8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Novokuybyshevsk, the Samara Region. 9.  The applicant was born in the Minsk Region, Belarus. In 1992 he moved to live with his father in Tatarstan, Russia. He had a Soviet passport issued by the USSR in 1990. 10.  From 1993 to 1996 the applicant served a prison sentence in Belarus. Upon his release in June 1996 he moved to the Kursk Region, Russia. 11.  From 1998 to 2004 the applicant served another prison sentence in Belarus. Upon his release he went to Orel, Russia. 12.  On 9 March 2004, in Orel, the applicant was issued with a Russian passport. 13.  Later in 2004 he moved to Novokuybyshevsk, Russia. 14.  In a decision of 21 September 2005 an officer of the Samara Region Department of the Interior recognised the applicant as a Russian citizen. The decision was upheld by the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). 15.  On 14 March 2007 the Department for Citizenship and Migration of the Belarus Ministry of the Interior informed the FMS that, according to the Belarusian Law on Citizenship of 18 October 1991, the applicant was a citizen of Belarus. 16.  On 23 August 2007 the Samara District Court found that the applicant had been unlawfully granted Russian citizenship since he had concealed the fact that he was a national of another State and ordered the FMS to revoke its decision to that effect. The applicant appealed. 17.  On 1 October 2007 the Samara Regional Court upheld the decision. 18.  On 28 November 2007 the FMS revoked its decision to recognise the applicant as a Russian citizen. 19.  On 17 and 20 December 2007 respectively, the Ministry of the Interior of Belarus and the Embassy of Belarus in Moscow informed the applicant's counsel that the applicant was not a citizen of Belarus. 20.  The applicant's requests for supervisory review of the decisions of 23 August and 1 October 2007 were refused by the Samara Regional Court on 23 January and 1 December 2008, and by the Supreme Court on 10 July 2008. The applicant also submitted a request for the proceedings to be reopened on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The request was refused by the Samara District Court on 23 October 2008. 21.  On 15 August 2005 the Belarus prosecuting authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and Z. They were suspected of extorting 18,000 United States dollars from a private person in Belarus in 2003. The Belarus prosecuting authorities put the applicant's name on a wanted list and ordered his arrest. 22.  On 16 December 2006 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. 23.  On 18 December 2006 the Russian General Prosecutor's Office refused his extradition to Belarus as, according to the decision of the FMS of 21 September 2005, he was a Russian citizen. 24.  On 30 March 2007 Russian prosecuting authorities took over responsibility for the investigation. 25.  On 8 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Novokuybyshevsk and placed in custody. 26.  On 9 September 2008, after the decision to recognise the applicant as a Russian citizen had been revoked, the Belarus Prosecutor's Office requested his extradition. 27.  On 16 December 2008 the Russian General Prosecutor's Office authorised his extradition. 28.  On 4 March 2009 the Samara Regional Court upheld the extradition decision. The applicant's counsel appealed to the Supreme Court, contending, in particular: “at present it is impossible to assess the reasons why [the applicant] considers that he might be subjected to ill-treatment in the territory of Belarus, it is impossible either to find them well‑substantiated or to refute them”. This appears to be the first time that allegations of possible ill-treatment were raised before the Russian courts. 29.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court quashed and remitted that decision. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Regional Court had failed to obtain and examine a number of procedural documents related to the applicant's extradition. 30.  On 22 May 2009 the Samara Regional Court again found the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office to extradite the applicant to be lawful. 31.  On 28 July 2009, upon the applicant's appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the decision of 22 May 2009 and quashed it. It instructed the Regional Court to review the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the European Convention and to assess the applicant's claim that he had applied for territorial asylum in Russia. 32.  On 30 July 2009 the applicant submitted a request to the Samara Department of the FMS for refugee status. 33.  On 13 August 2009 the General Prosecutor of Belarus sent a letter to his counterpart in Russia, guaranteeing that, in the event of the applicant's extradition, he would not be subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, he would be ensured a fair trial and he would be provided with the necessary medical assistance. 34.  On 3 August 2009 the Samara Department of the FMS declined the applicant's request for refugee status. The Department found that the applicant's real reason for going to Russia and claiming asylum was his fear of criminal prosecution in connection with the charges pending against him in Belarus. 35.  On 26 August 2009 the Samara Regional Court found the decision of the General Prosecutor's Office of 16 December 2008 to be lawful. It considered the applicant's claims under Article 3 of the Convention to be unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence. It relied on the assurances issued by the General Prosecutor of Belarus in respect of the applicant. The court further noted that the applicant had not been granted asylum in Russia. 36.  On 8 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Novokuybyshevsk as a suspect in the criminal case instituted against him in Belarus but which was, at that time, being handled by the Russian prosecuting authorities. 37.  On 9 July 2008 the applicant was charged with extortion. The investigating authorities applied to the Novokuybyshevsk Town Court with a request to remand the applicant in custody on the grounds that he had a criminal record, had been charged with a serious offence, had no legal source of income, did not live at his permanent place of residence in Novokuybyshevsk but in Moscow without having registered properly and, if released, could abscond from the investigating authorities and the court and continue his criminal activities. On the same day the Novokuybyshevsk Town Court granted the request and decided to remand the applicant in custody until 9 September 2008. The applicant appealed. 38.  On 28 July 2008 the Samara Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. 39.  On 5 August 2008 the Novokuybyshevsk Town Court extended the term of his detention until 23 October 2008 on the grounds that he had been charged with a serious offence and the application of a different preventive measure was impossible due to the applicant's personality and the danger that, if released, he would abscond and get involved in criminal activity. 40.  On 8 September 2008 an investigator of the Novokuybyshevsk Department of the Interior decided to terminate the applicant's detention ordered in the decisions of 9 July and 5 August 2008 on the ground that it had been decided to transfer the criminal case back to the Belarusian prosecuting authorities. However, on the same date the applicant was arrested under Article 61 of the Minsk Convention. 41.  On 10 September 2008 the Novokuybyshevsk Town Court ordered the applicant's detention pending extradition proceedings under Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without indicating the term of detention. The applicant appealed. 42.  On 24 September 2008 the Samara Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. 43.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court, deciding on the applicant's complaint about the lawfulness of his extradition, ordered his detention to be extended by one month, until 28 May 2009, in order to ensure his extradition to Belarus. 44.  On 25 May 2009 the Novokuybyshevsk District Court ordered the applicant's detention to be extended to a period of twelve months, that is to say, until 8 September 2009. 45.  On 28 July 2009 the Supreme Court again reviewed the applicant's claim about the lawfulness of his extradition. It ordered the applicant's release from detention on bail of 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant did not deposit the bail and remained in custody. 46.  On 4 September 2009 the Samara Regional Court refused the prosecutor's request to extend the applicant's custody until 8 March 2010, that is to say, an increase to eighteen months. 47.  On 8 September 2009 the applicant was released from detention.


5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Volgograd, the Volgograd Region. 6.  The applicant brought court proceedings claiming an increase in the monthly disability allowance she was entitled to receive. On 24 May 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd awarded the applicant 21,245.46 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and increased the allowance to RUR 1,214 as of 1 May 1999. 7.  On 15 June 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 91,039.35 as compensation for late payment of the allowance. On 1 September 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court reduced that amount to RUR 1,500.  On 29 January 2001 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,790.17 as compensation for the depreciation of the award under the judgment of 24 May 1999 due to inflation. 8.  On 13 June 2001 the District Court increased the monthly allowance to RUR 4,070.89 as of 10 January 2001 and awarded the applicant RUR 20,538.16 in allowance arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001, and RUR 2,000 as compensation for late payment of that increased allowance. 9.  The above-mentioned judgments were enforced on 25 December 2002. 10.  On 20 February 2002 the District Court adjusted the allowance amount due to the applicant and awarded her RUR 10,162.80. 11.  On 16 July 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 11,104 in arrears for the period from 15 February 2002 to 30 June 2003 and increased the monthly allowance to RUR 3,175 effective as of 1 July 2003. On 27 August 2003 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 2 September 2005 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court quashed those judgments. 12.  The awards under the judgment of 20 February 2002 and that of 16 July 2003 were paid to the applicant on 22 November and 15 December 2005, respectively. 13.  The applicant brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for depreciation of the awards under the judgments of 13 June 2001 and 20 February 2002. On 7 December 2005 the District Court dismissed her claims. On 9 February 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case. Apparently, the proceedings are pending.


