6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Moscow. At the material time she had been working as a judge for 18 years. 7.  From 6 November 2000 the applicant held judicial office at the Moscow City Court. 8.  In 2003 the applicant was appointed to sit on a criminal case concerning abuse of powers by a police investigator, Mr Zaytsev. He was accused of carrying out unlawful searches while investigating a case of large-scale customs and financial fraud involving a group of companies and, allegedly, certain high-ranking state officials. 9.  In June 2003 the court, composed of the applicant as judge and two lay assessors, Ms I. and Ms D., began to examine the case. During the hearing on 26 June 2003 the court invited the public prosecutor to present evidence for the prosecution. He replied that the court had failed to ensure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses and objected to the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted. On the following day, Friday 27 June 2003, he challenged the applicant as judge on the grounds of bias which she had allegedly shown when questioning one of the victims. Other parties to the proceedings, including the victim in question, objected to the challenge. On the same day the lay assessors dismissed the challenge, following which the public prosecutor challenged both lay assessors. The parties to the proceedings objected to the challenge and it was dismissed. On the same day the prosecutor filed another challenge to the lay assessors on the grounds of bias, which was also dismissed by the applicant on the same day. 10.  On Monday 30 June 2003 both lay assessors filed a motion to withdraw from the proceedings. 11.  On 1 July 2003 the public prosecutor declared that the minutes of the proceedings were being kept incorrectly and requested access to the records. The court refused his motion, on the grounds that the minutes could be accessed within three days of their completion. 12.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant allowed the withdrawal of both lay assessors, having found as follows:
“At the hearing the lay assessors I and D declared their withdrawal from the proceedings, on the grounds that they were unable to participate in the examination of the case because of the [public prosecutor’s] biased and discourteous behaviour towards them and due to the perverse environment at the hearing, for which he is responsible and which made them ill.” 13.  According to the applicant, the Moscow City Court President, Ms Yegorova, then during the proceedings called the applicant to her office and asked her about the details of the proceedings, putting certain questions regarding the conduct of the trial and the decisions on the above motions. 14.  The parties disagree on the circumstances of the applicant’s withdrawal from the case. According to the applicant, the Moscow City Court President removed her from sitting in the case on 4 July 2003, the day after the lay assessors’ withdrawal. According to the Government, the case remained with the applicant until 23 July 2003, when it was withdrawn from her by the Moscow City Court President on the grounds that she had delayed forming a new court composition and that there was a risk of further delay in view of her request for annual leave from 11 August to 11 September 2003, filed on 22 July 2003. 15.  On 23 July 2003 the Moscow City Court President assigned the case to judge M. 16.  The applicant subsequently sat as a judge in several other criminal cases. 17.  In October 2003 the applicant submitted her candidature in general elections for the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Her election campaign included a programme for judicial reform. 18.  On 29 October 2003 the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow granted the applicant’s request for suspension from her judicial functions pending the elections in which she was standing as a candidate. 19.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant gave an interview to the radio station Ekho Moskvy, which was broadcast on the same day. She made the following statements:
“Ekho Moskvy (EM): ... it has come to our knowledge that an acting judge of the Moscow City Court has expressed criticism of the existing judicial system and mentioned certain instances of pressure being exerted on the court ...
Olga Kudeshkina (OK): Indeed. Years of working in the Moscow City Court have led me to doubt the existence of independent courts in Moscow. Instances of a court being put under pressure to take a certain decision are not that rare, not only in cases of great public interest but also in cases encroaching on the interests of certain individuals of consequence or of particular groups.
...
EM: So what about that case in which you were confronted with such bare and ruthless pressure, what was it?
OK: Some of you have probably heard about the criminal case concerning the smuggling of furniture which was subsequently sold in the large Moscow shopping centres ‘Tri Kita’ and ‘Grand’. The damage caused by this crime, as the investigation has revealed, amounted to several million roubles. Among those who came within the sights of the investigators, led by Zaytsev, were extremely influential and prominent people. This case received great publicity after the Prosecutor General hastily withdrew the file from the investigation unit of the Ministry of the Interior and charged the investigator Zaytsev [with abuse of official powers].
EM: So you examined Zaytsev’s case, and not that of the furniture dealers?
OK: Yes, [the case] against Zaytsev. First the Moscow City Court examined the case and acquitted him. What is more, the court expressly stated in the judgment that the office of the Prosecutor General itself sometimes failed to conform to, or was in direct breach of, the law. The reputation of the Prosecutor General’s Office had been publicly challenged.
EM: And the judgment was quashed, as I remember?
OK: Yes, it was. The Panel of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remitted it to the Moscow City Court for a fresh examination.
EM: And you received the case?
OK: Yes. The Panel of the Supreme Court in its decision indicated the points to be taken account of in the new proceedings.
EM: So far as I know you were unable to hear the case to the end ... What happened?
OK: In the course of the examination the case was withdrawn from me by the Moscow City Court President, Yegorova, without any explanation.
...
EM: What happened just before the withdrawal?
OK: During the hearing the court was considering the evidence for the prosecution and started to cross-examine the victims. However, the public prosecutor, a representative of the Prosecutor General’s Office, must have reckoned that the victims’ testimonies ran contrary to the prosecution’s version of events. He therefore attempted to bring the proceedings to naught. In 20 years in the judiciary this was the first time that I was confronted with such behaviour ... he was trying to keep the court within the strict bounds of the questions he thought the court ought to ask the victims ... if the court went beyond these limits he started challenging the court and bombarding it with unreasoned requests.
...
EM: ... what are judges supposed to do in such a situation, when a party to the proceedings acts in breach of the law? Can you seek help, support or at least advice?
OK: Yes, the court ... could request the Prosecutor General to replace the public prosecutor on the grounds of undue conduct in the proceedings. But at that very moment the court president called me to her office.
EM: How come the court president could intervene in the proceedings?
OK: Of course she could not. Criminal procedure in Russia is adversarial; in accordance with the law the court acts neither for the prosecution nor for the defence ... Here, it was expressly brought home to me that the President of the Moscow City Court and the agent of the Prosecutor General’s Office had common cause in this case.
...
EM: ... do you think this case was exceptional or is this a widespread phenomenon?
OK: No, as far as I am aware, this is not the only case where the courts of law are used as an instrument of commercial, political or personal manipulation. This is a dangerous state of affairs because no one can rest assured that his case – whether civil or criminal or administrative – will be resolved in accordance with the law, and not just to please someone ... I do realise what kind of statement I have just made. But if all judges keep quiet this country may soon end up in a [state of] judicial lawlessness.” 20.  On 4 December 2003 two newspapers – Novaya Gazeta and Izvestiya – published interviews with the applicant. 21.  The interview with Novaya Gazeta, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“... Over the past 20 years working in the courts of law I have ... dealt with various cases: civil, criminal and administrative. Having examined hundreds, if not thousands, of cases ... I have seen a bit of everything, I know the judicial system inside out. I would not have imagined anything like what happened between me and Yegorova. In Siberia, by the way, the courts are much purer than in Moscow. There you cannot imagine such brutal manipulation and would not be talking about corruption to such an extent.
...
This was not a conflict, but unprecedented pressure on justice. Yegorova called me several times, whenever the prosecutor thought that the proceedings were not going the right way; on the last occasion I was called out of the deliberations room, which is unheard of. Never in my life had I been shouted at like that. I would not have gone if I knew what I was being called for. ...
It was that conflict which made me consider changing my career, should I succeed in the elections. There is a job for me in the highest legislative body, namely the problems of justice. I doubt that any provincial courts would harbour scandals as outrageous as those in the Moscow City Court, but this a question of degree, while the problems are more general.
A judge, although defined by law as the embodiment of judicial power and independent in this capacity, in fact often finds himself in a position of an ordinary clerk, a subordinate of a court president. The mechanism of how a decision is imposed on a judge is not to contact [the judge] directly: instead, a prosecutor or an interested person calls the court president, who then tries to talk the judge into a ‘right’ decision, first gently, by offering advice or a professional opinion, then pushing him or her more strongly to take the ‘correct’ decision, that is, one that is convenient to somebody. A judge, on the other hand, is dependant on the president for the daily basics, such as accommodation grants, bonuses, and also the distribution of cases between the judges. The president can always find a flaw in the judge’s work if he or she wishes (as simple as exceeding judicial time-limits, a situation impossible to avoid in practice, given the volume of work). On these grounds the president may seek termination of the judge’s office, which is decided upon by the qualification board, usually controlled by the same court bureaucrats. ... in reality a court still more often than not takes the position of the prosecution. The courts then become an instrument of commercial, political or personal manipulation.
No one can rest assured that his case – whether civil or criminal or administrative – will be resolved in accordance with the law, and not just to please someone. Today it is investigator Zaytsev, investigating the smuggling of furniture, tomorrow it may be any one of us ...”
The interview with Izvestiya, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“Izvestiya: Why did you decide to stand for election?
OK: Looking around, one is just stunned by the lawlessness. The law applies quite strictly to ordinary people, but this is not the case when it comes to persons holding important posts. But they break the law too. I would like to participate in making laws that would provide for real independence of the judicial power ...
