlawful arrest by officers from the “MRT”. He asked for the criminal prosecution of those responsible. 16.  On 7 February 2008 the applicant’s brother sent a complaint about the applicant’s abduction by the “MRT” authorities to the embassies of several countries in Moldova, including that of the Russian Federation. On 11 February 2008 the applicant sent letters to various embassies, including that of the Russian Federation, thanking them for their intervention into the case by bringing the matter before the Joint Control Commission.[1] Following this alleged intervention the applicant’s car and merchandise were returned to him. 17.  On 28 February 2008 the Moldovan police station in Bender started a criminal investigation into the applicant’s abduction by “MRT” officers. Several witnesses confirmed that the applicant had been forcibly taken away in a car from near a bar in Varnița village and that two of the “MRT” officers were identified. In view of the Moldovan prosecuting authorities’ inability to effectively prosecute persons on the territory controlled of the “MRT”, on 28 August 2008, the investigation was suspended. On 30 May 2013 the investigation was resumed and was pending by the time of the last submissions made to the Court (December 2013). The parties did not inform the Court of any subsequent developments in that regard.


5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Bacău. 6.  On 13 January 2005 the Bacău police division responsible for the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking (“the police”) was informed by the Bacău Regional Division of the Romanian Post Office (“the Post Office”) that it had identified three envelopes containing suspicious items. The envelopes, sent abroad by registered post sometime between 11 April and 13 May 2003, had been returned unopened as the intended recipients had failed to collect them. The people who had sent them could not be identified by postal workers and their addresses had proved to be fictitious. Consequently, the postal workers had opened the envelopes and contacted the police. 7.  The police seized and examined the envelopes and found that they contained Diazepam, a prescription medicine which also belonged to one of the categories of prohibited drugs under Law no. 143/2000 on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use (“Law no. 143”). 8.  Between January and February 2005 similar envelopes containing similar prescription medicines meant to be sent abroad were discovered by the Post Office and given to the police. 9.  On 9 and 14 February 2005 the division for the investigation of organised crime and terrorism from the Bacău Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor”) issued orders authorising the seizure of the suspicious envelopes under the urgent procedure provided for by Article 98 § 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the urgent procedure” and “the CCP” – see paragraph 26 below). The prosecutor sent the orders to the County Court for the court’s information on the next day.
The relevant parts of the orders read as follows:
“The investigation showed that the recipients’ addresses are false.
As it appears that the envelopes contain prohibited substances which are among those listed in Law no. 143,
Bearing in mind the urgency and the well-foundedness [of the measure] under Article 98 § 12 of the CCP
Orders
That the envelopes ... be taken by police officers ...
Items which are of no relevance to the case shall be returned.” 10.  On 18 February 2005 the prosecutor started criminal investigations in the matter against unidentified perpetrators. 11.  The prosecutor requested audio and video-surveillance of the post offices in Bacău. The measure was authorised by the Bacău County Court on 23 February 2005. 12.  With the help of the surveillance material the applicant (who at that point remained unidentified) was seen on 14 March 2005 in two different post offices as he deposited two other suspect envelopes to be sent abroad. The envelopes were seized under the urgent procedure provided for by Article 98 § 12 of the CCP (see paragraph 26 below) and on the next day the prosecutor sent the orders to the court for the court’s information. An examination of the envelopes showed that they contained prescription medicine and that the sender’s address was false. The prosecutor’s orders read as follows:
“... a man brought a parcel with suspicious contents which were of interest to investigators ...
As the correspondence was of interest to investigators and as the situation is urgent and duly justified, under Article 98 § 12 of the CCP
Orders
That the police ... seize the parcel.
