5.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Ruban, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence. 6.  On 13 August 1996 the Voznesensk local prosecutor’s office in the Mykolayiv region started an investigation into the murder of four persons on 12 August 1996. 7.  On 18 October 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office started investigating the murder of A. 8.  On 10 November 1999 the Slavyansk Police Department of the Donetsk region started an investigation into hooliganism concerning R. 9.  On 22 November 1999 the above three investigations were joined. Several persons were suspected of committing the above crimes as a group, one of them being the applicant. 10.  On 14 December 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office formally charged the applicant in absentia with the above crimes. He was also placed on the list of wanted persons. The same day the investigation in respect of the applicant was suspended until he was apprehended; the criminal proceedings continued in respect of the other suspects. 11.  On 23 December 2002, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal convicted and sentenced G., P. and F. for the above mentioned crimes. 12.  On 2 February 2004 the Slavyansk Local Court ordered the applicant’s detention. 13.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant was apprehended by the Yartsevo Prosecutor’s Office in the Smolensk region, Russia. 14.  On 31 March 2008 the investigation was resumed after the applicant had been extradited to Ukraine. The same day the applicant was formally charged with participation in an organised criminal group together with G., P., F. and two other persons, who had died in the intervening time. The applicant was accused of strangling A., of killing four persons together with G. in 1996 and inflicting grievous bodily harm on R. in a murder attempt, the latter crime in the context of the extortion of R’s brother. All these crimes had been committed as a group. 15.  On 22 May 2008 the investigation was completed and on 26 June 2008 the case was transferred to the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. 16.  On 10 July 2009 the Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and banditry and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 17.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, considering that the applicant’s guilt had not been proved. 18.  On 15 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 10 July 2009. On that day the applicant’s lawyer submitted an additional appeal claiming that the Court of Appeal had to apply the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, which was that between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000 when the death penalty had already been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced. The Supreme Court in its decision noted that the applicant had been sentenced correctly.


5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Frolovo, Volgograd region. 6.  On 17 April 2009 Mr K. was found with very serious bodily injuries in the entrance to a block of flats. He died in hospital several days later. 7.  Between 7.15 a.m. and 8.55 a.m. on 18 April 2009 the scene of the incident was examined by investigator P. from the investigating unit of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district police department of Volgograd with the participation of attesting witnesses, police officers, and the applicant, who lived in the same block of flats. According to the record of the examination of the scene of the incident, the applicant stated that he had physically assaulted K. and described the circumstances of the crime committed by him against K. At around 9.30 a.m. the applicant was brought to the police station of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district of Volgograd (УВД по Красноармейскому району г. Волгограда), where operative police officers interviewed him about the circumstances of the crime. 8.  According to the applicant, they demanded that he give statements concerning the circumstances of the crime committed by him and subjected him to ill-treatment which the applicant described as follows. Having handcuffed him, they punched and kicked him, hitting him with a rubber truncheon and giving him electric shocks using a device called a “TP-50”. The applicant gave the statements as demanded. 9.  At 6 p.m. investigator Ye. of the investigating unit of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district police department of Volgograd initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and his brother. At 8 p.m. the investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect and questioned him from 8.30 p.m. until 10 p.m. in the presence of D., a State-appointed lawyer invited by investigator Ye. The applicant repeated the statements incriminating himself and his brother and also stated that the previous evening he had been drunk and had fallen down a flight of stairs, and that he therefore had a headache and pain in the area of his ribs and kidneys. 10.  At 2.15 a.m. on 19 April 2009 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility (an “IVS”) at the Volgograd town police department. According to a document signed by a senior police transportation officer, the IVS duty officer and the applicant, the applicant had: (i) a haematoma on the left side of the body; (ii) a swelling on the left hip; and (iii) a swelling and redness on the right ear. 11.  On 20 April 2009 the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court ordered his detention on remand. The applicant was taken to hospital no. 15. He complained of pain in his chest and in his left knee joint, and of generally feeling unwell. At the hospital he was diagnosed with contusion to the thoracic cage and left wrist, and his condition was assessed as not incompatible with being detained in a pre-trial detention facility. 12.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention facility SIZO-4, where he was examined by the SIZO doctor who recorded multiple abrasions and haematomas on his trunk, and contusion to the thoracic cage and left wrist. The applicant was interviewed by the SIZO officer. He stated that he had received the injuries as a result of ill-treatment by police officers on 18 April 2009 whilst held at the Krasnoarmeyskiy district police department of Volgograd. 13.  The SIZO operative unit carried out an inquiry into the incident and concluded in a report of 22 April 2009 ‒ approved by the acting head of the SIZO ‒ that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by police officers from the Krasnoarmeyskiy district police department at about 11 a.m. on 18 April 2009 during the applicant’s interview. 14.  