Izvestiya: What does the pressure look like in practice?
OK: There is a kind of consultation, legal advice, usually in cases of great public interest. Sometimes this has a healthy pretext, such as academic debate. The judge expresses his position, and the deputy president replies. The court president rarely speaks to the judges directly. Through such conventions the court administration tests each judge to see how flexible he is, so that when it comes to [the allocation of cases] they know who can be entrusted with a delicate case and whom to avoid.
...
Izvestiya: So how exactly was pressure exerted on you?
OK: The public prosecutor exerted pressure on me. You put a question to the victim, and he immediately challenges you. In 20 years of practice I have not seen anything like it. Zaytsev was accused of abuse of official powers. He carried out a search without authorisation from a prosecutor. The law allows this in urgent cases, but the investigator must report to the prosecutor within 24 hours. Zaytsev reported to the prosecutor [in time], and it was for the court to verify whether there had indeed been any urgency in conducting those searches. Therefore it was necessary to examine the criminal case files against the firms ‘Grand’ and ‘Tri Kita’ who were dealing in furniture. Through his constant objections, however, the public prosecutor would not allow the court to touch this subject ...” 22.  On 7 December 2003 the general elections took place. The applicant was not elected. 23.  On 24 December 2003 the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow reinstated the applicant in her judicial functions as of 8 December 2003. 24.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged the following complaint with the High Judiciary Qualification Panel:
“I request that the President of the Moscow City Court, Olga Aleksandrovna Yegorova, be charged with a disciplinary offence for exerting unlawful pressure on me in June 2003, when I was presiding in the criminal proceedings against P.V. Zaytsev. She demanded that I give an account on the merits of this case while its examination was underway, and that I inform her about the decisions the court was about to take; she even called me out of the deliberations room for that purpose. [She] insisted on removing certain documents from the case file, forced me to forge the minutes of the hearing, and also recommended that I ask the lay assessors not to turn up for the hearing. Following my refusal to bow to this unlawful pressure [she] removed me from the proceedings and transferred the case to another judge.
As to the particular circumstances, they were as follows.
I was appointed to examine the case against Zaytsev, and the court, acting in a bench with two lay assessors, I and D, started its examination.
Having started the trial, the court questioned a number of victims. The public prosecutor who was representing the Prosecutor General’s Office clearly decided that this questioning was not favourable to the prosecution and therefore did everything possible to disrupt the hearing. For no reason he challenged me as a judge, the lay assessors and the whole composition of the court. His motions were made in a manner that was humiliating, offensive and insulting to the court, and were clearly untrue. Soon after the challenge was rejected by the court, the Moscow City Court President Yegorova called me to her office.
In violation of Article 120 of the Constitution and section 10 of the Law ‘On the Status of a Judge in the Russian Federation’, the Moscow City Court President demanded an explanation from me as to why the lay assessors and I were putting one or other question to the victims in the trial and why one or other motion by the parties was refused or accepted. In my presence the Moscow City Court President had a telephone conversation with the [First Deputy Prosecutor General], who had issued the indictment against Zaytsev. Yegorova informed [the First Deputy Prosecutor General] that the judge was being called to account with regard to what was going on in the proceedings.
Back in my office I told the lay assessors what had happened. By then they were already reduced to despair by the repeated groundless objections and insulting challenges against them on the part of the public prosecutor, and they therefore considered it impossible to continue to take part in the proceedings. One of the assessors, Ms I., was seeking medical assistance for a health problem. For these reasons they decided to withdraw from the proceedings and to state frankly in their request that the reason for their withdrawal was the pressure put on them by the agent of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
At the court’s following meeting the lay assessors announced their withdrawal on the above grounds. Their written requests were given to me to be enclosed in the file, and the court adjourned for deliberations.
I was again called from the deliberations room by the Moscow City Court President, Yegorova. This time she demanded that I explain what we were doing in the deliberations room and what decisions we were going to take. Her main point was that there should have been no mention in the assessors’ written requests that the reason for their withdrawal was pressure being exerted on the court. The Moscow City Court President also insisted on excluding from the hearing minutes any mention of the behaviour by the public prosecutor which the assessors had regarded as pressure. In essence, Yegorova was pushing me to forge the case file. Moreover, she proposed that I ensure that the assessors did not turn up for the hearing, literally ‘ask them not to come to the court any more’. The aim was obvious – if the assessors [did] not appear the proceedings themselves [would] fall apart. It seemed that for some reason [she] did not want the case to continue to be examined in this composition. The unlawfulness of the Moscow City Court President’s actions was obvious.
I followed none of her instructions. The lay assessors’ requests were included in the file, the court allowed their withdrawal and stated that the reason for it was the pressure being applied by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The hearing minutes reflected everything that happened in the proceedings.
Once I signed [the minutes] Yegorova withdrew the case from me and transferred it to another judge without stating reasons.
I consider that such acts on the part of the Moscow City Court President, Olga Alexandrovna Yegorova, are incompatible with the status of a judge and undermine judicial authority, and are thus destructive for justice, for which she must be held liable. This is what I hereby request from the High Judiciary Qualification Panel of the Russian Federation.” 25.  On 15 December 2003 Ms D., one of the lay assessors who had, on 3 July 2003, withdrawn from the criminal case against Mr Zaytsev, sent a letter to the High Judiciary Qualification Panel in support of the applicant:
“Further to the publication of an interview with judge Kudeshkina ... I decided to write you because I participated in Zaytsev’s case as a lay assessor.
I entirely support everything judge Kudeshkina said in her interview.
During the trial the [public prosecutor] did everything to prevent the court from hearing the case. He was rude and aggressive to the court; in his interventions and requests he deliberately misrepresented what was going on in the proceedings, and he repeatedly filed objections to the court composition. These motions were made in a humiliating, even obnoxious manner. By doing so he was exerting pressure on the court, to force it to give a judgment that was convenient to him, or, alternatively, to set the court hearing at naught.
I was appalled by that, but what was my surprise when I learned about the pressure also being exerted on judge Kudeshkina by the court President!
We, the assessors, were there when, during the interval, judge Kudeshkina received a phone call from the court President to come and see her. After some time judge Kudeshkina came back, she was upset and depressed. To our question she replied that the court President Yegorova had accused her that the court was reluctant to examine the case; that the lay assessors were asking the victims the wrong questions; and that she had suggested that judge Kudeshkina arrange for the lay assessors not to appear at the court proceedings.
... On the following morning ... both Ms I. and I decided to withdraw from the proceedings.
At the start of the hearing on that day the public prosecutor, before he was called by the court, began with a motion in which he, in essence, again degraded and insulted me by repeating [a] comment made by [the victim] outside the courtroom about me ... he did not react to the reproof by the judge.
After that ... I declared that I withdrew from sitting in the proceedings on the grounds of the public prosecutor’s rude and offensive behaviour, which could not be defined as anything but pressure on the court. Ms I. then withdrew as well.
Before the trial I had never met anybody [involved in the proceedings]: not the judge, not Zaytsev, not the public prosecutor, not the defence counsel; I had no personal interest in the case. The public prosecutor’s behaviour was therefore inexplicable and came as a shock to me.
At about 6 p.m. judge Kudeshkina was called out from the deliberations room where the court was taking a decision. It was the court President who called her...
On the following day ... judge Kudeshkina told us that the court President had shouted at her, demanding that she refrain from enclosing [the assessors’] withdrawal requests in the file and not refer in the court’s decision to the reason for the withdrawal.
Ms I. and I were shocked by what was going on. First it was the public prosecutor who put pressure on us at the hearing, and then it turned out that the [court President] joined in.
What a surprise it was when the [court’s Deputy President] came into the deliberations room and started trying to persuade me and Ms I. not to comment on the public prosecutor’s behaviour in the court decision, but to state in our requests and in the court decision that we withdrew on medical grounds. She said that they would invite me and Ms I. to take part in other proceedings.
Ms I. and I refused to change our requests, and after the Deputy President left the court issued the decision [to allow withdrawal] which reflected what had happened.
I have been a lay assessor before, I have taken part in several other proceedings, but this was the first time that I came across such pressure being exerted on the court.