Correspondence and items which have been seized but which are of no relevance for the case shall be returned.” 13.  On 25 March and 18 April 2005 an expert examined the writing on the envelopes seized by the police and concluded that it belonged to the applicant. 14.  During the investigation, the prosecutor identified two pharmacies where the drugs had been procured without prescription. The pharmacists identified the applicant as the person to whom they had sold the medicine. 15.  Based on the evidence that had been gathered, the prosecutor concluded that between 2003 and 2005 the applicant had obtained medical products classified as drugs without prescription and had tried to sell them abroad. 16.  On 2 June 2005 the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial on a charge of dealing in drugs. Five of the envelopes seized on 9 February, 14 February and 14 March 2005 (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above) were attributed to the applicant and used as evidence. 17.  The applicant contested the lawfulness of the interception of his correspondence before the Bacău County Court and argued that the prosecutor had not obtained authorisation from the court to seize it, as required by the relevant provision of the CCP. As for the contents of the seized envelopes, he stated that he had sent scientific papers and samples abroad in relation to his research work and that he had used a fake identity to protect his private life and reputation in case the quality of the scientific work was considered as poor. He denied any involvement in drug trafficking. 18.  On 27 February 2007 the applicant was acquitted. The County Court excluded the prosecution’s main evidence, considering that the seized envelopes had been obtained unlawfully as the prosecutor had failed to ask the court to approve the measure. As for the remaining evidence in the file, it noted that the audio and video-recordings were not relevant for the accusations brought against the applicant and that the witnesses were unreliable as they had changed their statements in court. 19.  On 18 September 2007 the Bacău Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. 20.  However, on 28 January 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed an appeal on points of law by the prosecutor. It found that the lower courts had erred when they had set aside the evidence obtained from the seized correspondence. It considered that the provisions of the CCP meant that the prosecutor had been obliged to inform the courts about the seizure orders but not to seek their approval. It therefore sent the case back to the County Court and recommended that the court check whether the prosecutor’s orders had been sent as information to the court and to examine the accusation in the light of all the evidence in the file. The decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice was final. 21.  On 12 February 2009 the Bacău County Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and gave him a three-year suspended sentence. The County Court relied on the evidence in the file, namely the seized envelopes and the expert evaluation of their content and of the writing on them. It also relied on transcripts of the audio and video-surveillance in the post office and of the applicant’s telephone; statements by seven pharmacists that they had sold the medicine in question to the applicant without prescription; and testimony by two doctors who had been asked by the applicant or pharmacists to write prescriptions to cover up for the medicine sold without prescription. There was also testimony from the family doctor, who denied prescribing any medicine to the applicant’s parents, as the applicant had asserted. The County Court also had at its disposal statements from other witnesses, notably nine post office workers who remembered the applicant sending between one and five envelopes a week abroad, starting from 2003; four fellow researchers from the University, who worked or had worked in the same research team as the applicant; and a bus driver who said he had delivered an envelope for the applicant. The court heard evidence from twenty-three witnesses who had participated in various procedural acts as independent witnesses at the request of the police (martori asistenţi). The court further relied on the results of checks on the addresses abroad used by the applicant; Interpol information about the recipients of the envelopes; and police reports about checks on the two pharmacies used by the applicant, notably concerning bills and permits for selling prescription medicine which constituted drugs (see paragraph 14 above). In addition, it referred to the police report concerning the applicant’s activity on the Internet related to his alleged scientific work abroad (see paragraph 17 above). The court also had at its disposal reports from seven banks, attesting to the fact that between 2003 and 2005 the applicant had received more than a hundred money transfers from abroad for small sums, amounting to more than 41,000 United States dollars (USD) and 10,000 euros (EUR). 22.  The court dismissed the applicant’s argument of the unlawfulness of the interception of the correspondence. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, it found that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his privacy had been provided for by law and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 23.  It also reiterated that as the situation had been urgent, the prosecutor had been allowed by law to intercept the correspondence without court authorisation, provided that he informed the court afterwards, which he had done. 24.  The applicant appealed. In the main, he argued that the interception of his correspondence had been unlawful and had breached his Article 8 rights. The court dismissed his arguments, making reference to the interpretation of the law given by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in its decision of 28 January 2008 (see paragraph 20 above). He also contested the manner in which one of the postal workers had been interviewed by the prosecutor (see paragraph 21 above). He did not contest the lawfulness of the remaining evidence. In his defence, he explained that he had received money from abroad for experiments he had performed for foreign scientists’ research work (see paragraph 21 above). 25.  The applicant reiterated his arguments in an appeal on points of law lodged with the High Court of Cassation and Justice. He did not contest the remaining evidence in the file. The High Court dismissed the case in a final decision on 22 June 2010.