On 28 April 2009 the applicant was examined as an accused in the presence of lawyer D. The applicant stated that when examined as a suspect on 18 April 2009 he had given statements – concerning the origin of his injuries and also his brother’s involvement in the crime – as demanded by the police officers who had ill-treated him, as he had still been in physical pain and was under the influence of threats from them, as well as threats from investigator Ye. that he would find himself at the hands of those police officers again should he not give “correct” statements. The applicant described the circumstances of his alleged ill-treatment and retracted the statements he had given earlier incriminating his brother. The criminal proceedings against his brother were eventually discontinued for lack of evidence. The applicant reiterated his self-incriminating statements. 15.  On 29 April 2009 the Krasnoarmeyskiy district investigation division of the investigative committee at the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office (“the Krasnoarmeyskiy district investigative committee”) received a communication from the SIZO concerning the applicant’s injuries. 16.  On 5 May 2009 a forensic medical examination of the applicant was carried out at the request of the investigator in charge of the criminal case against the applicant. The applicant stated to the medical expert that on 18 April 2009 he had been physically assaulted at the police station of the Krasnoarmejskiy district of Volgograd by police officers who had delivered many blows to his lumbar region, chest, shoulders, hips and ears, and had used a device called a “TP-50” to ill-treat him. He complained of pain in his chest. During the applicant’s forensic medical examination, the expert detected only one linear abrasion, measuring 23 mm by 2 mm, located within a bruise of indeterminate form on the left side of the applicant’s chest. The expert concluded that this injury had come about as a result of at least one (possibly tangential) impact by a hard, blunt object of limited surface area seven to nine days before the applicant’s examination, and had not caused him any “damage to his health ”. 17.  On 6 May 2009 investigator N. in charge of the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment ordered an examination of the applicant’s medical records by the forensic medical expert . The investigator inquired whether the injuries could have been received as a result of the applicant falling down from his own height and hitting himself against “protruberant objects in the vicinity”. A forensic medical expert concluded in a report of 8 May 2009 that the applicant’s multiple abrasions and haematomas could have come about as a result of blows from hard, blunt objects or collisions with such objects and surfaces – including the applicant falling from his own height and colliding with curved objects. The expert further concluded that it was hard to establish the time at which the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted. 18.  Between 9 May 2009 and 16 June 2010 investigators from the Krasnoarmeyskiy district investigative committee issued eight refusals to initiate criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, finding, in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that none of the elements of the offences provided for in Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code (on abuse of powers) were present in respect of the police officers’ actions. Those refusals were overruled by the head or deputy head of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district investigative committee as being unlawful, and the investigators were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. 19.  On 10 September 2009 the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of Volgograd convicted the applicant of manslaughter and sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was ordered to pay 500,000 Russian roubles to the victim’s mother by way of compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant was found to have invited the victim to his flat, to have inflicted many injuries on him, then moving the victim to the landing of the stairwell near the applicant’s flat and leaving him there. The applicant pleaded guilty and his confession served as a mitigating factor. The court based its judgment on the applicant’s consistent confession statements, the results of the search carried out in his flat in which the victim’s passport and clothing had been found, and other evidence. The trial court found that the applicant’s injuries had been unrelated to the actions of the victim of the crime and had been sustained after the crime had been committed. 20.  According to the most recent decision of an investigator of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district investigative committee of 11 September 2010, the police officers in question denied subjecting the applicant to ill‑treatment. Investigator P. stated that during the examination of the scene of the incident on 18 April 2009 the applicant had confessed that he had committed the crime. According to police officers B., D. and M. ‒ as well as E., the head of the criminal investigating unit of the Krasnoarmeyskiy district police department ‒ the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of having inflicted very serious bodily injuries on K. At some point the applicant had been taken from a cell to E.’s office. The police officers had inteviewed the applicant and established the circumstances of the crime against K. According to B., the applicant had complained of pain in his chest, explaining that he had fallen down a flight of stairs.  The applicant’s mother stated that on 16 April 2009 she had seen the applicant without any sign of physical injury. 21.  In his decision of 11 September 2010 the investigator noted that, while being questioned as a suspect on 18 April 2009, the applicant had explained that he had fallen down a flight of stairs the day before as a result of being in an inebriated state. The investigator further noted that the applicant’s forensic medical examination results indicated that the applicant’s multiple abrasions and haematomas could have come about as a result of blows from hard, blunt objects or collisions with such objects or surfaces – including the applicant falling from his own height. The investigator concluded that none of the constituent elements of the alleged crimes had been present in the conduct of the police officers and refused to institute criminal proceedings under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22.  On 2 March 2010 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment in the applicant’s criminal case on appeal.