I request you to look into the above events and to take action against the [court’s President and her Deputy].” 26.  On 16 December 2003 the other lay assessor who had withdrawn, Ms I., sent a similar letter to the High Judiciary Qualification Panel. 27.  Similar allegations were made by Ms T., a court secretary, in a letter to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. She related her participation in Zaytsev’s case and volunteered to testify that the applicant had indeed been frequently called up by the court president and had been distressed because of the intrusion in the court proceedings. She also complained about the unacceptable behaviour of the public prosecutor, who had forced, in her opinion, the lay assessors to withdraw. 28.  Following the applicant’s complaint of 2 December 2003, the High Judiciary Qualification Panel appointed Mr S., a judge of the Moscow City Commercial Court, to examine the allegations against Ms Yegorova. 29.  The Government submitted a copy of a report prepared by Mr S. and submitted to the High Judiciary Qualification Panel, which contained the following conclusions:
–  during the hearing of the criminal case against Zaytsev the applicant herself consulted Ms Yegorova, seeking advice on the conduct of the proceedings in view of the public prosecutor’s behaviour;
–  further communications between the applicant and Ms Yegorova and, on another occasion, the deputy court president, took place in private and their content could not be established;
–  there was insufficient evidence that Ms Yegorova exerted pressure on the applicant, since both Ms Yegorova and the deputy court president denied the allegations;
–  Ms Yegorova transferred the criminal case file against Zaytsev to another judge on the grounds that Ms Kudeshkina “was unable to conduct the court hearing, her procedural acts were inconsistent, [she acted] in breach of the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, she stated her legal opinion on the pending criminal case and she attempted to seek the court president’s advice on the case, and in view of the existence of confidential reports by relevant agencies to the Moscow City Court President with regard to judge Kudeshkina, in connection with the examination of Zaytsev’s case and other criminal cases”. 30.  On 11 May 2004 the High Judiciary Qualification Panel reported to the President of the Supreme Court their findings concerning the complaint against Ms Yegorova. He decided, without elaborating on the reasons, that there were no grounds for charging Ms Yegorova with a disciplinary offence. 31.  On 17 May 2004 the High Judiciary Qualification Panel decided to dispense with disciplinary proceedings against Ms Yegorova. No copy of this decision was provided to the Court. On the same day the applicant was informed by letter that her complaint against the court president had been examined and that no further action was considered necessary. 32.  In the meantime, on an unidentified date prior to the applicant’s above reinstatement in the judicial function, the President of the Moscow Judicial Council sought termination of the applicant’s office as judge. He applied to the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow, alleging that during her election campaign the applicant had behaved in a manner inconsistent with the authority and standing of a judge. He claimed that in her interviews she had intentionally insulted the court system and individual judges and had made false statements that could mislead the public and undermine the authority of the judiciary. The applicant filed her objections. 33.  The hearing before the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow was scheduled for 24 March 2004, but was then adjourned until 31 March 2004, at the applicant’s request, on health grounds. It was subsequently adjourned for the applicant’s failure to appear until 14 April 2004, then until 28 April 2004, 12 May 2004 and, finally, 19 May 2004. 34.  On 19 May 2004 the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow examined the Moscow Judicial Council’s request. The applicant was absent from the proceedings, apparently without any valid excuse. The Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow decided that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence and that her office as a judge was to be terminated in accordance with the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”. The decision, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“During her election campaign, in order to win fame and popularity with the voters, judge Kudeshkina deliberately disseminated deceptive, concocted and insulting perceptions of the judges and judicial system of the Russian Federation, degrading the authority of the judiciary and undermining the prestige of the judicial profession, in violation of the Law On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation and the Code of Honour of a Judge in the Russian Federation.
Thus, in November 2003, when meeting with [members of her] constituency, judge Kudeshkina stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office exerts unprecedented pressure on judges during examination of a number of criminal cases by the Moscow City Court.
In the live broadcast of her interview with the radio station Ekho Moskvy on 1 December 2003, judge Kudeshkina stated that ‘years of working in the Moscow City Court have led me to doubt the existence of independent courts in Moscow’; ‘a judge, although defined by law as an embodiment of judicial power and independent in this capacity, in fact often finds himself in a position of an ordinary clerk, a subordinate of a court president’; ‘the courts of law are used as an instrument of commercial, political or personal manipulation’; ‘if all judges keep quiet this country may soon end up in a [state of] judicial lawlessness.’
In the interview with the newspaper Izvestiya of 4 December 2003, judge Kudeshkina stated: ‘looking around, one is just stunned by the lawlessness. The law applies quite strictly to ordinary people, but this is not the case when it comes to persons holding important posts. But they break the law too – although they are not subject to liability’; ‘the court administration tests each judge to see how flexible he is, so that when it comes to [the allocation of cases] they know who can be entrusted with a delicate case and whom to avoid’.
In another interview with judge Kudeshkina, published in Novaya Gazeta on 4 December 2003, she also stated that ‘in Siberia, by the way, the courts are much purer than in Moscow. There you cannot imagine such brutal manipulation and would not be talking about corruption to such an extent’; ‘I doubt that any provincial courts would harbour scandals as outrageous as those in the Moscow City Court, but this a question of degree, while the problems are more general’; ‘a judge, although defined by law as an embodiment of judicial power and independent in this capacity, in fact often finds himself in a position of an ordinary clerk, a subordinate of a court president. The mechanism of how a decision is imposed on a judge is not to contact [the judge] directly, instead a prosecutor or an interested person calls the court president, who then tries to talk the judge into a ‘right’ decision, first gently, by offering advice or a professional opinion, then pushing him or her more strongly to take the ‘correct’ decision, that is, one that is convenient to somebody’; ‘in reality a court still more often than not takes the position of the prosecution. The courts then become an instrument of commercial, political or personal manipulation. No one can rest assured that his case – whether civil or criminal or administrative – will be resolved in accordance with the law, and not just to please someone’.
In so doing judge Kudeshkina knowingly and intentionally disseminated in civil society false and untruthful fabrications about the arbitrariness allegedly prevailing in the judicial sphere; that, in dealing with specific cases, judges find themselves under constant and undisguised pressure exercised through the court presidents; that the court presidents pre-test to what extent one or other judge may be controlled in order to determine who could be entrusted with delivering a knowingly unjust judgment in a case; that no one can be sure that his case is examined by an impartial tribunal; that judges in fact betray the interests of justice by adopting the position of the prosecution in most cases; that a judge in this country is not independent and honest, but [is] a typical subordinate public servant; that in this country we have complete lawlessness, and judicial chaos.
The above-mentioned statements by judge Kudeshkina are clearly based on fantasies, on knowingly false and distorted facts.
However, dissemination by a judge of such information poses a great public danger because it signifies deliberate slandering of the authority of the judiciary and intentional undermining of the prestige of the judicial profession, and also promotes incorrect ideas about corrupted, dependent and biased judicial authorities in this country, which leads to the loss of public trust in the fairness and impartiality of examination of cases brought before the courts of law.
As a result, the false information imparted to civil society by judge Kudeshkina, a member of the judiciary of Russia, undermined public confidence that the judiciary in Russia are independent and impartial; consequently, many citizens were lead to believe, erroneously, that all judges in this country are unprincipled, biased and venal, that in exercising their functions they only pursue their own mercenary ends or other selfish goals and interests.
...
In support of her unsubstantiated and groundless attempts to defile the judicial system of our country, judge Kudeshkina referred [in her interviews] to the criminal case against P.V. Zaytsev, in which she had earlier acted as judge.
She referred to the same case in her complaint to the High Judiciary Qualification Panel of the Russian Federation.
...
According to the note of the President of the High Judiciary Qualification Panel (ref. no. BKK-7242/03 of 17 May 2004), the High Judiciary Qualification Panel of the Russian Federation carried out an enquiry to verify the allegations made by judge Kudeshkina in her complaint; the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded, on the basis of the above, that there were no grounds to grant her request.
Thus, the allegations of interference with judge Kudeshkina’s exercise of judicial function have not been confirmed by the conclusions of the enquiry.
The Qualification Board of Moscow notes that judge Kudeshkina did not make these allegations during the period when she was examining the case against Zaytsev, but nearly half a year later, during and immediately after the election campaign. Therefore the Panel considers that the dissemination by judge Kudeshkina of false and untrue information is based only on her subjective conjectures and personal insinuations.
Besides, in making her statements in the media judge Kudeshkina disclosed specific factual information concerning the criminal proceedings in the case against Zaytsev, before the judgment in this case had entered into legal force.
...
[The Law on the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation and the Code of Honour of a Judge in the Russian Federation] obliged her to refrain from any public statements discrediting the judiciary and the justice [system] in general.
...
In sum, the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow finds the actions of judge Kudeshkina to have degraded the honour and dignity of a judge, discredited the authority of the judiciary [and] caused substantial damage to the prestige of the judicial profession, thus constituting a disciplinary offence.