4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Siirt. 5.  On 9 January 2009 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda. 6.  On 13 January 2009 the applicant was brought before the Siirt Magistrates’ Court, who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences. 7.  On 3 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against the above decision on the applicant’s detention and requested his release. 8.  On 6 August 2009 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with disseminating terrorist propaganda, and aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. 9.  On 10 August 2009, at the end of the preparatory hearing, the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention on the basis of the case-file. 10.  On 8 September 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it. 11.  On 1 October 2009, at the end of the first hearing before the Diyarbakır Assize Court, the applicant was released pending trial. 12.  On 31 December 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. No appeal was filed and the judgment became final on 8 January 2010.


4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Orhei. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 16 January 1997 the Orhei mayor’s office attested the property right of a number of private individuals over plots of land in the town. Based on that decision, on 3 April 1997 the same office issued the applicant’s brother (C.) title to 0.0569 hectares of land. 7.  On 13 July 1998 C. died. After his death the applicant took possession of the land and used continuously for her own needs. 8.  On 10 September 1999 the territorial cadastre office registered the plot of land as belonging to C. 9.  On 31 January 2000 the Orhei mayor’s office amended the annex to its decision of 16 January 1997. C. continued to be mentioned as the owner of the relevant plot of land. 10.  On 15 July 2005 the Orhei mayor’s office lodged a civil court action aimed at annulling the property right of C. and the applicant to the relevant land. It claimed that the title had been issued in error since C. had moved to an apartment provided by the town and was no longer eligible to obtain such land. Following this relocation, the cadastre office was supposed to remove C.’s title from the list, which it had failed to do. In the meantime, on an unspecified date the applicant initiated a court action aimed at extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance. The two court actions were joined by the court on 6 November 2006. 11.  On 15 February 2017 the Orhei district court rejected the court action lodged by the mayor’s office and accepted that of the applicant. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant had raised the issue of expiry of the three-year limitation period and added that under Article 78 of the old Civil Code (see paragraph 15 below), the court had to apply the rules concerning the limitation period regardless of the parties’ arguments. It found that the mayor’s office had missed the three-year limitation period. However, in the operative part the court omitted to refer to the expiry of the limitation period and found that the court action had been groundless. The court also accepted the applicant’s action, extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance since she had taken possession of the relevant land immediately after his death. 12.  On 4 October 2007 the Chișinău Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, accepting the appeal lodged by the mayor’s office. It annulled C.’s title to the relevant land, finding that he had obtained it in error and that under the applicable law he could not be the owner of that land. Moreover, the court rejected the applicant’s claim for extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance, finding that she had missed it without a valid reason. 13.  On 12 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 14.  The applicant submitted documents showing that she had paid various taxes for the land in question over the years. 15.  The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (1964, in force before 12 June 2003) reads as follows:
“Article 74.  General limitation periods.
The general limitation period for defending, by a court action, against the breach of a person’s rights (prescripția) is of three years ...”
“Article 78.  Mandatory application of the limitation period.
The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period regardless of the parties’ request.”
“Article 581.  Acceptance of inheritance.
In order to inherit, the heir must accept the inheritance. ...
It shall be considered that the heir has accepted the inheritance if he/she took actual possession or administration of inheritance assets ...” 16.  The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (in force from 12 June 2003) read as follows:
“Article 7.  Application of the civil law in time.
(1)  The civil law has no retroactive effect. It does not modify and does not annul the conditions of creation of a legal situation which previously appeared, nor the conditions of ending of a legal situation which previously ended.
...
(6)  The provisions of the new law concerning limitation periods ... shall apply to limitation periods which started before the date of entry into force of the new law, but did not end before that date. ... The start, the suspension and the interruption of the limitation period shall be determined under the old law for the period before the entry into force of the new law.
...”