4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Baku. 5.  The opposition planned to hold demonstrations on 17 November 2012 and 26 January 2013 in Baku. 6.  On 12 November 2012, the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), about the demonstration of 17 November 2012. It appears that no prior notice was given to the BCEA by the organisers of the demonstration of 26 January 2013. Information about that assembly was disseminated through Facebook or the press. 7.  The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of 17 November 2012, stating in general terms that that assembly was not in accordance with the Law on Freedom of Assembly. The BCEA further stated that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself was impractical. 8.  Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 9.  According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants in the demonstration of 17 November 2012 were demanding democratic reforms in the country and protesting against impediments to freedom of assembly. The participants of the demonstration of 26 January 2013 were condemning the use of force by the police against participants of previous demonstrations. 10.  The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station, where he was questioned. According to the applicant, in the first case he was arrested by people in plain clothes. 11.  In both cases on the day of the applicant’s arrest, an “administrative‑offence report” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued in respect of him. In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order from the police, the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 298.2 of the CAO (participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law). 12.  According to the applicant, he was never served with copies of the administrative-offence reports or with other documents from his case files. In neither case was he given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody. 13.  In both cases the applicant was brought before the Sabail District Court on the day of his arrest, 17 November 2012 and 26 January 2013 respectively. 14.  According to the applicant, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. Members of the public were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 15.  According to the applicant, in neither case was he given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 16.  The record of the court hearing in the first case shows that the applicant declared that he did not need legal assistance and would defend himself in person. 17.  At the court hearing in the second case a State-funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant. According to documents submitted by the Government, the applicant refused the assistance of that lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 18.  At the hearing in the first case the court did not question any witnesses. In the second case the court questioned two police officers. The police officers testified that they had arrested the applicant because he had staged an unauthorised demonstration. 19.  In both cases the first-instance court found that the applicant had participated in an unauthorised demonstration. 20.  In the first case, by a decision of 17 November 2012 the first‑instance court convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to five days’ “administrative” detention.  In the second case, by a decision of 26 January 2013 the court convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 500 manats (AZN). 21.  On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful. He also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. 22.  In the first case the applicant was assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. In the second case he was not represented by a lawyer. 23.  In both cases, on 23 November 2012 and 5 February 2013 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.