In choosing the disciplinary sanction to be imposed on judge Kudeshkina the qualification board takes into account that in making her statements [she] dishonoured the judges and the judicial system of Russia; she disseminated false information about her colleagues; she traded the dignity, responsibility and integrity of a judge for a political career; demonstrated bias when hearing a case; preferred her own political and other interests to the values of justice; abused her status as a judge in propagating legal nihilism and causing irreparable damage to the foundations of judicial authority. ...” 35.  The decision indicated that it could be challenged before a court within 10 days of being served. 36.  The applicant applied to the Moscow City Court, contesting the decision of the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow. 37.  On 13 September 2004 the applicant filed a request with the President of the Supreme Court to transfer her case from the Moscow City Court to another court, on the grounds that the former would lack impartiality. 38.  On 7 October 2004 the Moscow City Court, composed of a single judge, began to examine the case. The applicant first challenged the judge on the grounds that he was a member of the Moscow Judicial Council and was thus directly associated with the other party to the proceedings. She further claimed that the Moscow City Court, in any composition, would lack independence and impartiality because the impugned statements were specifically concerned with that court and its President. This request was examined on the same day and was refused, on the grounds that it was not possible to transfer the case to another judge within the same court and that only a higher court was entitled to transfer the case to another court. The applicant lodged a request seeking to have the case adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision on her request for transfer of the case; this was also refused. 39.  On 8 October 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow. It found that the applicant’s statements in the media were false, unsubstantiated and damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the authority of all law courts. It also established that the applicant had publicly expressed an opinion prejudicial to the outcome of a pending criminal case. It concluded that the applicant had abused the right to freedom of expression out of political ambition, that she had publicly denied the rule of law and that such conduct was incompatible with holding judicial office. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that the decision was taken in her absence, having found that after many adjournments she had failed to present the court with any document certifying the reasons for her absence. It also dismissed her objection that at the time of the election campaign her duties as a judge were suspended and held that, during the suspension, she was still bound by the rules of conduct applicable to judges. Concerning the applicability of the Code of Honour of a Judge in the Russian Federation, the court decided that it was in force and legally binding at the material time and could be applied in this case. 40.  The applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. 41.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant received a letter from judge R. of the Supreme Court, informing her that transfer of the case from the Moscow City Court was refused on the grounds that it would be contrary to the rules of jurisdiction. 42.  On 19 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, ruling at final instance, upheld the judgment of 8 October 2004, having reiterated the earlier findings by the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow and the Moscow City Court. On the question of the alleged lack of impartiality by the Moscow City Court, which considered the case at first instance, it found that the applicant had not made any relevant complaints in the proceedings before the Moscow City Court and was therefore barred from raising this objection on appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rīga. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  In July 2003 the applicant was convicted of unauthorised acquisition and storage of narcotic substances. According to the criminal case file he had acquired and stored for personal use nine packages of a narcotic substance which contained 0.5108 grams of methamphetamine. The applicant pleaded guilty. He was given a suspended prison sentence. Before 2003 he had been convicted four times of theft. 8.  At the Government Agent’s request the State police furnished the following information on 5 October 2011:
“...since 2002 the Anti-Drugs Office [Narkotiku apkarošanas birojs – ONAP] had information to the effect that [the applicant] had been involved in the trafficking of narcotic substances. [The applicant] has six previous convictions; before [the arrest] he was convicted on 18 July 2003 of unauthorised acquisition, storage and transfer of narcotic substances with intent to sell...
In February 2004 the Anti-Drugs Office received new unofficial information in connection with the applicant’s drug-trafficking activities. [The Office] therefore commenced undercover investigation by carrying out a preliminary inquiry (izziņa), as a result of which on 24 February 2004 the [investigators] opened Case No. 7004204 in order to verify the operational information (operatīvās pārbaudes lieta). Information concerning the applicant was entered in the operational records (operatīvā uzskaite). Within the framework of the above proceedings [the investigators] collected information from various sources and carried out several operational investigative measures, including operational inquiry (izzināšana) phone tapping, which was authorised by the Supreme Court.
The information acquired during the verification process confirmed that the applicant was involved in drug trafficking. Accordingly, operational case (operatīvās izstrādes lieta) No. 7019304 was opened on 27 October 2004. Various operational measures were carried out within the [above case], including operational surveillance (operatīvā novērošana), operational interception of telephone conversations (operatīva sarunu noklausīšanās) and others.
Three undercover operations conducted in the context of the operational case were used as evidence of [the applicant’s] guilt, in the criminal proceedings ...which were instituted on 1 December 2004. [Their] aim was to create a situation in which the applicant would have an opportunity to either procure narcotics or refuse to do so, in order to determine how he would behave.
As a result it was proved that [the applicant] procures narcotic substances in large quantities.
...” 9.  According to the information provided by the Government, on 2, 11 and 30 November 2004, at the request of the Anti-Drugs Office, a specially authorised prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General (Ģenerālprokuratūras īpaši pilnvarots prokurors) authorised the carrying-out of investigative tests (operatīvais eksperiments) in which an undercover police agent, I., was supposed to make a “test” purchase of amphetamine from the applicant. The authorisation was granted in accordance with section 15(3) of the Law on Operational Activities (Operatīvās darbības likums, hereafter “the LOA”) (see the relevant domestic law part below). 10.  According to the statements of the undercover police agent I. and the reports of the official of the Anti-Drugs Office, the investigative tests were carried out in the following manner. On 3 November 2004 I. called the applicant and asked to meet him. The applicant replied that he was busy. Later the applicant called back and they arranged a meeting. When they met, I. gave the applicant 500 Latvian lati (LVL) (approximately 700 euros (EUR)) in marked banknotes. According to I.’s statement, they did not enter into a conversation. The applicant said that he would call back. Later the same day I. called the applicant, who told him that everything would be fine. I. again called the applicant, who told him that the deal had fallen through and that they had to meet at a petrol station. At the petrol station I. called the applicant, who gave him instructions where to find the “goods”, which consisted of about 100 grams of amphetamine. Their conversations were recorded. 11.  According to I.’s statements, he also arranged a meeting with the applicant on 8 November 2004 in a supermarket in order to establish contact and gain the applicant’s trust. The applicant asked I. if everything had gone well and I. replied that everyone was satisfied, meaning that he had delivered the drugs to his partners. Then I. asked if there was any possibility of purchasing larger quantities of amphetamine. The applicant replied that this was not possible, but then added that he had 300 grams of amphetamine which he could sell. I. then asked about those 300 grams of amphetamine and the applicant replied that he could sell them the same day. I. told him that he could not make it that day, to which the applicant said “tomorrow then”, and they agreed to call each other. Later on I. asked the applicant about his occupation, to which the latter replied that it was his “only bread”, meaning drug trafficking. These statements could not be heard on the recordings because the applicant spoke in a low voice. 12.  On 25 November 2004 I. called the applicant and asked him to procure the same type and amount of drugs as before. They met at a petrol station and I. gave him LVL 500 (approximately EUR 700). The applicant took the money. Later he asked I. to come to a restaurant where the applicant was waiting for a supplier. On the same day the applicant met I. in a restaurant and delivered a package of about 100 grams of amphetamine by putting them under a chair cover. 13.  On 1 December 2004 I. called the applicant and asked to meet him. During the meeting I. offered to purchase 400 grams of the same type of drugs for LVL 2,000 (approximately EUR 2,800). The applicant told him that he was not sure whether he could supply it. I. said he wanted to pay in two instalments, and gave the applicant half the agreed sum. I. asked about a discount and the applicant lowered the price by LVL 80. The next day the applicant complained to I. that the money was marked. Afterwards, all attempts to contact the applicant were unsuccessful. 14.  On 1 December 2004 the Anti-Drugs Office initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of aggravated unauthorised acquisition and possession of narcotic substances with intent to sell. 15.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police. He refused to give any statements. 16.  On 7 December 2004 the Rīga City Centre District Court authorised a search of the applicant’s home, where the police officers seized a weighing scale, some money and a SIM card for a mobile phone. The results of a forensic chemical examination revealed traces of unauthorised psychotropic substances on the scale. 17.  On 9 December 2004 a judge of the same court remanded the applicant in custody. The judge noted that the file did not contain, inter alia, the authorisation from a specialised prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General to carry out the undercover operation. The court extended the applicant’s detention on several occasions. 18.  In response to a request by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime and Other Offences, the Office of the Prosecutor General stated that the undercover operations in respect of the applicant had been authorised by the prosecutor on 2, 11 and 30 November 2004. The relevant decisions had not been added to the criminal case file since they were classified in accordance with the Law on State Secret. 19.  On 29 December 2004 the criminal case was sent to the prosecutor’s office and on 4 January 2005 the applicant was charged with unauthorised acquisition and possession of narcotic substances with intent to sell. On 6 May 2005 the applicant was presented with the bill of indictment, which referred to the undercover operations of 3 and 25 November 2004. 20.  On 23 May 2005 the Rīga Regional Court decided to commit the applicant for trial. 21.  On 21 October 2005 the Rīga Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated unauthorised acquisition and possession of narcotic substances with intent to sell and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Police officer I. did not attend the hearing and his statements given during the pre-trial proceedings were read out. The court heard evidence from a police officer, T., who in the course of the undercover operation had carried out surveillance and tracking of the applicant. When questioned at the hearing, officer T. stated that during the period in question the applicant had tried to avoid being tracked and had met with suspicious individuals who might have been involved in drug trafficking. The Court also questioned V., who stated that the applicant had brought the marked banknotes to the currency exchange office at which she worked, to have them checked to see if they were forged. 22.  The court relied on: the written statements provided by the police officers on the conduct of the investigative tests carried out on 3 and 25 November and from 1 to 6 December 2004; information about the telephone conversations between police officer I. and the applicant; an inspection report on the marked banknotes; an inspection report on the recording of the conversations between the applicant and officer I.; a forensic chemical report according to which the items seized at the applicant’s apartment bore traces of amphetamine and cocaine; a medical examination report according to which no presence of psychotropic substances had been found in his body but traces of marihuana had been found on his hands; and a forensic chemical report on the narcotic substances acquired during the undercover operation. Items seized at the applicant’s apartment (see paragraph 16 above), together with various data storage devices (a SIM card, a CD and an audio tape), were admitted as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings. 23.  On appeal, the applicant requested witness I.’s attendance at the hearing but during the appeal hearing withdrew his request. On 15 September 2006 the Rīga Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It dismissed the incitement plea, finding that it was merely a defence strategy used in an attempt to mitigate the charges. 24.  In an appeal on points of law the applicant alleged that police officer I. had incited him to commit the offence. 25.  Following a request from the Senate of the Supreme Court to furnish observations, the Office of the Prosecutor General on 1 March 2007 submitted the following arguments in support of the dismissal of the applicant’s incitement plea:
“...Section 15(3) of the LOA authorises ... the carrying-out of undercover operations the aim of which is to determine the behaviour of a person ... in a situation which is liable to result in (izraisa) criminal or otherwise unlawful activities. Section 22 of the LOA provides that the precondition for instigating operational proceedings (izstrāde) is ... information ... which provides sufficient basis to suspect [specific] individuals of committing or preparing to commit an offence. Based on the above provisions [and] after having received authorisation from the prosecutor, the investigators are authorised to create a situation which is conducive to (veicina) the disclosure of [an individual’s] criminal intent, but in which [the individual] remains free to choose whether or not to carry out the criminal activities. ... The applicant did not become involved in the trafficking of narcotic substances as a result of the undercover operation; on the contrary, the criminal activities commenced by the applicant [had been] interrupted.” 26.  The Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the pre-trial investigation in the criminal case had been conducted before the Law of Criminal Procedure entered into force and that the former Code of Criminal Procedure did not regulate special investigative activities. With regard to the incitement plea, the Senate found as follows:
“... It is clear from the materials of the case that on 2, 11 and 30 November 2004 a prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General approved the decision of the Anti-Drugs Office to conduct undercover operations in relation to [the applicant] in order to record [the latter’s] behaviour when [the investigator] asked [him] to supply him with narcotic substances against payment.