4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in in the village of Novoselye, the Leningradskiy Region. 5.  In 1995 the applicant entered into a contract with a joint-stock company “Energomashstroy” (ОАО «Энергомашстрой»). The contract stipulated that the applicant was under an obligation to transfer a sum of money to the company, whilst the latter undertook to build a flat for the applicant. Having moved into the new flat in January 1998, the applicant detected a number of constructional defects. 6.  On 15 September 1998 the applicant brought an action against the company before the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningradskiy Region (“the District Court”), seeking elimination of the above defects. Thereafter on 16 November 1998, 1 April and 17 September 1999, 26 April 2001, 21 July, 14 August and 15 December 2003 she supplemented and modified her claims, seeking the recovery of the money she had paid under the contract and damages. 7.  On 10 December and 15 December 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to commence proceedings in her case. She received no responses to these requests. 8.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant complained about delay in her case to the Court Administration Department at the Supreme Court of Russia (Управление Судебного департамента при Верховном Суде РФ, “the Court Department”). On 23 March 1999 the Court Department informed the applicant that the hearing in her case would be held on 26 March 1999. 9.  On 26 March 1999 the District Court postponed the hearing until 14 May 1999 due to the parties’ failure to appear. The applicant submitted a request for examination of the case in her absence, whilst the defendant company requested the court to adjourn the hearing by reference to the belated delivery of the court summons. 10.  On 14 May 1999 the hearing was postponed until 10 September 1999 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings. 11.  On 1 August 1999 the applicant requested the District Court to expedite the proceedings in her action. 12.  On 10 September 1999 the hearing was adjourned until 8 October 1999 on the ground that the defendant’s representative was unable to appear as he was attending a hearing in an unrelated case, and then until 19 November 1999, as the court ordered the parties to submit certain documents. On the last mentioned date the hearing was postponed until 14 January 2000 and then until 25 January 2000 in view of the participation of the judge in unrelated proceedings. 13.  On 23 November 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint about delays in her case with the Office of the President of Russia. In response, in a letter of 25 January 2000 the District Court notified the applicant that the hearing would take place on 26 January 2000. 14.  On 26 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing and, upon the defendant’s request, ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s flat so as to ascertain its compliance with building standards. By the same decision the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. The applicant objected to the examination on the ground that such examination had already been performed by another expert body, and that she had already furnished its results with the court. According to the applicant, the District Court ignored her objection. 15.  The applicant appealed against the above decision, and the case-file was transmitted to the Civil Section of the Leningradskiy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). On 27 April 2000 the latter dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal, thus upholding the decision of 26 January 2000. 16.  On 6 June 2000 the case-file was returned to the District Court and sent to the experts to enable them to carry out the requisite examination. 17.  On 8 December 2000 the experts declined to undertake the examination and returned the case-file to the District Court, stating that the defendant company refused to bear the expenses for the examination. 18.  On 9 January 2001 the District Court resumed the proceedings and fixed a hearing for 24 April 2001. 19.  On 24 April 2001 the District Court postponed the hearing until 4 July 2001 and, upon the applicant’s request, ordered the defendant company to provide certain documents. 20.  On 4 July 2001 the court adjourned a hearing until 4 September 2001 as the defendant had failed to submit the requested documents, and then until 28 September 2001, having ordered the parties to submit the original of the contract between them. On the last mentioned date the hearing was postponed until 19 October 2001, as the District Court invited to the expert body to submit a calculation of the expenses for the examination and ordered the reimbursement of those expenses. 21.  On 19 October 2001 the hearing was postponed until 19 November 2001 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings. 22.  On 19 November 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court again stayed the proceedings and reaffirmed the order of 26 January 2000, as the defendant had agreed to reimburse the costs of the expert examination. On 23 January 2002 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against this decision. 23.  On 27 February 2002 the case-filed was remitted to the District Court and sent to the experts. The latter examined the applicant’s flat on 25 July 2002 and returned the case-file to the District Court on 3 September 2002. 24.  By letter of 4 September 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court notified the applicant that the hearing would take place on 11 October 2002. On 11 October 2002 the District Court adjourned the hearing until 1 November 2002 for an unspecified reason, and then until 6 December 2002 on account of the judge’s illness. The applicant objected, but the District Court did not address her objections. On 6 December 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 10 January 2003 upon the applicant’s request. 25.  During 2002 the applicant lodged a number of complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings in her case with various administrative bodies. Mostly she received formal responses that her complaints had been forwarded to the District Court. 26.  Between 10 and 15 January 2003 the hearing was repeatedly interrupted for various reasons, in particular for the failure of one of the lay assessors to appear. 27.  On 15 January 2003 the Lomonosovskiy District Court delivered a judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims and ordering her to reimburse the costs for the examination of the flat to the company. 28.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for a new examination. 29.  The case-file was sent back to the District Court on 17 June 2003, and a hearing was scheduled for 14 August 2003. 30.  Between 14 and 29 August 2003 the hearing was interrupted and resumed on several occasions, in particular because the applicant supplemented her claims and twice requested the court to obtain certain documents. On 29 August 2003 the hearing was postponed until 2 October 2003 upon the applicant’s request to obtain certain documents, and thereafter until 20 November 2003, as the judge was ill. The proceedings were resumed on 24 November 2003, but the hearing was adjourned until 5 December 2003, as the representative of the defendant company had failed to appear on account of his illness. On the last mentioned date the proceedings resumed. 31.  By judgment of 17 December 2003 the Lomonosovskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s claims and ordered her to reimburse the costs of the expert examination to the defendant company. 32.  On 10 March 2004 the Regional Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 13 April 2004 the case-file was remitted to the District Court, and on 20 April 2004 a hearing was fixed for 9 June 2004. 33.  On 9 June 2004 the hearing was postponed until 28 July 2004 pending the outcome of friendly settlement negotiations between the parties. It appears that on 28 July 2004 the proceedings were recommenced. 34.  By judgment of 9 August 2004 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part and awarded her damages against the defendant company. 35.  On 3 November 2004 the Regional Court overturned the judgment of 9 August 2004 and remitted the case to the first instance for a new examination. 36.  On 1 February 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part and ordered the defendant company to pay her 409,724.2 Russian roubles. 37.  On 13 April 2005 the Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.


8.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Milan. 9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10.  Stelios company was the owner of an apartment in Milan which it had let to E.T. 11.  In a registered letter sent in December 1990, Stelios informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. 12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 March 1991, Stelios reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate. 13.  By a decision of 4 April 1991, which was made enforceable on 30 June 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by the same date. 14.  On 15 December 1992, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings. 15.  On 15 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 16.  On 25 January 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 February 1994. 17.  In a registered letter of 13 March 1995, the applicant proposed negotiations to the tenant in order to settle their dispute, but they failed. 18.  Between 11 February 1994 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession. 19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. 20.  On 14 December 1999, the enforcement of the order for possession was suspended pursuant Section 6 of Law no. 431/98 and set for 12 May 2000. 21.  On 9 May 2000 and 13 June 2000, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. 22.  Later in June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.