4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in İzmir. 5.  At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was working as a watchman on a construction site located in the vicinity of a military compound housing the 7th Gendarmerie Commando Regiment in Foça, İzmir. 6.  On 14 October 2008, sometime between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., the applicant left the construction site to meet three friends, M.K., N.V., and F.T., who worked on nearby farms. While walking towards his friends, the applicant suddenly collapsed for an unknown reason; his friends immediately took him to hospital. The applicant’s initial medical examination at the Foça State Hospital did not reveal any findings other than a cut measuring 0.5 cm on his back between the tenth and eleventh ribs. However, a lung X-ray taken subsequently showed that a foreign object, which appeared to be a bullet, was lodged between his eleventh and twelfth ribs. The applicant was transferred to the Karşıyaka State Hospital to receive further treatment for serious injuries sustained to his lungs and liver. After undergoing various operations, on 23 October 2008 he was discharged from the hospital. According to a medical report issued on 30 December 2008 by the Karşıyaka State Hospital, it had been decided for medical reasons to leave the bullet inside the applicant’s body, to be extracted only in the event of deterioration in the applicant’s condition. The report also noted that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been life-threatening. 7.  At 2.30 a.m. on 15 October 2008 two gendarme officers from the crime scene investigation unit of the Menemen Provincial Gendarmerie Command arrived at the site of the incident, which was located by a farm by the name of “Dürüs” (“the Dürüs farm”), to carry out a preliminary investigation and to prepare a scene-of-incident report (on the instructions of the Foça public prosecutor). After photographing the site of the incident, they talked to the witnesses and the gendarmerie patrol unit on duty. According to the information they obtained, the applicant had collapsed abruptly while he was walking to meet his friends. No gunshots had been heard at the site of the incident, but a firing practice had been underway at the relevant time at the nearby military compound housing the 7th Gendarmerie Commando Regiment. The gendarme officers indicated in their report that there were two shooting ranges within the said military compound: one located 1,780 metres to the north of the Dürüs farm, at an altitude of fifty metres (“the first shooting range”); and the other 1,050 metres to the east, at an altitude of ninety metres (“the second shooting range”). The altitude of the Dürüs farm was forty metres. There were three hills between the Dürüs farm and the first shooting range; the first two hills had an altitude of fifty-five metres, and the third hill had an altitude of ninety metres. No information was provided regarding the terrain between the farm and the second shooting range. Firing practice was carried out with G3 rifles at the first shooting range and with 5.56 mm rifles at the second shooting range. According to a sketch map prepared by the gendarme officers, the site of the incident was approximately 15 degrees to the east of the assumed trajectory of bullets fired from the first shooting range. In the gendarme officers’ opinion, the applicant had been hit by a stray bullet that had ricocheted during firing practice, particularly in view of the fact that no evidence of criminal conduct had been found at the site of the incident. The only evidence collected by the gendarme officers was the jacket that the applicant had been wearing at the time of his shooting, which was handed to the İzmir Gürçeşme Criminal Police Laboratory for examination. 8.  The gendarme officers visited the site of the incident once again at approximately 9.45 a.m. on the morning of 15 October 2008 to make further investigations, but did not discover any new evidence. It appears that on the same morning they also went – on the instructions of the Foça public prosecutor – to the military compound to photograph the shooting ranges. 9.  At approximately 10.15 a.m. on 15 October 2008 the Foça public prosecutor visited the site of the incident together with a police expert, H.Ö. The public prosecutor noted that the investigation had not thus far revealed any spent cartridges, bullet shells, arms or any other such material on or around the site of the incident, nor had any suspects who might have shot at the applicant been identified. According to the information provided by the applicant’s three friends to the public prosecutor, the applicant had collapsed right before their eyes and there had been no one else present at the relevant time. They also told the public prosecutor that they often heard gunfire coming from the military compound during shooting practice and that gunfire had also been audible at the time of the incident, although they had not heard gun shots emanating from anywhere nearby. 10.  According to the information in the case file, the applicant was still in a critical condition on the morning of 15 October 2008. Nevertheless, at 3 p.m. on that day, he was interviewed by two gendarme officers in the office of the security team commander (Asayiş Tim Komutanı) of the local gendarmerie. It is not clear whether this office was located inside the hospital or outside. Prior to the commencement of the interview, the applicant was informed of his right to request the appointment of a lawyer from the local bar association to assist him, but it appears that he did not exercise that right. The applicant told the gendarme officers that at approximately 8.45 p.m. on 14 October 2008, he had left his house to check up on the construction site where he worked as a watchman. As he had been walking towards the site, he had heard whizzing sounds above his head. He had continued to hear the same sounds on his way out of the construction site, along with the sound of gunfire from the military compound located nearby. Then, all of a sudden, he had felt a sharp pain in his back and had collapsed to the ground. He had not known what had happened until he had been told in the hospital that he had been shot in the back with a firearm. When the gendarme officers asked the applicant whether he had been in ongoing conflict with anyone and whether he had heard any gunshots at the time of the incident, he replied that he had not been in any conflict and that the only shots he had heard had been those coming from the military compound, which he had been hearing for the past week. The applicant also stated that he did not wish to press charges against anyone regarding the incident. 11.  On 16 October 2008 H.Ö., the police expert who had accompanied the Foça public prosecutor during his examination of the site of the incident, issued a report of his findings. He indicated in his report that the distance between the site of the incident and the military shooting ranges, which were spread over hilly terrain, was approximately one and a half kilometres. Having regard to the witness statements, and to the absence of any other factors that might explain the applicant’s injury, the police expert opined that the injury had probably been caused by a bullet that had ricocheted during the firing practice at the military compound. He submitted a simple sketch map of the site of the incident along with his report. 