... there is no evidence in support of the allegations that the police officer incited the applicant to commit a criminal offence; neither did [the officer] apply methods aimed at overcoming the applicant’s doubts or his resistance to committing a crime.
The Court of Cassation concludes that, in accordance with the Law on Operational Activities, the aim of an investigative test is to record a person’s behaviour in a situation in which he or she is liable to commit criminal or other unlawful acts.
It was established that the police officers had sufficient information to suspect [the applicant] of unlawful activities involving narcotic substances...”


4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1939, 1946, 1973 and 1941 respectively. The first applicant, Mr Fulvio Rossi, lives in Turin, while the other applicants live in Naples. 5.  The applicants inherited a plot of land in Crispano. The land in issue – of a surface area of 8,950 square metres – was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 2, Parcel no. 44. 6.  On 9 February 1982 the Mayor of Crispano issued a decree authorising the Municipality to take possession, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of 416 square metres of the applicants’ land in order to begin the construction of a road. 7.  On 23 March 1982 the authorities took physical possession of the land. 8.  By a writ served on 30 May 1990, the applicants brought an action for damages against the Crispano Municipality in the Naples District Court. They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land, both during the periods of lawful and unlawful occupation. Lastly, the applicants claimed compensation for the demolition of buildings and the destruction of crops present on the land. 9.  On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted on 5 November 1996 the expert concluded that the market value of the land on the date of its irreversible alteration, which he identified as having occurred in 1987, corresponded to 73,682 Italian lire (ITL) per square metre (38.054 euros (EUR)). 10.  By a judgment delivered on 31 May 2000 and filed with the court registry on 12 January 2001, the Naples District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 23 March 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicants were entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation. 11.  The court considered that the land could be classified as building land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful (23 March 1990) corresponded to ITL 275,000 per square metre (EUR 142.026). 12.  The court held that the applicants were entitled to compensation, calculated in accordance with Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime, in the sum of ITL 61,339,393 (equivalent to EUR 31,679.53), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest. 13.  The court further awarded the applicants ITL 22,305,234 (EUR 11,519.692) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (23 March 1982) until the date of loss of ownership (23 March 1990), as well as 45,400,000 (EUR 23,447.143) as compensation for the demolition of buildings and the destruction of crops present on the land. 14.  On 31 May 2001 the Municipality appealed against the order before the Naples Court of Appeal. 15.  By a judgment of 27 May 2003 the Court of Appeal held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 48,899.90 to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation. The court further awarded EUR 7,090.90 as compensation for the period of lawful occupation from 23 March 1982 to 23 March 1990. 16.  The judgment became final on 31 October 2004.


4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1963, 1985, 1995 and 2001 respectively and live in Čakovec. The first and second applicants are husband and wife and the third to fifth applicants are their children. 5.  During 2004 M.T., the first and second applicants’ daughter and the third to fifth applicants’ sister, entered into a relationship with a certain M.M. They started living together with the applicants in their home. On 1 March 2005 they had a child, V.T. Soon afterwards M.M. had a series of disputes with the members of the household and often expressed verbal threats against M.T., which resulted in him moving out of the house in July 2005. On 4 January 2006 the Čakovec Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Čakovec – hereinafter “the Welfare Centre”) filed a report with the Međimurje Police Department (Policijska uprava međimurska) stating, inter alia, that on 2 January 2006 M.M. had come to the Centre and claimed that he had a bomb and would “throw it at his former wife [meaning M.T.] and child”. 6.  On 5 January 2006 M.T. lodged a criminal complaint with the Čakovec State Attorney’s Office against M.M. She alleged that on a number of occasions since July 2005 M.M. had come to her parents’ house where she also lived with her daughter and had threatened to kill her and their daughter with a bomb unless she agreed to come back to him. He had also often made telephone calls and sent SMS messages to her by mobile phone repeating the same threats. 7.  On 3 February 2006 M.M. was detained following the instigation of the criminal proceedings against him in the Čakovec Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Čakovcu) on 27 January 2006. A psychiatric opinion obtained during the proceedings stated that on 2 January 2006 M.M. had claimed before the employees of the Welfare Centre that he had a bomb and that his threats had been meant seriously. He had repeated the same claim on 19 January 2006 before police officers from the Međimurje Police Department. The relevant parts of the conclusions of the report read as follows:
“1. Defendant M.M. is a person suffering from a profound personality disorder etiologically linked to innate malfunctioning of the brain and the highly unfavourable pedagogical circumstances of his childhood. Dg: mixed personality disorder ... 2. In the context of the said personality disorder the defendant’s reaction to a problematic situation was an inadequate and pathological defence mechanism with inflated ideas and related activities. These inflated ideas do not amount to a mental illness. 3. I have not found elements of either permanent or temporary innate mental illness, diminished intellectual capacity or epilepsy which might be linked to the criminal offences with which the defendant is charged. 5. In view of what has been said under 1, 2 and 3 and in view of all the other information collected so far in connection with the criminal offences, I consider that his ability to wilfully control and understand the meaning and consequences of his act tempore criminis was diminished, but that [he was not] completely unaccountable. 6. There is a strong likelihood that he will repeat the same or similar criminal offences. In order to prevent this, I recommend that the court, apart from the other measures, order compulsory psychiatric treatment with a predominantly psychotherapeutic approach with the aim of developing an ability to resolve difficult situations in life in a more constructive manner.” 8.  On 15 March 2006 the Municipal Court found M.M. guilty of threatening M.T. on several occasions during the period between July and 30 December 2005 both in front of her family house and at the parking lot near the city graveyard when M.T. had been alone. He had shouted threats that he would kill her, himself and their child with a bomb; at the Welfare Centre on 2 January 2006 he had said that his threats had been meant seriously, that he actually had a bomb and that he would kill himself and the child with the bomb on the child’s first birthday on 1 March 2006. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and a security measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment was ordered during his imprisonment and afterwards as necessary. In ordering the defendant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment the court relied entirely on the findings of the psychiatric report. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“... throughout the whole period in question the defendant had been telling the victim that he would throw a bomb at himself and their child as well as her [the victim] if she happened to be around. These events came to a head on 30 December. The defendant did not refrain from mentioning a bomb either in front of the Welfare Centre’s employees or a policeman. Furthermore, he said in front of the policemen that he would blow himself and the child up with a bomb on the child’s first birthday. Therefore, there is no doubt that both the victim and the witnesses understood these threats as being meant seriously ... Thus, the victim’s fears for her own as well as her child’s safety were justified ...
...