4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  On 21 April 2000 the Prosecutor of the Vatutinsky District of Kyiv (“the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor”) instituted proceedings with regard to embezzlement of funds of the company R. The applicant was originally a witness in the case. 6.  On 4 April 2001 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in the embezzlement. 7.  On 7 April 2001 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor decided that the applicant should be detained, as he was suspected of a crime punishable by imprisonment. 8.  On 17 May 2001 the investigator instituted another criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in embezzlement and joined it to the first criminal case against the applicant. 9.  On 3 June 2001 the same prosecutor decided that the applicant's detention should be extended to 4 July 2001. 10.  Between 27 June and 6 September 2001 and on 14 September 2001 the applicant and his lawyer studied the criminal case file. 11.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant was indicted for theft. 12.  On 28 September 2001 the indictment was approved by the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor. The case was transferred for examination on its merits to the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Vatutinsky Court”). 13.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant's advocate lodged a request with the Vatutinsky Court seeking the applicant's immediate release. 14.  On 5 October 2001 the Vatutinsky Court received the case file and on 12 October 2001 Judge K. of the Vatutinsky Court held a preparatory hearing in the case. 15.  On 15 October 2001 Judge K. decided that the criminal case against the applicant should be remitted for additional investigation. He also rejected the applicant's request for release of 26 September 2001, finding no grounds for changing the preventive measure applied by the prosecutor. In particular, the court stated that the applicant had been detained on the basis of the prosecutor's decision since 7 April 2001 in order to prevent him from avoiding investigation and appearance in court, obstructing the establishment of the truth in the criminal case and continuing with criminal activity, and in order to ensure compliance with procedural decisions in cases where the law provides for deprivation of liberty for more than three years. No time-limit for detention was fixed. 16.  On 29 January 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the resolution of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for examination on the merits to the Desnyansky District Court, Kyiv (formerly Vatutinsky District, but after changes to the judicial districts in Kyiv “the Desnyansky Court”). 17.  On 4 March 2002 the Desnyansky Court held a preparatory hearing in the case. It examined the applicant's request to be released on bail and found no reasons for allowing it. It also noted that the applicant had been detained lawfully, given that criminal proceedings against him were pending. 18.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant's lawyer requested the Desnyansky Court to order the applicant's release. This request was refused the same day. The court considered that the applicant might evade and obstruct justice and, given his age, state of health, family status and economic status there were no grounds for replacing the detention with another preventive measure. On 14 March 2002 the court rejected a similar request by the applicant on the same grounds, adding that the seriousness of the charges had also been taken into account. Two more similar requests by the applicant were rejected by the court on 4 and 19 April 2002 on the same grounds. 19.  On 29 April 2002 the Desnyansky Court ordered that the case be again remitted for additional investigation. The court also upheld the applicant's detention, noting without further elaboration that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure. No time-limit for detention was fixed. 20.  On 23 July 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the resolution and remitted the case for re-examination on the merits. The court also noted that it had no legal basis for deciding on the applicant's request for release and considered that the conclusions of the first-instance court on the matter were lawful, reasoned and corresponded to the case file materials. Therefore, it left the preventive measure unchanged. 21.  In August 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered the transfer of the criminal case from the Desnyansky Court to the Golosiyevsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Golosiyevsky Court”). 22.  On 28 August 2002 the Golosiyevsky Court ordered a hearing on the merits on 13 September 2002. 23.  On 14 October 2002 Judge C. resumed examination of the case on the merits and informed the applicant's lawyer that she had decided not to remit the case for additional investigation. The court also rejected the applicant's request for release, on the ground that he might avoid and obstruct justice. 24.  On 17 October 2002 the defence challenged Judge C. 25.  On 24 December 2002 Judge C. of the Golosiyevsky Court decided to remit the case for additional investigation. It also decided that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure in respect of the applicant. 26.  On 13 March 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 24 December 2002 and returned the case to the Golosiyevsky Court for examination on the merits. It also decided again that the applicant should remain in custody, as he had been charged with serious offences which would warrant deprivation of liberty after conviction. 27.  On 13 May 2003 the Golosiyevsky Court decided that the case should be remitted for additional investigation to the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor. It also ordered the applicant's continued detention, without giving any particular reasons for it. The court also rejected the applicant's request for termination of the proceedings in the case. 28.  On 28 July 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal on points of law lodged against the decision not to terminate the proceedings, as the applicant had failed to comply with procedural formalities. 29.  On 4 August 2003 the Desnyansky District Prosecutor released the applicant from detention. The applicant signed an undertaking not to abscond. 30.  On 30 August 2003 the applicant's advocate unsuccessfully requested the prosecution to amnesty the applicant, in view of the nature of the charges brought against him and his poor state of health. 31.  On 24 October 2003 the criminal investigation was adjourned because one of the suspects was being searched for. 32.  On 30 December 2003 the investigator of the Desnyanskiy Distirct Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on all but two of the charges, for lack of evidence of his involvement in the crime. The criminal case concerning the remaining charges was transferred to the Desnyanskiy District Police Department. 33.  On 18 September 2004 the investigator of the Desnyanskiy District Police Department terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the remaining charges for lack of evidence of crime and initiated criminal proceedings in respect of crimes committed by an unknown person. This decision appears to have been mistakenly dated 18 September 2003 instead of 18 September 2004. Next day the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of the suspected offender. 34.  Between 20 April 2001 and 4 August 2003 the applicant was held in the Kyiv SIZO no. 13, a detention facility with, according to the applicant, poor prison conditions and insufficient medical treatment. 35.  According to the Government, in that facility the applicant was held in the following cells:
-  cell No. 30, measuring nine square metres and designed for three inmates;
-  cell No. 64, measuring 52.36 sq. m and designed for twenty inmates;
-  cell No. 66, measuring 53.07 sq. m and designed for twenty-one inmates;
-  cell No. 68, measuring 61.19 sq. m and designed for twenty-four inmates;
-  cell No. 72, measuring 10.21 sq. m and designed for four inmates;
-  cell No. 76, measuring 9.92 sq. m and designed for three inmates;
-  cell No. 116, measuring 10 sq. m and designed for four inmates;
-  cell No. 117, measuring 9.96 sq. m and designed for three inmates;
-  cell No. 128, measuring 15.95 sq. m and designed for six inmates;
-  cell No. 195, measuring 22.44 sq. m and designed for eight inmates;
-  cell No. 258, measuring 23.38 sq. m and designed for five inmates;
-  cell No. 263, measuring 24.9 sq. m and designed for six inmates;
-  cell No. 326, measuring 12.9 sq. m and designed for five inmates;
-  cell No. 328, measuring 12.9 sq. m and designed for five inmates;
-  cell No. 333, measuring 12.9 sq. m and designed for eight inmates;
-  cell No. 336, measuring 12.9 sq. m and designed for five inmates.
All the cells had a constant supply of cold water, natural and artificial light, a separated toilet and ventilation. The number of detainees did not exceed the number of places in each cell. 36.  According to the applicant, he was not held in cells 333 and 336. Cells 64, 66 and 68 had 40 bunks each. Cell 72, measuring 9 sq. m, was damp and very cold in winter. In this latter cell he spent in total about 18 months. In cell no. 195, which had very poor ventilation, he spent about six months in total. 37.  According to the Government, the applicant had a full medical examination on arrival at the SIZO on 20 April 2001. He did not make any complaints about his health and was registered for follow-up (диспансерний облік) in respect of his chronic illnesses. 38.  On 16 November 2001, 24 April 2002 and 15 April 2003 the applicant had regular medical check-ups and was X-rayed. The examination revealed no lung problems. 39.  According to a medical certificate issued on 6 December 2001, the applicant had a mild form of diabetes and required a special diet but not medical treatment. 40.  According to a medical certificate issued on 10 July 2002 the applicant had been diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease, stenocardia and diabetes. 41.  On 15 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a cardiologist, who found him to be suffering from ischaemic heart disease and stenocardia. 42.  On 27 January 2003 the applicant asked for medical assistance, complaining of chest pain and dizziness. Following a medical examination it was decided to place the applicant in the medical wing of the SIZO. From 28 January 2003 the applicant was treated in the medical wing of the SIZO, with a diagnosis of neurocirculatory dystonia and cervical osteochondrosis. The applicant was prescribed several different types of medication. Every third day he was examined by a general doctor. On 29 January 2003 he was examined by the cardiologist who found that the applicant had no heart problems. On 30 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist. On 11 March 2003 the applicant left the medical wing of the SIZO in a satisfactory state of health. Following this treatment, and until his release from detention, the applicant did not consult doctors with any health-related complaints. 43.  Following his release, the applicant underwent medical treatment in Kyiv Hospital no. 15 for arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy and ciliary arrhythmia from 7 to 27 August 2003.