12.  On 23 October 2008 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. 13.  On 12 November 2008 two gendarme officers visited the applicant at his home on the instructions of the Foça public prosecutor to enquire about the bullet that had wounded him. The applicant informed the gendarme officers that the bullet had still not been extracted from his body and that the doctors would re-evaluate the situation once he had fully recovered from the earlier operations. The applicant was requested to inform the authorities in the event that the doctors decided to remove the bullet. 14.  On 13 November 2008 the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory issued a report on the analysis carried out on the applicant’s jacket. According to the report, a hole measuring 0.5 cm in diameter was found in the back of the jacket, but no gunshot residue was found around that hole. Having regard to the shape and other characteristics of the hole, it was decided that it had been caused by a firearm and that the shot had been fired from a long distance. 15.  On 14 November 2008 the Foça public prosecutor took the applicant’s statement for the first time. The applicant was reminded of his right to request the assistance of a lawyer, which he once again declined to do. The applicant largely reiterated the statement he had made to the gendarme officers earlier. He also repeated that he did not want to press charges against any particular person, as he did not believe that he had been shot intentionally. He did, however, reserve his right to claim compensation. 16.  On 24 November 2008 the Foça public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute. The public prosecutor found firstly that, in view of the statements of the applicant and of the witnesses and the manner in which the incident had occurred, the applicant had not been shot intentionally. He noted secondly that the forensic examination conducted on the applicant’s jacket had revealed that the shot had been fired from a long distance; however, the source of the shot had not been identified, as the bullet had for medical reasons not yet been extracted from the applicant’s body. Nevertheless, having regard to all the information in the case file and to the fact that a military firing practice had been underway a few kilometres away at the time of the incident, the public prosecutor found that the applicant had probably been hit by a stray bullet that had ricocheted during the firing practice. According to the public prosecutor, this offence was to be classified as one of causing bodily harm through negligence (taksir), as opposed to recklessness (bilinçli taksir), in view of the significant distance of the shooting range from the site of the incident. Since the prosecution of the offence of causing bodily harm through negligence required a formal complaint to be made by the victim (which was lacking in the instant case), the Foça public prosecutor decided to close the investigation. 17.  On 12 January 2009, after medical complications had arisen, the bullet was extracted from the applicant’s body and handed over to the hospital police. On 6 February 2009 it was registered in the custody of the Foça public prosecutor’s office. 18.  In the meantime, on 16 January 2009 the applicant lodged an objection against the decision of the Foça public prosecutor, with the assistance of his lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer stated that the decision to close the investigation had been taken prematurely, before the investigation process had been completed and the gun from which the bullet had been fired and the identity of the shooter had been identified. There had also not been an attempt to establish whether the bodily harm had been caused through negligence, recklessness, lack of experience or breach of duty or with intent. Moreover, requesting the victim to indicate whether he wanted to press charges without first having established the perpetrator and the nature of the offence did not comply with due procedure. 19.  The applicant’s objection was rejected by the İzmir Assize Court on 24 April 2009. The assize court did not provide any justification for its decision, apart from stating that the Foça public prosecutor’s decision had been in compliance with the law. This decision was served on the applicant on 20 May 2009. 20.  On 3 March 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in respect of his wounding. The Ministry refused the request; the applicant then brought an action for compensation before the İzmir Administrative Court. 21.  On 22 February 2012 the İzmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that while it was not disputed that the applicant had been wounded by a bullet, there was no tangible evidence to prove that the bullet in question had in any way been connected to the firing practice held by the 7th Gendarmerie Commando Regiment in Foça on the date in question. The criminal investigation into the incident had been closed on account of the applicant’s decision not to bring an official complaint, and the bullet extracted from his body after the closing of the investigation had therefore not been subjected to a ballistic examination. In these circumstances, by not pursuing his complaints the applicant had hindered the collecting of evidence that could have proved a causal link between the administrative act (idari eylem) and the damage sustained. In the administrative court’s opinion, the applicant had thus not proved his allegations. 22.  On 22 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the İzmir Administrative Court. 23.  An internal administrative inquiry was also conducted by the military authorities into the applicant’s shooting. During the course of that inquiry thirteen gendarme officers of various ranks who had attended the firing practice in question were interviewed on 15 October 2008 by a lieutenant-colonel. The officers stated, in virtually identical words, that a firing practice had been held on 14 October 2008 between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. with G3 rifles, that all necessary security measures had been taken at the shooting range prior to the commencement of the practice, in line with the applicable laws and instructions, that all rifles had been fired under the supervision of senior officers, that no firing had been permitted outside the designated shooting areas, and that, in view of the security measures in place and the distance of the applicant from the shooting range, the applicant should not have been affected by bullets fired during the practice. 24.  On 22 October 2008 a report was issued on the findings of the administrative inquiry. According to this report, all requisite safety measures had been implemented at the shooting range on the date in question, in compliance with the relevant security regulations, and no fault or negligence had been found on the part of the military officers who had participated in the firing practice. The report indicated that additional security precautions had nevertheless been taken on the shooting range in the aftermath of the incident, such as adding to the sand bags and barrels behind the target boards, and building barriers in order to reduce the incidence of ricochets, and surrounding the gun-target line with additional barrels.