... all conditions for ordering a security measure [of compulsory psychiatric treatment] have been fulfilled since the defendant committed a crime while his capacity for understanding was diminished and it is likely that he will repeat the same or similar offence. It is necessary to order compulsory psychiatric treatment during his prison term and after his release. The treatment shall take a predominantly psychotherapeutic approach, as recommended by the expert, in order to develop [the defendant’s] ability to address difficult situations in life in a more constructive manner.” 9.  On 28 April 2006 the Čakovec County Court (Županijski sud u Čakovcu) reduced the security measure to the duration of M.M.’s prison sentence and upheld the remaining part of the judgment. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“... there is no doubt that frequent murder threats by ... a bomb should by any objective test have been understood as meant seriously and that [such threats] would cause a real sense of disquiet, fear and anxiety in an average person, in particular in a situation where the victim has known the perpetrator as an aggressive person out of control, as is the case with the victim in the present case.
There is also no doubt that ... the defendant’s threats extended throughout a period of half a year during which the victim feared, owing to continued threats, not only for her own safety but also for the safety and wellbeing of her child which was not even a year old at the time. The victim was thus undoubtedly put in a difficult and unenviable position where she feared daily for her and her daughter’s life, which was confirmed not only in her testimony but also the fact that she sought assistance from the competent authorities [such as] the police, the Social Welfare Centre and the State Attorney.
...
While examining ... the impugned judgment under Article 379 paragraph 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure this appellate court has established that the first-instance court violated the statutory provisions to the detriment of the defendant when it ordered that a security measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment should continue after the defendant’s release [from prison], which is contrary to Article 75 of the Criminal Code according to which compulsory psychiatric treatment may last as long as the reasons for its application exist but no longer than the prison term.
...
... this court does not agree with the defendant’s argument that in his case the purpose of punishment would be achieved by a suspended sentence, especially in view of the fact that the defendant ... did not show any self-criticism as regards his acts or any feelings of remorse for what he had said ...” 10.  M.M. served his sentence in Varaždin Prison and was released on 3 July 2006. On 15 August 2006 he shot M.T., her daughter V.T. and himself. Before the shooting he was spotted by M.T.’s neighbour carrying an automatic gun and leaving his bicycle in the adjacent woods. The neighbour immediately called the police. The police arrived at the scene twenty minutes later, just after the tragic event. 11.  On 15 August 2006 the police interviewed M.T.’s neighbour I.S. who had seen M.M. approaching M.T.’s house immediately before the critical event. At the request of the police, on 17 August 2006 an investigating judge of the Varaždin County Court issued a search warrant of a flat and a vehicle belonging to a certain M.G. who was suspected of having procured weapons for M.M. The warrant was executed the same day, but no connection was established between M.G. and the weapons used by M.M.. The investigating judge has not taken any further steps in that case. 12.  On 18 August 2006 the police submitted a report to the Čakovec County State Attorney’s Office detailing the circumstances of the tragic event. 13.  On 28 November 2006 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed a criminal complaint against M.M. for murdering M.T. and V.T. on the ground that he was dead. It is unclear who lodged that complaint, but a copy of this decision was sent to the applicants. In a letter of the same day the State Attorney’s Office asked the Međimurje Police Department to collect all information concerning psychiatric treatment of M.M. in Varaždin Prison. The relevant part of a report drawn up on 13 December 2006 by the Varaždin prison authorities reads as follows:
 “M.M. had been kept in detention on remand in Varaždin Prison from 3 February to 22 May 2006 when he was sent to serve his prison term ... which expired on 3 July 2006.
A psychiatric examination of M.M. carried out during his stay in detention showed that he suffered from a mixed personality disorder which derived from innate malfunctioning of the brain and the unfavourable pedagogical circumstances of his childhood. In the same opinion the expert psychiatrist recommended that compulsory psychiatric treatment be ordered with a predominantly psychotherapeutic approach with the aim [that M.M.] develop an ability to resolve difficult situations in life in a more constructive manner.
While M.M. served his prison term, intensive treatment consisting in frequent individual conversational sessions was envisaged, in accordance with the individual programme of serving a prison term. He rarely came for the sessions of his own accord and was therefore, in [order to satisfy] the need for treatment, requested to do so by the staff. ...
While in prison M.M. saw the prison doctor on five occasions, sometimes of his own accord, sometimes at the doctor’s call. He did not insist on his psychiatric therapy and therefore his treatment was based, as recommended by the expert, on intensive psychotherapeutic treatment by the staff, the prison governor and the others who talked to him. He was a highly introverted person, so his true personality could not be detected in detention or prison conditions.” 14.  On 11 December 2006 the Međimurje Police Department interviewed the Varaždin prison governor, P.L. The relevant part of a report on the interview drawn up on 2 December 2006 reads as follows:
“The above-mentioned is the governor of Varaždin Prison and he states that the late M.M. served his prison term in Varaždin Prison from 3 February to 3 July 2006 ...
While in prison M.M. underwent psychiatric treatment pursuant to the expert opinion and recommendation. The treatment was based on intensive psychotherapeutic treatment of M.M. consisting of conversational sessions between M.M. and the prison staff, himself [meaning the governor] and the prison doctor. During the treatment M.M. neither received nor asked for any pharmacotherapy. It was also established that M.M. was a very introverted person who did not wish to cooperate in the treatment.
During his stay in the prison M.M. saw the prison doctor on five occasions in connection with some other problems, that is to say, illnesses.
He further maintains that there are no internal regulations on the implementation of security measures and that all treatment is carried out in accordance with the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act.” 15.  According to the Government, since no oversights on the part of the persons in charge of the execution of the M.M.’s prison term and security measure had been established, the investigation was concluded, although no formal decision to that effect has been adopted. 16.  M.M.’s medical record from prison, submitted by the Government, does not indicate any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic treatment. 17.  On 6 November 2006 the applicants submitted a proposal to the State Attorney for a settlement of their claim for non-pecuniary damages related to the deaths of M.T. and V.T. They alleged failures by the competent authorities to take adequate steps to protect the lives of M.T. and V.T. and inadequacy of the investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. They sought 1,105,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and HRK 13,481 for costs. They received no reply. Under section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, where such a request has been refused or no decision has been taken within three months of its submission the person concerned may file an action with the competent court. The applicants have not brought a civil action.


6.  The applicants are husband and wife. They were born in 1981 and 1987 respectively and live in Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic of Russia. 7.  The first applicant, a Georgian national, arrived in Russia in 1999. On 4 May 2001 he received a first residence permit, which was subsequently extended at regular intervals. 8.  The first applicant’s parents have lived in Syktyvkar since the early 2000s. His father and mother acquired Russian nationality in 2005 and 2008 respectively. 9.  On 26 August 2011 the first applicant married the second applicant, a Russian national. 10.  On 28 June 2012 the second applicant gave birth to a son. 11.  On 14 November 2011 an operative officer of the Federal Service for Drug Control in the Komi Republic discovered that the first applicant had injected himself with desomorphine, a derivative of morphine known under the street name “krokodil”. An administrative case was instituted under Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“Use of narcotic substances without a medical prescription”) and the matter was referred to the Town Court. 12.  On the following day the Syktyvkar Town Court found the first applicant guilty as charged and, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 6.9 concerning foreign nationals, fined him 4,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and ordered his administrative expulsion from Russia (the “expulsion order”). 13.  Counsel for the first applicant appealed. He submitted that the penalty of expulsion was extremely severe given that the first applicant had lived in Russia for almost ten years, his wife, who was pregnant with their first child, was a Russian national and a majority of his relatives lived in Russia. In the lawyer’s opinion, the first applicant’s expulsion would destroy his family life. 14.  On 1 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic rejected the appeal, upholding the first applicant’s conviction. On the alleged disruption of the first applicant’s family life, the Supreme Court pronounced as follows:
“The representative’s argument to the effect that, in the light of Mr Gablishvili’s family situation, the Town Court had wrongly ordered his administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation cannot be taken into account as paragraph 2 of Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for mandatory expulsion of the offender and is not an alternative to the main penalty which may take the form of either detention or a fine.” 15.  On 24 April 2012 the first applicant paid the fine. 16.  On 29 March 2008 the first applicant was issued with a five-year residence permit that was valid until 8 May 2013. 17.  On 6 June 2011 the Komi Regional Centre for AIDS Prevention and Treatment notified the Komi division of the Federal Migration Service that the first applicant had been diagnosed with HIV. 18.  On 10 June 2011 the Migration Service revoked the first applicant’s residence permit in accordance with section 9(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which provided for the revocation of the residence permits of HIV-positive foreign nationals. The first applicant was informed of that decision on 9 November 2011 and ordered to leave Russia within fifteen days. 19.  Counsel for the first applicant challenged the decision before a court, claiming that it amounted to a disproportionate interference with the first applicant’s family life and also put the first applicant’s life at risk. 20.  On 28 February 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court set aside the decision of 10 June 2011, observing that the first applicant had strong family ties in Russia and could receive medical treatment there with the assistance and under the supervision of his family. However, the Town Court declared itself incompetent to order the reinstatement of the residence permit. 21.  On 31 May 2012 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic heard an appeal against the Town Court’s judgment. It endorsed its reasons for setting aside the decision of 10 June 2011 and noted that the following logical step would be to reinstate the first applicant’s residence permit. It ordered the Migration Service to proceed accordingly. 22.  On 28 June 2012 the Federal Migration Service complied with the judgment and reinstated the first applicant’s residence permit. 23.  On the following day the Migration Service issued a new decision to revoke the permit, referring to the Town Court’s judgment of 15 November 2011 and section 9(1)(3) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which provided for the revocation of residence permits of foreign nationals who were liable to be expelled. 24.  On 20 January 2012 the Federal Service for Drug Control issued a decision on the undesirability of the first applicant’s presence in Russia (the “exclusion order”) which read in its entirety as follows:
“1.  On the basis of the materials received from the Komi division of the Federal Service for Drug Control, and in accordance with section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act, to declare undesirable the presence in Russia of the Georgian national Mr Gablishvili ... 25.  Counsel for the first applicant challenged the exclusion order in court, claiming that it would disrupt the first applicant’s family life. 26.  On 20 July 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court found for the first applicant as follows:
“The grounds for issuing the said decision were the following: use of drugs by the claimant, an offence of which he had been found guilty under Article 6.9 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences by the Town Court’s judgment of 15 November 2011 and fined RUB 4,000, and for which his administrative expulsion had been ordered; the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings on 29 November 2003 on non-exonerating grounds in connection with his active repentance; and his repeated convictions in administrative proceedings for breaches of public order.