6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and currently lives in Offenburg, Germany. 7.  The applicant left Bulgaria for Germany on 15 January 1992 and settled in Offenburg. On 28 January 1994 he married a German national, Ms E. Pfeifer, and adopted her family name. On 24 February 1995 they had a daughter. In July 1997 the applicant started work at a Daimler‑Benz factory in Stuttgart. Between 1998 and 2001, when he was in pre‑trial detention in Bulgaria and unable to provide for his family (see paragraph 24 below), the German authorities paid child support in his stead. 8.  On 19 May 2006 a court in Offenburg granted a divorce petition by the applicant's wife, chiefly on account of his prolonged absence because of the criminal proceedings against him in Bulgaria and the fact that he had been prevented from leaving that country to visit his family in Germany (see paragraphs 24‑38 below). 9.  On 3 February 1992 the Bulgarian authorities opened an investigation against the applicant on suspicion that on 14 January 1992 he had murdered a man in Pleven. On 1 October 1996 an investigator ordered his arrest. 10.  The applicant's whereabouts were established through Interpol and on 3 June 1998 he was arrested in Offenburg. On 22 June 1998 the Bulgarian authorities requested his extradition on charges of premeditated murder. On 7 October 1998 the German authorities agreed to extradite him and on 18 November 1998 he was sent to Bulgaria. 11.  On 29 December 1998 the applicant was charged with premeditated murder committed as a repeat offender. However, in April 1999 the charges were modified to aggravated robbery accompanied by murder. 12.  In a judgment of 18 April 2000 the Pleven Regional Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment. 13.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 24 October 2000 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal quashed his conviction and sentence and referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities. It found, among other things, that the applicant's conviction for robbery was in breach of the “rule of speciality” set forth in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition. 14.  On 28 February 2001 the applicant was charged with premeditated murder. On 9 November 2001 the prosecuting authorities decided to drop the charge of murder committed as a repeat offender. Following an application by the private prosecuting parties, in December 2001 the Pleven Regional Court set that decision aside and directed the prosecuting authorities to also charge the applicant with murder committed in the capacity of a repeat offender. 15.  On 15 February 2002 the prosecuting authorities indicted the applicant, charging him with premeditated murder committed as a repeat offender and in complicity. 16.  Between June 2002 and March 2004 the Pleven Regional Court held nine hearings. However, on 24 March 2005, pursuant to a request by the applicant, a judge and a lay judge withdrew from the case, the former because certain remarks that he had made could have been considered indicative of bias, and the latter on the ground that he had taken part in the examination of the application for judicial review of the prosecuting authorities' decision to drop the charge of murder committed as a repeat offender (see paragraph 14 above). Accordingly, the trial had to start anew. 17.  In June or July 2005 the applicant was indicted again. As the Pleven Regional Court found the indictment defective, it had to be re‑submitted in September 2005, charging the applicant with murder committed as a repeat offender. 18.  On 26 May 2006 the Pleven Regional Court acquitted the applicant. 19.  The prosecution appealed to the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal. However, as all the judges of that court had previously dealt with the case, chiefly in connection with requests for release or requests by the applicant to be allowed to leave Bulgaria (see paragraphs 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36 and 37 below), in November 2006 the proceedings were transferred to the Sofia Court of Appeal. 20.  On 27 June 2007 the Sofia Court of Appeal quashed the applicant's acquittal and found him guilty of murder committed as a repeat offender. It sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. 21.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 24 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment, finding that it had made certain clerical errors in the text of its judgment which, taken as a whole, made it impossible to ascertain the exact tenor of its ruling. 22.  The Sofia Court of Appeal examined the case afresh on 10 March 2008, and, on 21 April 2008, again quashed the applicant's acquittal and found him guilty of murder committed as a repeat offender. It sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. It observed that there were a number of aggravating circumstances, but went on to say that there existed a compelling mitigating circumstance: the amount of time which had elapsed since the commission of the offence. Part of that period could be attributed to the conduct of the applicant, who had escaped to Germany. However, there were still grounds to impose a punishment below the statutory minimum – fifteen years' imprisonment – to compensate for the excessive duration of the proceedings. 23.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 23 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld his conviction and sentence. It fully approved of the approach taken by the lower court with regard to the quantum of the punishment, saying that the reduction had made good an injustice towards the applicant, namely the failure to determine the charges against him within a reasonable time. 24.  On 19 November 1998, the day following his extradition (see paragraph 10 above), the applicant was placed in pre‑trial detention. On 7 February 2001 he was released. 25.  In the meantime, in February 1999 the immigration authorities took away his passport at the request of the investigation authorities. 26.  On 27 June 2001 the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to allow him to leave Bulgaria for sixty days to visit his wife and daughter in Germany. He argued that he had not seen them for four years, that they were experiencing financial difficulties, that he had a fixed place of abode in both Germany and Bulgaria, and that since his release from custody he had always remained at the disposal of the authorities. On 28 June 2001 his request was refused, and he sought judicial review by the Pleven Regional Court. On 1 August 2001 that court dismissed his application, holding that the gravity of the charges against him and the potential punishment made it likely that he would flee. There was no indication that he needed to travel urgently and there was nothing to indicate that he would not abscond. 27.  In February 2002 the applicant sought leave from the Pleven Regional Court to go to Germany. On 7 March 2002 the judge-rapporteur in his case turned down his request. He held that the fact that the applicant had left Bulgaria immediately after the commission of the offence was indicative of his desire to obstruct the proceedings. If he had really acted in good faith, there would have been no need to track him down through Interpol. There was no guarantee that, if allowed to go to Germany, he would return for the trial. He stood accused of a serious offence, committed as a repeat offender and carrying a punishment of between fifteen years' imprisonment and life imprisonment without parole. The harshness of the punishment in itself made it likely that he would try to flee. 28.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant asked the Pleven Regional Court to allow him to leave Bulgaria for twenty‑five days to visit his wife and daughter in Germany. He chiefly relied on the same arguments as before. On an unspecified date in April, May or June 2002 the judge-rapporteur rejected the request, giving exactly the same reasons as earlier. 29.  On 14 October 2002 the applicant made yet another request to be allowed to travel to Germany. He said that he had not seen his family for more than four years, which had adversely affected his family life, had had profoundly negative effects on the emotional state of his daughter, and had placed his wife and daughter in financial difficulties. He submitted a medical certificate showing that his wife had developed a psychogenic hysterical paralysis, which prevented her from taking proper care of their daughter. He also asserted that he could not provide for his family from Bulgaria and needed to go to Germany and register with the German social services in order to obtain financial support for them. He had not obstructed the progress of the proceedings in any way, had a permanent place of abode in both Bulgaria and Germany, and had never sought to evade justice. On 30 October 2002 the Pleven Regional Court rejected the request, briefly noting that the applicant had been charged with a serious wilful offence. The applicant's ensuing appeal was declared inadmissible by the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal on 13 November 2002, on the grounds that no appeal lay against the lower court's ruling and that the appeal had been signed solely by the applicant's counsel. 30.  On 13 December 2002 the applicant sought leave to travel to Germany, reiterating his earlier arguments. On 8 January 2003 the Pleven Regional Court rejected his request, briefly noting that he stood accused of a serious offence and that the lifting of the travel ban could hinder the establishment of the truth and the conclusion of the trial. 31.  The applicant made a further request on 2 July 2003, reiterating his previous arguments. The court rejected it the same day, briefly noting that the applicant stood accused of a serious offence and had been extradited from Germany. His family-related arguments could not be seen as decisive. The applicant's ensuing appeal was dismissed by the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal on 28 July 2003. 32.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant requested the lifting of the travel ban, reiterating his earlier arguments. On 14 August 2003 the Pleven Regional Court rejected his request, observing that he stood accused of a serious offence, had been hiding in Germany and had been extradited from there. The length of the criminal proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time. The fact that the applicant's family was in Germany was not decisive, as there was no indication that they could not visit him in Bulgaria. Moreover, he could work in Bulgaria and support his family from there. 33.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 August 2003 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling and allowed him to travel to Germany. In a detailed opinion it noted that, although the applicant had been charged with a serious offence and had been extradited and then kept in custody for a long time, he had not missed any hearings in his case. In the court's view, at that stage, when the proceedings had already lasted twelve years and thus exceeded a reasonable time, it was no longer justified to turn down the applicant's requests for permission to travel. The court reviewed the applicant's conduct between 1992 and 1998 and concluded that he had not tried to evade justice. It went on to say that in relying on the gravity of the charges against him the lower court had acted in breach of the presumption of innocence. The only relevant factor in that respect was the conduct of the accused during the proceedings. The court noted that the applicant had not obstructed the proceedings against him in any way since his release from detention, that the evidence against him was contradictory and that his family life had suffered serious disruption on account of a measure which could not be maintained forever. It also held that to allow the applicant to travel to Germany would not create a risk of his evading, because he could be re-arrested and extradited. However, the court turned down the applicant's request for a full lifting of the travel ban. 34.  In August and September 2003 the applicant travelled to Germany. He returned in time for the next hearing, which took place on 18 September 2003. 35.  On 19 December 2003 the applicant asked the Pleven Regional Court to allow him to travel to Germany again. He relied on the same arguments as previously and stressed that he had returned from his previous trip in time for the hearing. The court examined the request at a hearing held on 23 December 2003 and rejected it in a decision of the same day. It said that there was no indication that the applicant's family could not visit him in Bulgaria. He had been extradited from Germany and could not be allowed to leave Bulgaria. The applicant appealed, putting forward numerous detailed arguments. On 12 January 2004 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, saying that the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, coupled with his two previous convictions, showed that he was a dangerous individual. It was therefore likely that, if allowed to leave the country, he would not return. The fact that he had been extradited was telling in this respect. He could maintain contact with his family from Bulgaria. 36.  On 23 February 2004 the applicant made another request to be allowed to travel to Germany, putting forward arguments similar to those supporting his previous requests and stressing that the separation from his wife since 1998 had caused her to apply for a divorce, as could be seen from the grounds cited in her divorce petition (see paragraph 8 above). He repeated his request on 4 March 2004. On the same day the Pleven Regional Court rejected it, observing that there was no indication that the separation between the applicant and his wife had not predated his extradition. Moreover, the applicant had produced no proof to show that the divorce petition had already been heard. He stood accused of a serious wilful offence, in connection with which he had been extradited. The applicant appealed, reiterating his arguments. On 25 March 2004 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's ruling, holding that, in view of the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he had prior convictions, he was likely to flee. The proceedings against him had not lasted an unreasonably long time, because their duration was not attributable to the conduct of the authorities. The applicant's family could come to Bulgaria, whereas the lifting of the travel ban would render the earlier extradition pointless. 37.  On 8 December 2004 the applicant made a fresh request to be allowed to travel to Germany. On 14 February 2005 the Pleven Regional Court refused it. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 28 February 2005 the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal reversed this ruling and allowed the applicant to travel to Germany, giving exactly the same reasons as on 26 August 2003 (see paragraph 33 above). 38.  On 26 May 2006 the Pleven Regional Court, when acquitting the applicant (see paragraph 18 above), fully lifted the prohibition on his leaving Bulgaria. 39.  The applicant went to Germany, where, on 15 March 2007 he was employed by a German company. However, he attended all the hearings in the case against him in Bulgaria. 40.  On 27 June 2007 the Sofia Court of Appeal, when quashing the applicant's acquittal and finding him guilty (see paragraph 20 above), imposed a new travel ban, without giving reasons. The applicant's appeals against that order were declared inadmissible on the ground that no appeal lay against it. 41.  On 10 March 2008 the applicant asked the Sofia Court of Appeal to lift the travel ban. On the same day the court granted his request. It noted that he had a wife and a child in Germany and an address in Germany. It went on to observe that the judicial phase of the proceedings had been pending for too long, that the applicant, whose conduct during the proceedings had been exemplary, had not caused any adjournments, and that the ban had been in force since 27 June 2007. Finally, it could not be overlooked that the applicant had been acquitted by the lower court. 42.  It seems that after that the applicant went to Germany. He is currently there, fighting an extradition request from the Bulgarian authorities, which have issued a European arrest warrant for him with a view to enforcing his sentence, which became final on 23 December 2008 (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above). The proceedings are now pending before the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe).