5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. 6.  The applicant’s husband, Ali Sinim, entered into an agreement with a truck owner, Mr A.S., for the transportation of some personal goods and furniture from Istanbul to Antalya on 5 August 2006. According to the applicant’s allegations, her husband was informed that the truck in question had been booked by a transport company for the same day and that it would also be carrying some raw materials belonging to another client. 7.  On the date in question the applicant’s husband loaded his goods into the truck and got into it as a passenger. However, before reaching its destination the truck collided with another vehicle and caught fire. The truck’s driver and substitute driver died at the scene of the accident as a result of the fire. The applicant’s husband died a few days later at the hospital where he had been receiving treatment for his burns. 8.  It was discovered after the accident that the “raw materials” being transported in the truck with the applicant’s husband’s goods were in fact an inflammable liquid, which had caught fire upon impact. According to the police scene-of-incident report, the containers that had contained the spilt inflammable liquid bore the words “Şenocak chafing fuel[1]”. 9.  An autopsy report issued on 31 January 2007 by the Forensic Medicine Institute stated that the applicant’s husband had died as a result of the burns he had sustained at the time of the accident rather than from trauma caused by the impact of the crash. 10.  According to the initial report prepared by the traffic police at the scene, the driver of the truck, whose identity could not be established at the time, bore the main responsibility for the accident as he had hit the other vehicle, driven by S.S.H., from behind. 11.  On 5 August 2006 officers from Sultanbeyli police station took statements from the applicant, S.S.H. and the owner of the truck, A.S., who was also the son of one of the truck drivers, M.S. A.S. confirmed in his statement that he was the owner of the truck, which his father M.S. had loaded with goods to be transported to Antalya. He stated that a third person, namely A.Ç., had also been in the truck to help his father during the journey. He was not asked any questions about the nature of the goods transported. 12.  On 4 September 2006 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office against A.S., S.S.H, and the transport company to which the truck had been leased, if any, for causing her husband’s death by illegally carrying dangerous inflammable goods. The applicant stressed in her complaint that the incident in question had not been a simple traffic accident caused by negligence, and that her husband had lost his life because of the inflammable goods that had been loaded unlawfully in the truck without his knowledge and consent. The applicant argued that if her husband had been properly informed of the nature of the truck’s cargo, he would never have agreed to travel in it. The applicant therefore requested the identification of all the individuals or companies who may have been responsible for her husband’s death, including the transporter, the seller and the buyer of the inflammable goods. She also requested to be informed of developments in the investigation as she intended to join the proceedings as a civil party (müdahil). 13.  On 9 November 2006 A.S. submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office for an investigation into the liability for the accident of both the transport company which had leased his truck and of the seller and buyer of the inflammable cargo, whom he accused of concealing the dangerous nature of the goods in question. As evidence, he submitted the invoice and delivery note (sevk irsaliyesi) prepared on 4 August 2006 by the transport company Salihli Nakliyat Otom. Ltd. Şti. (“Salihli Ltd. Şti.”) for the recipient, Şenocak Dış Ticaret ve Turizm Sanayi Ltd. Şti. (“Şenocak Ltd. Şti.”), where the shipment was described as “raw materials” without any further details. A.S. stated that if it had been made clear that the goods involved were inflammable then they would have been transported in accordance with the conditions set out in the law, which might have prevented the fatal accident. 14.  On 28 November 2006 the applicant filed an additional complaint against the producer of the inflammable liquid, which she had identified as Şenocak Ltd. Şti. based on the information provided in the scene-of-incident report (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant claimed that the liquid in question contained ethanol and methanol, which had both been classified as “hazardous goods subject to control” in the Regulation on Dangerous Goods and the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods, and which accordingly had to be packed, labelled, stored and transported in compliance with the strict requirements set down in those regulations. Moreover, under the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods, it was prohibited to carry passengers, apart from a substitute driver and a guard, in vehicles transporting dangerous goods. Having regard to the various responsibilities imposed by the relevant legislation on the producer, seller, transporter and buyer of such goods, the applicant requested that the public prosecutor (i) check if Şenocak Ltd. Şti. was the producer and whether it also engaged in the distribution of such material; (ii) establish whether the truck in question had been leased by a transport company or by Şenocak Ltd. Şti. itself and whether it had a licence to carry such dangerous goods; and (iii) identify the buyer of the goods. She also repeated her request to be informed of developments in the investigation. 