However, in the court’s view, these elements are not sufficient to reach the conclusion that Mr Gablishvili, who has lived in Russia for a long time and who has stable family connections and can undergo treatment under his family’s supervision, represents a real threat to national security, public order and health.
In these circumstances, taking into account the provisions of the Russian Constitution ... according to which the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly operative and determine the essence, meaning and implementation of laws ... and may be restricted only to the extent necessary for the protection of the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of other people, national defence and security, the court considers that the said decision is unlawful and must be quashed.” 27.  On an appeal by the Federal Service for Drug Control, the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic quashed, on 11 October 2012, the Town Court’s judgment and rejected the first applicant’s challenge to the exclusion order, finding as follows:
“It was established by the Town Court and not disputed by the claimant that Mr Gablishvili was a drug user, that he had previously breached the criminal law and that he had been repeatedly charged with administrative offences in the period from 2003 to 2011.
Those elements, taken cumulatively, indicate that, while living in the Russian Federation, Mr Gablishvili does not respect the applicable laws and lives an immoral lifestyle which – undoubtedly – is an imminent threat to public order and to the health and morals of Russian citizens.
The [Supreme Court] considers that his stable family connections in Russia may not be a bar to deciding on the undesirability of his presence in Russia because the law provides that such a decision may be taken against a specific individual not as a punitive measure but as a means of upholding public order and if it pursues, as stated above, the aim of safeguarding the health and morals of the Russian population.” 28.  In their submissions to the Court, the Government specified that the first applicant’s previous administrative convictions, referred to in the Supreme Court’s decision, had been in respect of the following offences:
(a)  non-medical use of heroin on 29 January 2009;
(b)   minor disorderly acts on 25 January and 18 June 2000, 28 October 2003, 19 April 2004 and 30 January 2011;
(c)  drunkenness in a public place on 26 February 2000;
(d)  failure to have his residence registered on 25 November 2004; and
(e)  “non-compliance with existing procedure” on 20 May 2010. 29.  After the Town Court’s judgment dated 15 November 2011, the first applicant was found guilty of the following administrative offences:
(a)  breach of public order, public drunkenness and refusal to obey a police officer, all committed on 8 March 2012;
(b)  two cases of public drunkenness and a breach of public order on 27 and 28 May 2012;
(c)  breach of public order on 30 January 2013, for which the first applicant was sentenced to five-days’ detention; and
(d)  two driving offences on 31 March and 7 May 2013. 30.  According to the Government, the first applicant’s current whereabouts are not known; he does not live at home. Nor is there any information showing that either the expulsion or the exclusion order has been executed.


4.  The applicant is a private small-scale trading company which has its registered office in Yerevan. 5.  On 29 January 2001 the Tax Inspectorate conducted an inspection of the applicant company's accounts. As a result of this inspection, on 2 April 2001 the Ministry of State Revenue (ՀՀ պետական եկամուտների նախարարություն) made an assessment, according to which the applicant company's tax arrears amounted to 3,797,281 Armenian drams (AMD) (approx. 5,400 euros (EUR)), including surcharges and fines prescribed by the relevant tax laws. 6.  On an unspecified date, the Yerevan City Prosecutor's Office (Երևան քաղաքի դատախազություն) and the Tax Inspectorate of the Myasnikyan District of Yerevan (Երևանի Մյասնիկյանի տարածքային հարկային տեսչություն) instituted proceedings against the applicant company, claiming that it had failed to meet its tax obligations in an appropriate and timely manner and seeking to recover the above tax arrears. 7.  On 13 July 2001 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան) decided against the applicant company. 8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company lodged an appeal with the then Commercial Court of Appeal (ՀՀ տնտեսական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան). The applicant company also requested that payment of the court fee (known as State fee) be deferred. In his request, the manager of the applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the company was experiencing financial problems and that he was the company's sole employee. 9.  On 31 August 2001 the Commercial Court of Appeal granted the applicant company's request for deferral and admitted the appeal. 10.  Following the reform of the court system introduced in Armenia on 11 September 2001 which brought about the establishment of the Commercial Court (ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան), the applicant company's case was transferred to be examined by that court. 11.  On 5 November 2001 the Commercial Court decided to leave the authorities' claim unexamined on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to appear. In its decision, the Commercial Court levied a court fee on the Tax Inspectorate in the amount of AMD 189,864.05 (approx. EUR 370). 12.  It appears that the proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date. 13.  On 24 December 2001 the Commercial Court decided, at the prosecutor's request, to take measures aimed at securing the claim, freezing the applicant company's property and monetary assets in the amount of AMD 3,797,281. 14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company lodged a counterclaim with the Commercial Court, seeking to have the 2 April 2001 assessment ruled unlawful. The applicant company requested that the payment of the court fee be deferred on the same grounds as before. 15.  On 18 January 2002 the Commercial Court granted the applicant company's request for deferral of payment of the court fee and allowed the applicant company's counterclaim, referring to Articles 21 (d) and 31 (c) of the Law on State Fees («Պետական տուրքի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք). 16.  On 3 December 2002 the Commercial Court decided to join both claims and to examine them together. 17.  On 20 January 2003 the Commercial Court granted the authorities' claim and dismissed that of the applicant company. The court decided to levy on the applicant company a total of AMD 3,797,281 of tax arrears, including profit tax arrears of AMD 193,400 plus a surcharge of AMD 11,352.9 (approx. EUR 310 and EUR 18 respectively), Value Added Tax (VAT) arrears of AMD 132,610 plus a surcharge of AMD 57,839.44 and a fine of AMD 73,080 (approx. EUR 213, EUR 93 and EUR 117 respectively), and simplified tax arrears of AMD 1,919,820 plus a surcharge of AMD 304,428.66 and a fine of AMD 1,104,750 (approx. EUR 3,096, EUR 491 and EUR 1,781 respectively). In imposing the surcharges and fines, the Commercial Court referred to Article 43 of the Law on Value Added Tax («Ավելացված արժեքի հարկի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք), Articles 25 and 28 of the Law on Taxes («Հարկերի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք) and the provisions relating to the delayed payment of taxes. The amount of the unpaid court fee to be paid by the applicant company was calculated at AMD 79,946 (approx. EUR 129). 18.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant company lodged a cassation appeal. Together with the appeal, the applicant company submitted a request for deferral of payment of the court fee, claiming that the company was experiencing financial problems: the company had only AMD 770 (approx. EUR 1.2) on its books and in its bank account, both of which had been frozen. 19.  By a letter of 14 February 2003 the Court of Cassation informed the applicant company that its cassation appeal would be examined on 28 February 2003. The letter also stated that the appeal would be returned unexamined should the applicant fail to pay the court fee by 24 February 2003. 20.  By a letter of 27 February 2003 the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան) returned the applicant company's cassation appeal on the ground that it had not paid the required court fee. The judgment of the Commercial Court came into force. 21.  On 28 February 2003 the applicant company applied to the Chairman of the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարանի նախագահ), requesting that its appeal be examined out of time and claiming that it was incapable of paying the court fee since the company had almost no assets and the existing ones were frozen. 22.  By a letter of 13 March 2003 the Senior Advisor to the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարանի քաղաքացիական և տնտեսական գործերի պալատի ավագ խորհրդատու) informed the applicant company that its cassation appeal had been returned since “according to Article 70 of the Code of Civil Procedure [(CCP) (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական դատավարության օրենսգիրք)] commercial entities could not be exempted from payment of the State fee”. 23.  On 25 March 2003 enforcement proceedings were instituted and an injunction was placed on the applicant company's assets in the amount equal to the judgment debt. 24.  On 22 April 2004 the Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the applicant company on the basis of an application lodged by the Tax Inspectorate. 25.  On 20 May 2004 the Commercial Court decided to stay those proceedings until a decision had been taken on the applicant company's application lodged with the European Court. It appears that the bankruptcy proceedings are currently still stayed.