5.  The applicants live in Voronezh, the Voronezh Region. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table. 6.  The applicants are pensioners. They sued the local social welfare authorities for underpaid cost-of-living adjustment of their pensions. On the dates set out in Appendix I the domestic courts granted their claims and ordered the welfare authorities of different districts of Voronezh to pay them the respective amounts. The judgments became final on the dates indicated in Appendix I. 7.  In 2001 all the applicants except for Mrs Gurova submitted the writs of execution to the bailiffs. On various dates of the same year the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the writs to the respective courts, referring to the debtor’s lack of funds. In 2004 these applicants resubmitted the enforcement documents for execution. The bailiffs returned the writs unenforced, with reference to the lack of funds. 8.  On 16 June 2006 the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh rejected Mrs Sadchikova’s complaint about the bailiffs’ negligence. 9. In their observations the Government submitted, without further detail, that at some point, apparently after 25 November 2005, the Main Department of Pension Fund of the Levoberezhnyy District of Voronezh had invited the applicant to receive the judgment debt, but she had refused. They informed the Court that on 3 July 2007 the unspecified documents regarding payment of the judgment debt had been sent to a local post office, for delivery to the applicant. They furnished no information or documents confirming that the applicant had received the amount. 10.  According to the Government, the writ of execution issued in respect the award in favour of Mrs Gurova was on 14 June 2000 returned to the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh, on account of full execution of the award. All the documents concerning the enforcement proceedings were subsequently archived and destroyed. The Government submitted that, apparently, the judgment had been enforced in 2000, but they were not in possession of any documents evidencing the enforcement. 11.  In 2005 Mrs Gurova asked the district pension authority to execute the judgment, but the authority rejected her claim on the ground that the domestic courts’ findings in her favour had been incorrect. 12.  On 11 July 2007 1,489.60 Russian Roubles (RUB) of the judgment debt were transferred to her bank account. According to the Government, this payment had been made due to humanitarian considerations and respect for human rights. 13.   The judgments in favour of the other applicants had been enforced on the dates tabulated in Appendix I. 14.  The above applicants submitted in their observations, without further detail, that at some point after communication of their cases by the Court they had been summoned for interviews by the local prosecutor’s office. It followed from the summonses they received that they were called in respect of their complaints to the Court. The summonses contained a reference to Article 6 of the Federal Law on Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation stipulating that the prosecutor’s instructions were binding, and the failure to comply with them might result in administrative responsibility. 15.   Mrs Gurova furnished a copy of a prosecutor’s explanatory note («объяснение») concerning her interview. It transpires from the note that the prosecutor asked the applicant questions about the judgment in her favour, the state of the enforcement proceedings and the authorities’ refusals to execute the award. The applicant confirmed that she was not willing to settle. Mrs Sadchikova and Mrs Sedykh did not furnish any details in respect of the interviews.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. 6.  During the evening of 14 October 2003 the applicant assaulted Ms G. in an attempt to steal her handbag. After searching the surrounding streets, Ms G. and her acquaintance, Mr Sh., located the applicant at a bus stop nearby. 7.  As quoted in the report of the internal security office of the Interior Department of the South-West Administrative District of Moscow of 19 December 2003 (see paragraph 21 below), police officers M. and S., who arrived at the scene after a telephone call from Ms G., stated that when they arrived they saw that the applicant’s head had been bleeding and his jacket was torn. They handcuffed him when he attempted to escape. 8.  After taking the applicant to Cheremushinskoye police station, the police officers called an ambulance which took him to a hospital for first aid to be administered. Afterwards he was taken back to the police station and released on the following day after questioning. 9.  On 17 October 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted by the investigative department of Cheremushinskoye police station against the applicant in connection with the incident of 14 October 2003. On the same date the investigator drew up a record of the inspection of Ms G.’s handbag describing its appearance and contents which included a cell phone and a certain amount of money. The record also included an estimate of the cost of the objects. Two attesting witnesses, P. and K., put their signatures on the record of inspection and on the decision of the same date to include in the body of evidence the above-mentioned objects. 10.  The records of the questioning of Ms G. and Mr Sh. of 3 November 2003 contain the following identical statements:
“[The applicant] tried to run away but Sh. stopped him and grabbed his arms. [The applicant] made several other attempts at absconding before the arrival of the police, which is why Sh. had to physically restrain him, and that might have caused some bodily injury ... Upon their arrival the police handcuffed [the applicant].” 11.  When being questioned on 3 December 2003 as a suspect, the applicant stated the following:
“The woman pushed me in the chest, and the man hit me on the head with the handle of a handgun, causing bleeding ... The woman walked to a nearby shopping centre and returned with two security guards, after which the three men started beating me. Then the woman used her mobile phone to call the police ... I was then taken to Cheremushkinskoye police station where I was handcuffed to the iron bar of a cell.
In the questioning office ... I was told to sit down on the floor. On several occasions I tried to get up and the police officer took a truncheon and hit me across the legs. The other police officers started mocking me and told me to sing [a children’s song] to identify my voice, which I did as I feared that I would be subjected to physical violence.” 12.  On 4 December 2003 an expert forensic report concluded that he suffered from “shift-like” schizophrenia with pronounced psychological effects. 13.  On 27 May 2004 the Cheremushinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”), while considering the criminal charge against the applicant, refused a request by the applicant’s counsel to summon the attesting witnesses P. and K., who were allegedly ex-police officers, for lack of sufficient grounds to question their identity. Counsel further demanded that the signed documents be struck out of the list of evidence as they were improperly drawn up. This request was also dismissed as the court held that the documents had been drawn up in accordance with the law. 14.  On 28 May 2004 the District Court found that the applicant had committed attempted robbery with assault, but relieved him of criminal liability on account of his mental-health status and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital. The court based its conclusion on the statements of Ms G. and Mr Sh. made in court, as well as various procedural documents, including the record of inspection of Ms G.’s belongings and the decision to include the objects in the body of evidence signed by the attesting witnesses. It also referred to the statement made by the applicant’s mother, who acted as his lawful representative, to the effect that the applicant had been beaten up by strangers who had subsequently turned him in to the police. 15.  On 11 August 2004 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the above-mentioned decision on appeal. 16.  On 16 October 2003 the applicant’s mother complained to the prosecutor of the Cheremushinskiy District of Moscow, requesting the opening of criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in custody. On an unspecified date her complaint was referred by the prosecutor to the internal security office of the Interior Department of the South-West Administrative District of Moscow for an inquiry. 17.  On 16 October 2003 the applicant went to a municipal hospital which recorded multiple bruises on his head, neck and torso, and an abrasion on the back of his head. 18.  On 18 October 2003 he attended at another hospital which recorded an infected wound on his head and hypoesthesia of the fingers of the right hand. 19.  Both records contain the following references:
“According to the [applicant], on 14 October 2003 he was beaten up by the officers of Cheremushinskoye police station”. 20.  On 4 December 2003 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case commissioned an expert forensic report on account of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment made in the course of the criminal investigation against him. In his order he indicated that the experts should examine the available medical documents. He also referred the complaint of ill-treatment for examination to the prosecutor’s office of the Cheremushinskiy District of Moscow. 21.  On 19 December 2003 the internal security office of the Interior Department of the South-West Administrative District of Moscow completed the inquiry prompted by the applicant’s mother’s complaint, producing a report of the same date. In particular, the inquiring officer stated as follows:
“Police officers M. and S. questioned in the course of the inquiry stated that they had put handcuffs on [the applicant] as during the apprehension the latter had put up resistance and had tried to hit M.
The above-mentioned officers also stated that when they had discovered that [the applicant] had a head injury, they called an ambulance after escorting [the applicant] to the police station.
After [the applicant] was administered medical aid at Moscow municipal hospital no. 1, he was again brought to Cheremushinskoye police station.
Duty officer Shi. and investigator G. stated that there had been no unlawful actions during [the applicant’s] apprehension and questioning.