15.  On 6 May 2007, at the request of the Sultanbeyli prosecutor, a traffic engineer submitted an expert report, where it was found that the deceased truck driver M.S. had been responsible for the accident by failing to comply with the law applying to vehicles carrying inflammable goods on keeping a distance of fifty metres. The expert found that S.S.H., the driver of the other vehicle, had not been at fault. 16.  Relying mainly on the expert report, on 7 May 2007 the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor found that the only person responsible for the accident within the meaning of Article 85 of the Turkish Criminal Code (causing death by negligence – see paragraph 46 below) was M.S. However, since M.S. had also lost his life in the accident, the public prosecutor decided against prosecution. A.S. was listed as the sole complainant in the decision, which was not notified to the applicant. 17.  After finding out about the decision on her own initiative, on 29 June 2007 the applicant objected to the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, arguing mainly that the issues she had raised in her petitions of 4 September and 28 November 2006 had not been taken into account by the public prosecutor. She reiterated that her husband had not been informed that the truck was carrying inflammable liquids, and also argued that the prosecutor had failed to identify the companies involved in the shipment of such dangerous goods, including the seller, buyer and transport company, and had not established the relations of the truck owner, A.S., to those companies. She argued that it was of the utmost importance to collect that information in order to establish the facts and to identify those responsible for the accident, apart from the driver of the truck. She added that despite the numerous complaints she had lodged with the public prosecutor’s office and her requests to be informed of developments in the investigation, she had not been named as a complainant in the public prosecutor’s decision and the decision had not been notified to her. 18.  It appears that A.S., as the other complainant, did not lodge an objection against the public prosecutor’s decision. 19.  On 4 September 2007 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the objection against the decision of the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor not to prosecute M.S. and S.S.H. It held, nevertheless, that complaints lodged by A.S. against Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had remained unanswered and instructed the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor to investigate their liability for the accident. A.S. was once again listed as the sole complainant in the decision, which was not notified to the applicant. 20.  On 6 December 2007 the applicant submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office, asking it to investigate the matters raised in her previous petitions. The applicant also stressed that despite her numerous requests, she had, once again, not been recognised as a complainant in the Kadıköy Assize Court’s decision. 21.  It appears that on 22 January 2008 an agent of the transport company Salihli Ltd. Şti., a certain B.T., was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police. B.T. stated that Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had requested a truck from them to transport some goods. The company had, however, put Şenocak Ltd. Şti. in touch with A.S., who provided transportation services with his truck upon request, and they had had no further involvement with the shipment in question. 22.  In a further petition submitted by the applicant to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office on 23 May 2008, she expressed her concern that the investigation after the Kadıköy Assize Court’s decision had appeared to focus solely on the liability of the transport company Salihli Ltd. Şti., whereas both Şenocak Ltd. Şti., as the producer and/or the shipper of the goods, and A.S., as the owner of the truck, also bore responsibility for the accident on account of their failure to comply with the relevant legislation on the transport of dangerous goods. 23.  On an unspecified date the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor asked the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a report to determine the respective liability of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti., or any others, for the accident in question. In its response dated 10 July 2008 the Forensic Medicine Institute stated that there was no information in the case file on Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and that, in the absence of such information, it could not report on the requested matters. 24.  On 15 October 2008 S.Ş., the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti., was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police. S.Ş. stated that he had requested a truck from Salihli Ltd. Şti. to send goods to his company’s Antalya branch. A truck owned by A.S. had been provided to him by Salihli Ltd. Şti. and he had loaded it with the goods in question. He confirmed that the truck had been involved in an accident shortly after loading and that it and his goods had been destroyed in a fire. 25.  