6.  The applicant is a lawyer who also writes articles for various Russian law journals and online legal information databases and networks. 7.  According to the applicant, his work usually requires extensive scientific research, including in the field of law enforcement in the Khabarovsk Region. He supported his assertion with copies of contracts with well-known Russian publishing houses and owners of a number of legal magazines, including one supervised by the Secretariat of the President of the Russian Federation. Under the contracts he undertook the task of writing articles on specific topics of legal and social interest. 8.  Having received an assignment to write an article on prostitution and the fight against it in the Khabarovsk Region, on 12 May 2009 the applicant wrote to the head of the Khabarovsk Region police department by registered letter, asking for statistical data for his research. The relevant parts read:
“[I am] interested in [receiving] information for the period between 2000 and 2009, in particular:
- [information on] the number of people found administratively liable under Article 6.11 of the ... Code of Administrative Offences (prostitution), with a breakdown by sex, residence (residents of the Khabarovsk Region or visitors), nationality (nationals of the Russian Federation, foreigners or stateless persons) and the year [of the offence];
- [information on] the number of criminal cases instituted during the above‑mentioned period under Articles 241, 242, 242.1 [and] 127.1 (cases related to sexual exploitation) of the ... Criminal Code, with a breakdown of the specific Articles ... and the year [the case was opened];
- [information on] the number of individuals found criminally liable under Articles 241, 242, 242.1 [and] 127.1 ... of the ... Criminal Code, with a breakdown by sex, age, educational background, permanent residence (residents of the Khabarovsk Region or visitors), nationality and period [in which the crime was committed];
- general information on sentences imposed on individuals found criminally liable under Articles 241, 242, 242.1 [and] 127.1 ... of the ... Criminal Code ‑ the types of sentences and in how many cases they were imposed, and the years [they were imposed].
...
[I] stress that I do not need any specific personal information about individuals found administratively or criminally liable; [I only need] general statistical information for writing a scientific article.” 9.  It appears from an acknowledgement of receipt that the letter reached the Khabarovsk Region police department on 25 May 2009. 10.  Under Russian law, State officials must provide a reply to letters from individuals within thirty days. In the absence of any response, on 26 June 2009 the applicant lodged a claim with the Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk (“the District Court”), complaining that the police authorities had failed to provide him with the information he had requested and requesting for access. Relying on the Information Act (see below) and Article 10 of the Convention, he argued that the officials’ implied refusal to provide him with the information had been unlawful as he had not asked for access to any confidential personal information, State secrets or information related to internal police working methods. He claimed that his request had related purely to statistical data of a general nature collected by the Information Centre of the Khabarovsk Region police department (hereinafter “the Information Centre”). 11.  On 18 July 2009 the applicant received a letter from the head of the Information Centre, notifying him that information as specific as he had asked for could only be collected on production of a written order issued by a deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, a head of a regional or municipal police department or their divisions or a prosecutor or investigator from a prosecutor’s office. The Information Centre did not collect such information at the request of private individuals. General statistical data summarised by the Information Centre was provided to the Federal Service of State Statistics and in particular its regional office for the Khabarovsk Region, to whom the applicant could apply for the statistical data. 12.  On 19 July 2009 the applicant wrote to the Khabarovsk Region Service of State Statistics (hereinafter “the Statistics Service”) by registered letter, asking for the statistical data for his research. 13.  On 23 July 2009 the head of the Statistics Service replied, stating that specific statistical information on the fight against prostitution had never been provided by the Khabarovsk Regional police department. 14.  The applicant filed copies of his letters from the Information Centre and Statistics Service with the District Court. 15.  On 4 August 2009 it dismissed the applicant’s claim on the grounds that the Information Centre was not authorised to process data requests from private individuals. Under domestic law, the Statistics Service was tasked with dissemination of official statistical data on a broad variety of subjects, including those falling within the applicant’s field of interest. It also noted that the applicant had failed to obtain the information sought from open sources, such as libraries, archives and the Internet. The District Court also stressed that the information requested did not touch upon the applicant’s rights and legitimate interests, so the authorities’ refusal to grant him access to such information had been lawful and well-founded under section 8(2) of the Information Act. 16.  The applicant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the police authorities had exclusive possession of the information sought by him and that he had no other means, including through assistance from the Statistics Service, of obtaining the necessary data. In addition, he submitted that the fact that his rights and legitimate interests were not affected by the requested information had no bearing on the case as under Russian law, it was not only those directly concerned who were granted access to public information. 17.  On 16 September 2009 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 August 2009. Relying on section 8(2) of the Information Act, it concluded that the authorities were not obliged to provide the applicant with the information as it did not touch upon his rights and legitimate interests.


5.  The first applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Tsentrelnye Koryaki in the Kamchatka Region. 6.  On 20 June 2005 at approximately 3.30 a.m. he was arrested by traffic police while driving a vehicle which had been declared stolen earlier in the evening, and was taken to the local police station. 7.  On the same day at 3.00 p.m. he gave a confession statement. 8.  Later on at approximately 6.00 p.m. a record of his arrest was drawn up. This document indicated that he had been apprehended at 6.00 p.m. by an investigator, Mr S. 9.  On 22 June 2005 the Yelizovskiy District Court (“the District Court”) authorised the first applicant’s detention. The court found that there were grounds to believe that he would abscond, because he was suspected of having committed an offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, was unemployed and without any source of income, and did not reside at his official address. It further referred to the risk that the first applicant might continue his criminal activities on the grounds that, having been released on parole on 17 June 2005, he had been apprehended three days later on suspicion of an offence similar to that for which he already had a conviction. 10.  On 29 June 2005 the first applicant was charged with theft. 11.  On 19 July 2005 the detention order of 22 June 2005 was upheld on appeal. 12.  By a judgment of 1 March 2006, upheld on appeal on 2 May 2006, the District Court convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. 13.  The second applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Vladimir. 14.  On 10 April 2005 Ms F. complained of having been raped by three unidentified individuals. 15.  A criminal investigation into the rape was opened at 12 noon on 11 April 2005 and the second applicant was apprehended on the same day. He and the Government provided differing versions of how he was arrested. 16.  According to the second applicant, at around 12 noon he was stopped in the street by police and escorted to the local police station. Between 12.25 p.m and 12.33 p.m. he took part in an identification parade, as a result of which he was identified by the victim as one of the individuals who had raped her. Between 3.10 p.m. and 4.20 p.m. he was questioned by an investigator. A record of his arrest was not drawn up until 11.35 p.m. 17.  According to the Government, the second applicant was taken to the police station as a witness. They have provided no indications as to when he was taken there or why he was considered to be a witness for the purposes of the investigation. The Government further claimed that the second applicant was interviewed as a witness between 3.10 p.m. and 4.20 p.m., and that the identification parade during which he was identified by the victim took place between 10.25 p.m. and 10.33 p.m. At 11.25 p.m. he was arrested as a criminal suspect and ten minutes later an arrest record was drawn up. 18.  During the above procedures, the second applicant waited in different offices of the police station. Had he tried to leave, he would have been stopped by the police officers who were standing guard at the doors of the offices. As soon as the record of arrest was compiled, he was incarcerated. 19.  At 6.25 p.m. on 13 April 2005 the Gus-Khrustalnyy Town Court of the Vladimir Region (hereinafter “the Town Court”) remanded the second applicant in custody on the basis of Article 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCrP”) (see paragraph 34 below). It found that he was suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence, had been identified by the victim, had escaped from the scene of the crime, did not work and had a recent criminal record, and that for those reasons he might abscond, reoffend, influence the victim and the other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence, or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice. The Town Court did not address the second applicant’s allegation that he had been unlawfully detained for more than forty-eight hours without judicial authorisation. 20.  On 15 April 2005 the second applicant appealed. Among other things, he complained that his detention was unlawful, on the grounds that he had been brought before a judge more than forty-eight hours after his actual arrest and the Town Court had not established any “exceptional circumstances”, as required by the CCrP in order to place a suspect in detention (see paragraph 33 below). 21.  On 16 May 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the order of 13 April 2005. It considered that the second applicant had been apprehended as indicated in the arrest record. It further found that the Town Court had based its decision on sufficient grounds. Lastly, as regards his argument concerning the absence of “exceptional circumstances”, the Regional Court held as follows:
“The exceptional nature of remanding a criminal suspect in custody implies that he must be charged not later than ten days from the time of his arrest. Otherwise, he should be immediately released.” 22.  In the meantime, on 19 April 2005 the second applicant was charged with aggravated rape. 23.  On 20 December 2005 the Town Court found him guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence. 24.  On 3 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 25.  Between 20 April 2005 and 22 March 2006 the second applicant was held in Vladimir Prison T-2 in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. He submitted that the facility had been severely overcrowded and in an appalling sanitary condition. The detainees did not have access to fresh air, sunlight or drinking water.