...
Thus, the allegations of unlawful actions by police officers were not proved during the inquiry, and the use of handcuffs was not in breach of Article 14 of the Police Act.
However, given that the complaint refers to unlawful actions by police officers which fall within the competence of the prosecutor’s office, [I] suggest terminating the internal inquiry, sending the material collected by the internal inquiry to the Cheremushinskiy District prosecutor’s office for taking a decision in accordance with the law, and informing the parties concerned about the decision.” 22.  On 24 December 2003 the State forensic experts issued a conclusion which reiterated the medical data as described above (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above) and stated that the recorded injuries had not led to any consequences for the applicant’s health. The experts could not determine the circumstances or the date of the injuries due to the lack of comprehensive data. 23.  On 9 January 2004 the prosecutor of the Cheremushkinskiy District of Moscow, relying on the statements made by police officers M., S. and Shi. in the context of the investigation by the internal security office, decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. 24.  On 22 September 2004 the applicant, his mother and counsel challenged the above decision in court. 25.  On 18 November 2004 the District Court heard the applicant’s mother, his counsel and a representative of the prosecutor’s office and dismissed the complaint as unfounded after concluding that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by the third parties who had restrained him at the scene. In particular, the court said:
“As follows from the statements given by Ms G., Mr Sh. and police officers S. and M., at the moment of the arrest [the applicant] ... had injuries which had occurred before arrival of the police. [The applicant’s mother] ... also confirmed at the hearing that her son had been beaten up with a handgun before arrival of the officers of Cheremushkinskoye police station.” 26.  On 3 February 2005 the City Court upheld the above decision on appeal.


6.  The applicant, Ms M.B., is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bacău. She was not represented by a lawyer before the Court or before the domestic authorities at any time. 7.  She has been eligible for welfare benefits since 1996 as a disabled person who is unfit to work. 8.  On 14 September 2000 she was diagnosed as suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia”. Since then, she has been registered in the files of several psychiatric institutions. 9.  The applicant is the mother of three children, two of whom, C.-L. and C.-I., born in 1992 and 1994 respectively, were minors at the material time. Her eldest daughter was above the age of majority. 10.  A letter dated 18 January 2011 from the Bacău City Council Guardianship Authority to the Agent of the Romanian Government before the Court states that “according to checks carried out in the database of the Guardianship Authority Section (Compartimentul Autoritate Tutelară) at Bacău City Council, no measures to protect the interests of Ms [M.B.] – who has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia – have been put in place (nu s-a instituit), either by means of partial or full guardianship”. The letter adds that “likewise, no temporary guardianship arrangements have been made to assist her two children or to protect their interests during their mother’s detention”. 11.  On several occasions since 2000 the applicant has been taken, usually by the police, to the psychiatric department of Bacău Hospital or the Socola psychiatric clinic and admitted for treatment. This happened between 14 September and 13 October 2000, 1 and 15 May 2002, 21 January and 17 February 2003, 12 May and 2 June 2004, 26 October and 4 November 2005, 18 and 31 March 2006, 21 July and 8 August 2006, 25 August and 13 September 2006, and 8 and 22 October 2007. 12.  For example, in a letter dated 11 January 2003 the Izvoru Bereheciului police asked Bacău Hospital to admit the applicant on the grounds that she had been “found undernourished (subnutrită), living in a room without heating and with no material support”. The letter concluded as follows: “We would be grateful if you could take medical action as her behaviour is antisocial”. 13.  The form for the applicant’s admission to the hospital’s psychiatric department, dated 12 May 2004, included a note in the “type of admission” section indicating that the police had taken her to the hospital as a matter of emergency. A letter from the police dated the same day stated that the reason for taking her to the hospital was that she “represented a danger to her neighbours in the village by habitually starting fires in the courtyard of her house, entering local authority premises and frightening children in the street through her aggressive conduct”. 14.  Similarly, a hospital discharge form dated 8 August 2006 stated that the applicant had been “readmitted to hospital after being brought there by the police (se reinternează adusă de poliţie)” on 21 July 2006. An undated letter signed by the applicant requesting admission to the hospital was filed together with her admission form dated 21 July 2006. The letter stated that, should the need arise, her children could be contacted at their care home, the address of which was indicated. 15.  A similar note indicating “type of admission: police” appears on the admission form dated 25 August 2006. A letter from the police dated the same day gave the same reasons as those set out in the letter of 12 May 2004, adding that the applicant had apparently “also been raped during the night of 24 to 25 August 2006”. These events formed the subject of the B. v. Romania case (no. 42390/07, 10 January 2012). 16.  The documents sent to the Court indicate that each time she was admitted to hospital, the applicant left after stays of varying lengths. 17.  According to information supplied by the Government, the applicant was admitted to hospital four times in 2008, spending a total of five months in the psychiatric department for patients with chronic disorders. 18.  In 2009 she was admitted to Buhuşi Hospital six times, spending a total of ten and a half months in the psychiatric department for patients with chronic disorders. In 2010 she was admitted a further seven times, spending a total of more than eleven months in hospital. 19.  The applicant considers that she has been “permanently detained” by the authorities. She has not informed the Court whether she has challenged these measures under Law no. 487/2002 on mental health and the protection of individuals with mental disorders. 20.  In a letter of 31 January 2011 to the Agent of the Romanian Government, the director of Buhuşi Hospital gave assurances that the applicant was being kept in good conditions in the hospital. The other relevant parts of the letter read as follows:
“In reply to your letter no. 319 of 21 January 2011 concerning the case of [M.B.] we wish to provide the following clarifications: ...
[M.B.] is a chronically ill patient who has been admitted to psychiatric clinics since 2000; she has delusions of persecution and prejudice.
She has the right to receive information, as is demonstrated by her correspondence with the ECHR over several years.
In our view, it is surprising that her bizarre, delirious, incoherent allegations – the work of a patient with chronic mental disorders – should be taken into account, thus constantly obliging us to produce replies and official letters running to tens of pages, including archived documents, and to make a sustained effort to refute her blatant lies.
... [M.B.] is not a victim of the Romanian State but rather of the condition from which she is suffering.” 21.  From 2000 the applicant’s two minor children no longer lived with her and, on account of her illness, were placed in a care home for abandoned children by a decision of the Bacău Child Welfare Board. 22.  Two articles published on 9 and 12 September 2000 in the local newspaper Deşteptarea described the unhealthy conditions in which the applicant and her two minor children were living. 23.  The day after the articles were published, the authorities were informed that the two children were being fed “grass, chestnuts, plantain leaves and mushrooms gathered in parks” and that their mother had also refused to enrol them in school. 24.  On 12 September 2000, at the urging of social workers – as is apparent from a report of 13 September 2000 – the children’s maternal grandmother sought assistance from the Bacău County Social Welfare and Child Protection Department (Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului – “the DGASPC”) in having the applicant admitted to a specialist hospital on account of her mental illness and violent behaviour. The grandmother stated that the two children did not attend school and sometimes went without food and were left unsupervised, and gave her consent for them to be taken into care. The children were aged eight and six at the time. 25.  Later that day, four welfare officers, two of them from the DGASPC and the other two from a care home for children, went to the applicant’s house accompanied by a police officer. According to a report of 13 September 2000, drawn up following the visit, it was “plain to see” that the applicant was ill, that there was a lack of food in the house and that the living conditions were inadequate; for example, there was no heating or electricity. The report proposed that the children be taken into care as a matter of urgency because “their mother posed a danger to them”. 26.  The social services obtained statements from three of the applicant’s neighbours, who described the appalling conditions in which the two children were living with their mother. 27.  On the same day, the social workers took the children to the care home, after obtaining their grandmother’s written consent. 28.  Two psychosocial assessment reports were drawn up. They described the children’s family situation and social, material and emotional well-being, highlighting their dangerous living conditions. The reports noted that since 15 September 2000 the applicant had been detained in a psychiatric hospital. 29.  In decisions nos. 978 and 979 of 26 September 2000 the Bacău Child Welfare Board ordered the children’s placement in the Centrul Lalelelor (“Tulips”) care home. 30.  The applicant did not appeal against those decisions. 31.  In decisions nos. 1374 and 1375 of 5 December 2000 the same board transferred the children to the Poiana Florilor (“Flower Meadow”) care home in Humeiuş. 32.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 33.  On an application by the DGASPC, the Bacău County Court ordered in judgments of 14 December 2005 and 27 January 2006 that the children should remain in care. It also decided that the exercise of parental rights was to be delegated to the director of the care home. 34.  The applicant was neither present nor represented in court. 35.  The children were interviewed by the court in the presence of a social worker from the home. 36.  The court observed that in September 2000 the children had been found in their mother’s house in a state of destitution, without any lighting or food, and that they had not been enrolled in school. It added that their maternal grandmother was too old to look after them. The court concluded that the children’s placement in care was in their interests, while also noting that since they had been in the home they had received regular visits from their mother. 37.  The applicant did not appeal against those judgments. 38.  She subsequently contacted various authorities in an attempt to regain custody of her children. 39.  In two judgments of 17 August 2007 the Bacău County Court transferred the two children to the SOS Satul Copiilor (“SOS Children’s Village”) care home in Humeiuş, following the reorganisation of care homes. It held that their continued placement in care was justified by the fact that they had been emotionally abused by their mother at the time when they had initially been taken into care on 12 September 2000. 40.  The applicant did not appeal against those judgments. 41.  Reports issued by the DGASPC and periodic reports by representatives of Izvorul Berheciului District Council indicate that the children have often been visited by their mother.


4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region. 5.  On 20 December 1998 police searched the applicant's house. 6.  On 20 June 2000 the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul found, upon the applicant's complaint, that the search had been unlawful. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force ten days later. On 8 May 2001 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court rejected the Prosecutor's application for supervisory review and upheld the judgment of 20 June 2000. 7.  On 18 December 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul granted the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for compensation of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unlawful search and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles. By a decision of 24 March 2004 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 29 July 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a writ of execution. 8.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but on 10 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned it to the applicant on the ground that he had failed to submit a duly certified copy of the judgment of 18 December 2003 and a payment request with indication of his bank account. 9.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant re-submitted the enforcement materials to the Ministry of Finance. However, on 12 January 2005 the Ministry of Finance returned them to the applicant for the reason that the date of delivery of the judgment had been indicated incorrectly. 10.  On 8 February 2005 the enforcement documents were once again forwarded to the Ministry of Finance. 11.  The date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties. According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced on 2 May 2005. From the applicant's submissions it follows that he had received the amount awarded by the judgment of 18 December 2003 on 2 May 2006.


5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Ryazan in the Ryazan Region. He is a former military officer. 6.  In 2002 the applicant sued his military unit for wage arrears for his military service in 1996 when he had taken part in a military operation in Tajikistan. 7.  On 22 February 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison upheld the action and awarded the applicant 163,732.80 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 8.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant received a writ of execution and submitted it to the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury. On 26 April 2002, after the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury had refused to execute the judgement, the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. 9.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant was discharged from the army. 10.  On 16 July 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 22 February 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison. 11.  On 15 September 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison decided not to examine the action as the applicant had defaulted at two hearings. 12.  On 12 August 2004 the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting on a supervisory review, found that the applicant had not been duly summonsed to the hearings before the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison, quashed the judgment of 16 July 2003 and the decision of 15 September 2003 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command. 13.  On 15 September 2004 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, re-examined the case, awarded the applicant RUR 56,311.20 and dismissed the remainder of his claims. 14.  In January 2005 the applicant asked the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004. On 3 May 2005 the request was dismissed. 15.  In July 2005 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to quash the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of a supervisory review. On 10 August 2005 the Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to institute supervisory-review proceedings in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004.


4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  In 1995, a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of fraud and bribery. On 31 August 1995 the investigators searched the applicant’s home and office. They removed some items and money. 6.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant sued the Prosecutor’s Office for the return of his possessions. On 27 May 1998 the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal case. 7.  By decisions of 29 November 2000 and 23 January 2001, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that the searches of 31 August 1995 had been unlawful. 8.  In July 2002 the civil proceedings were resumed. 9.  On 4 February 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. Prosecutors returned a part of the applicant’s possessions but the rest of them had already been disposed of. 10.  In its judgment of 8 February 2005, the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 136, 8 February 2005). 11.  On 9 March 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly upheld the applicant’s claims. On 18 May 2005 the St Petersburg City Court remitted the case to the first instance for a fresh examination. 12.  On 13 February 2007 the applicant submitted an amended statement of claims. In particular, he asked the court to award him damages in respect of the loss of value and profit, and, finally, costs and expenses. 13.  By a final judgment of 3 October 2007, the St Petersburg City Court awarded the applicant damages and costs and expenses in the amounts claimed but dismissed his claim for the loss of profit. The City Court acknowledged that the investigative authorities had illegally removed, and subsequently disposed of, the applicant’s property. 14.  The judgment was enforced in January 2008.


5.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1967, 1945, 1953, 1957 and 1959, respectively. Mr Talat Acar lives in İzmir. The other applicants live in Midyat. 6.  At the time of the events the applicants were living in the village of Çalpınar, which is located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Midyat, in south-east Turkey. 7.  On 20 April 1992 a number of villagers from Çalpınar village were travelling in two vehicles. Some time after they left their village the vehicles were stopped by a group of village guards[1]. The village guards then opened fire on the villagers and killed six of them, including the first applicant's brother and the sixth applicant's husband, Mr Süleyman Acar[2]. A number of other villagers were injured. Two of the injured persons, including the second applicant's brother and the fifth applicant's husband, Mr Sabri Acar, died the following day in hospital. The third and the fourth applicants were among those injured in the incident. The third applicant, Yusuf Acar, was shot in the leg and his injuries required a month to heal. The fourth applicant, Süleyman Acar, had broken bones and a bullet had split in his body. The doctors did not deem it necessary to remove the bullet pieces as they were not life-threatening. 8.  The same day the Midyat prosecutor visited the area and, with the assistance of a forensic doctor, examined the bodies. It was established that the deceased persons had been shot at close range. 9.  The prosecutor asked the gendarmes who were in the area to collect the spent bullet cases. When the soldiers refused to help him, the prosecutor himself collected and secured a total of sixty-six spent cartridges discharged from the village guards' rifles. The rifles had been given to the village guards by the gendarmerie. As the gendarmes also refused to take the injured persons to the hospital, the prosecutor's clerk had to do it himself. 10.  The prosecutor expressed the opinion that the village guards had set an ambush to kill the villagers. 11.  According to a report prepared by the gendarmerie, however, it had not been the village guards who opened fire on the villagers but a group of PKK[3] members wearing military uniforms. 12.  On 8 July 1992 the Midyat prosecutor filed an indictment with the Midyat Assize Court, charging twenty-seven village guards with multiple offences of homicide and attempted homicide. 13.  For security reasons the trial was moved from the Midyat Assize Court to the Denizli Assize Court, in the west of the country. 14.  Some eight and a half years later the Denizli Assize Court rendered its judgment on 20 November 2000 and acquitted all the defendants. 15.  On 7 February 2002 the Denizli Assize Court's judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in respect of seventeen of the twenty-seven village guards but was quashed in respect of the remaining ten. 16.  A retrial began before the Denizli Assize Court, which, on 20 May 2003, found the ten village guards guilty of the murder of the eight villagers as well as the attempted murder of a number of others, including the third and fourth applicants. The village guards were sentenced to life imprisonment. In its judgment the Denizli Assize Court stated the following:
“In view of the autopsy reports, there is no question as to the cause of death of the villagers. Instead, the question to be resolved is whether those who fired on the villagers were the accused village guards.
It is not possible to rely solely on the witness statements as they are contradictory on several points. However the witness statements given during the preliminary investigation seem to be, in general, objective. Relying on these initial statements it is established that the persons who had fired had their faces covered in order not to be recognised.
Furthermore, in the court's opinion, what a military commander should normally do when he is notified of an incident is to go to the scene of the incident as soon as possible. However in the present case, the fact that the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç checked all twenty-seven weapons one by one, without taking any action, is incomprehensible. Moreover the court notes that the Midyat Public Prosecutor maintained that the soldiers were not collecting the empty cartridges to help him and that he had to personally collect the empty cartridges which were near the dead bodies. In view of the above, the court concludes that Ali Kılıç, Kazım Demirbaş and Arif Güner were trying to defend the accused who were working with them to fight against terrorism, and therefore it does not find their statements reliable.
Considering the Midyat Public Prosecutor's statements, in which he said that there was a smell of gunpowder, the court comes to the conclusion that the allegation concerning the placing of empty cartridges at the scene of the incident in order to implicate the village guards in the crime is not corroborated in any persuasive manner by eyewitnesses or other evidence.
Moreover, the fact that three of the sixty-six cartridges were not fired from the village guards' weapons cannot be taken as a proof of their innocence. It is possible that one of the village guards had a weapon that had not been seized by the authorities after the incident.
In conclusion, relying on the findings of the ballistic report and the statements of the Midyat Public Prosecutor, who had an impartial position in the present case, the court decides that ten of the accused village guards are responsible for the wounding and killing of the villagers whom they considered to be PKK supporters.” 17.  On 9 December 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the Denizli Assize Court's judgment in respect of two of the village guards and upheld it in respect of the remaining eight. 18.  Criminal proceedings against the two village guards recommenced before the Denizli Assize Court and are still continuing, according to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties.


5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Samara. 6.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. She was issued with a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations. As a holder of the certificate she was entitled to certain monthly payments. 7.  In February and March 2000 the Social Security Department of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk (Управление социальной защиты населения Октябрьского района г. Орска, hereinafter “the social security service”) paid to the applicant the arrears for the period from November 1999 to March 2000. 8.  On 13 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully defaulted on the monthly payments from November 1999 to February 2000. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 24 April 2000. 9.  In April 2000 the social security service discontinued the payments. The applicant sued the social security service. 10.  On 20 August 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully refused to pay. The applicant held a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations in Chernobyl and was entitled to receive the payments. On 25 September 2001 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable. 11.  On 14 December 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs. 12.  On 17 December 2001 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings. 13.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant received 11,762 Russian roubles (RUB). 14.  On 11 July 2002 the bailiffs directed that the social security service pay the judgment debt by 20 August 2002. The social security service did not comply. 15.  The judgment remains unenforced in part. According to the Government, the debt amounts to RUB 13,002.20. 16.  On 22 June 2002 Judge R., the President of the Orenburg Regional Court, lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001. 17.  On 30 September 2002 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court chaired by Judge R. quashed the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001, and remitted the cases for a fresh examination before the District Court. It found that the District Court had erred in the assessment of the facts and application of domestic law. In particular, it had not verified whether the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was valid. 18.  On 29 November 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court held that the discontinuation of the monthly payments had been lawful and dismissed the applicant's claims. It found that the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster had been issued by an unauthorised person and was void. Consequently the applicant was not entitled to monthly payments.


4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Iaşi. 5.  On 23 November 1999 the prosecutor attached to the Piteşti Court of Appeal issued an arrest warrant against the applicant, who was accused of tax evasion. 6.  The applicant was apprehended on 5 September 2000 and was placed in police custody for a period of thirty days. The Piteşti District Court, to which the applicant was first brought on 28 September 2000, repeatedly extended his pre-trial detention, until the end of the proceedings before it. 7.  The District Court gave judgment on 19 February 2002. On the basis of the depositions made by the applicant, four co-defendants and twenty-one witnesses, the court convicted the applicant under several heads of tax evasion and forgery, and sentenced him to six years and six months’ imprisonment with an obligation, under Article 113 of the Criminal Code, to undergo medical treatment for his mental disorder as identified by the medical reports adduced in the case. The court ordered that the medical treatment be administered through the prison hospitals, while the applicant was in detention, and continue after his release until his complete recovery. It also upheld the order for the applicant’s detention. 8.  In a decision of 25 June 2002, the Argeş County Court allowed appeals against the judgment and, based on the evidence in the case and the defendants’ depositions, reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years and six months’ imprisonment. It upheld the remainder of the District Court’s judgment. 9.  This decision was confirmed, upon an appeal on points of law by the defendants, in a final decision of 8 October 2002 of the Piteşti Court of Appeal. 10.  On 20 September 2000 the applicant’s lawyer filed a request with the prosecutor for the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation. The Argeş Forensic Medicine Institute examined the applicant and concluded, on 2 October 2000, that he had been mentally competent for legal purposes both when the alleged offences had been committed and at the date of the evaluation.
The applicant contested the conclusion of the report. 11.  On 18 December 2000 the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Medicine Institute in Bucharest confirmed the Argeş Forensic Institute’s report, after having examined the applicant. It also recommended that, pursuant to Article 113 of the Criminal Code, the applicant be required to undergo medical treatment for his mental disorder both during the detention and after his release. 12.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant underwent a full medical examination at the Argeş Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical commission concluded that the applicant’s mental disorder did not render him unfit for detention. 13.  According to the detailed medical record from the period of pre-trial detention, submitted by the Government, the applicant was hospitalised seven times in prison hospitals. He was mainly diagnosed with thrombophlebitis, venous insufficiency and a mental disorder. Each time he was discharged, the doctors recommended treatment for his various illnesses, periodical re-evaluations and medical check-ups when needed.
During this interval he was seen twenty-seven times by the prison doctors, on 23 and 30 October, 6, 13 and 27 November, 11 and 20 December 2001, 11 February, 17 June, 1, 8, 20, 22 and 29 July, 5, 12, 16, 19 and 26 August, 2, 9, 20, 23 and 30 September, and 7, 13 and 19 October 2002.
Records indicate that medicine was systematically administered for his venous insufficiency and until 20 December 2001 for his mental disorder. The latter treatment was interrupted until 5 August 2002 and after this date was given sporadically. 14.  During his detention, several disciplinary measures were taken against the applicant. Accordingly, his visit and parcel rights were withdrawn on 26 March 2001, 28 December 2001, 10 January and 8 April 2002, for possession of forbidden objects. From 4 to 14 January 2002 he was kept in solitary confinement. 15.  Lastly, on 5 February 2002 the penitentiary authorities placed the applicant in restrictive confinement (“regim restrictiv”), for twelve months due to his recalcitrant behaviour and repetitive infringements of the prison regulations. However, on 14 June 2002 he was reintegrated into the normal detention regime, for good behaviour.
The applicant claimed that while subject to the restrictive detention regime he had been kept in a cold cell wearing worn clothes that had been inadequate for the temperature, sometimes handcuffed with his hands above his head, and that for the first month he had not been seen by a doctor and that correspondence to and from his family had been tampered with. 16.  In October 2002, after the adoption of the final decision in the case, the applicant was transferred to Iaşi high-security Prison and placed in the section designated for extremely dangerous prisoners. 17.  The applicant claimed that, despite his repeated requests to be seen by a specialist doctor and administered adequate medical treatment, during the first eight months of detention he had only been examined by the prison doctor, who had consistently informed him that there had been no funds for continuing his treatment. The prison doctor had told him: “there is no problem if you die, we have a priest and there is wood in the store house” (“nu e nici o problemă dacă mori, avem preot şi scânduri la magazie”).
On an unspecified date, upon repeated requests by his family to the prison authorities, the applicant was transferred to a different dormitory. 18.  According to the Government, the applicant was placed in shared dormitories, the first measuring 41.12 sq. m and the latter 60.69 sq. m, which he shared respectively with nine and fifty-three other prisoners. The dormitories had windows. Hygiene facilities were permanently accessible to prisoners in a separate room. Warm water was available once a week. The applicant had daily one-hour walks, frequently received visits from members of his family and participated in the social programme of the penitentiary. His medical treatment continued. 19.  On 11 July 2003, the Iaşi prison authorities informed the applicant’s counsel that the applicant was not receiving any medical treatment at that moment, but that such treatment would be administered if necessary. 20.  From 3 February 2004 to 7 February 2005, the execution of the sentence was suspended for medical reasons. On 16 June 2005 the applicant was released on probation.


5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Goyty of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She was the mother of Sultan Shotovich Vagapov. 6.  The applicant alleges that from 14 to 16 January 2005 the Russian authorities “mopped up” the village of Zumsoy of the Itum-Kalinskiy District of Chechnya, by first bombarding and then “cleaning it up” by entering houses and abducting some of the residents. 7.  In January 2005 the applicant was invited for an interview in the Territorial Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Goyty village in the Urus‑Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She alleges that she was shown a copy of her son’s identity card and a photograph of a dead person, presumably her son Sultan Shotovich Vagapov. She was also informed that he had been killed during the mopping-up operation in the village of Zumsoy in early 2005. According to the authorities, the applicant’s son was a rebel whose body would be kept at the military base near the village of Khankala. 8.  The applicant was unable to identify her son solely on the basis of the photograph and asked to see the body, without success. 9.  The applicant’s requests to have the body of her son returned to her remained essentially unanswered until 26 April 2005, when the Military Prosecutor, relying on section 16.1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act and section 14.1 of the Interment and Burial Act, responded that “the bodies of terrorists are not handed over for burial and the place of their burial remains undisclosed”. 10.  The Prosecutor’s Office indicated that her son had offered armed resistance during the operation of 14 January 2005 and was killed. He was found to have been in possession of an automatic rifle, an ammunition belt and a backpack with his personal belongings. 11.  The Government confirmed that a special operation had taken place in the vicinity of the village of Zumsoy between 14 and 16 January 2005, which had resulted in detection of a boot camp belonging to the insurgents. An airstrike and subsequent search of the area lead to the discovery of the corpse of the applicant’s son, Sultan Shotovich Vagapov, along with an automatic rifle and ammunition presumably belonging to him. The body carried an ID card, which enabled swift identification. 12.  The Government submitted that an official inquiry into, among other things, the finding of the corpse of the applicant’s son resulted in a decision of 15 April 2005. It described the collected pieces of evidence, including the oral evidence given by the soldiers who had searched the area after the airstrike and the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, and concluded that his death had resulted from a justified use of lethal force in respect of an armed terrorist. 13.  It appears that the applicant challenged the prosecutor’s letter of 26 April 2005 in court. On 19 December 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court upheld the decision not to return the body of the applicant’s son for burial without reviewing its merits. The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya on 30 May 2006.