Following the receipt of the above information, on 19 February 2009 the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted its report on the accident. It found that there was no information in the file that the truck in question had been loaded with inflammable goods by Şenocak Ltd. Şti. There was, furthermore, no information on the identity of the recipient of the shipment. Although containers bearing the name “Şenocak” had been found in the truck after the accident, there was no other evidence in the file to enable the Institute to determine who had loaded the truck. In those circumstances, it had not been possible to establish the liability of Şenocak Ltd. Şti., Salihli Ltd. Şti., or anyone else for the accident. 26.  On 8 May 2009 the applicant submitted objections to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report. She contested the finding that there had been no evidence to suggest the involvement of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. with the shipment in question. She argued that the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had made it clear in his police statement that the truck had been loaded with his company’s goods, which had consisted of chafing fuel. Moreover, in response to the compensation request she had made to the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance (see below paragraph 30 for further details), the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had stated, inter alia, that he had also suffered a loss as a result of the accident as he had lost all of his merchandise. A representative of Salihli Ltd. Şti. had similarly told the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance that the truck involved in the accident had been sent to Şenocak Ltd. Şti. for loading, accompanied by a delivery note prepared by them on 4 August 2006. In the applicant’s opinion, those statements provided sufficient proof that the inflammable goods loaded in the truck had belonged to Şenocak Ltd. Şti. On the basis of that information, and having regard to the legal requirements in the relevant legislation on the packaging, labelling, storing and transportation of inflammable goods, none of which had been observed in the instant case, it was clear that both Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and Salihli Şti., as well as the owner and driver of the truck, had been responsible for the accident. 27.  On 25 May 2009 the Sultanbeyli prosecutor decided not to prosecute representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. on the basis of the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report of 10 July 2008. In the decision, the public prosecutor did not respond to any of the applicant’s allegations. 28.  On 17 June 2009 the applicant objected to that decision. Reiterating mainly the arguments she had raised in her objection to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, she submitted that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts of the case and had disregarded essential evidence in the investigation file which pointed to the representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti, A.S. and the deceased driver of the truck as being criminally liable for the accident. 29.  On 23 July 2009 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection, without responding to any of her arguments. 30.  On 16 July 2007 the applicant brought an action for compensation before the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance against Şenocak Ltd. Şti., Salihli Ltd. Şti, the owner of the truck, A.S., the heirs of both dead truck drivers, and an insurance company. Reiterating the legal requirements for the packaging, labelling, storage and transportation of dangerous goods that she had referred to during the criminal proceedings, the applicant argued that the defendants had caused her husband’s death by their failure to comply with the relevant legislation. 31.  On unspecified dates, representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. responded to the applicant’s allegations, as noted in paragraph 26 above. 32.  At the request of the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance, on 19 March 2012 three experts from the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted a report (“the first report”) on the defendants’ liability for the accident in question, where they made the following findings:
-  Şenocak Ltd. Şti., which was the producer of the inflammable goods in question, had requested Salihli Ltd. Şti.’s services for the transportation of merchandise from its headquarters in Istanbul to its Antalya office;
-  Salihli Ltd. Şti. had subcontracted A.S. for the business;
-  in the consignment note it had prepared, Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had described the consignment as sixteen tonnes of raw material, without indicating that it consisted of inflammable goods;
-  the fire that had broken out upon impact with S.S.H.’s vehicle and that had claimed the applicant’s husband’s life had been caused by the inflammable goods loaded in the truck;
-  Şenocak Ltd. Şti. was liable for the accident because it had failed to comply with the consignor’s obligations set out in the relevant legislation;
-  Salihli Ltd. Şti. and A.S. were liable on account of their failure to pay heed to the type of raw material they had accepted, which had resulted in the transportation of dangerous goods in a truck which had not fulfilled the relevant criteria for such transportation;
-  A.S. was also liable for having unlawfully loaded other goods in the truck and accepting a passenger (the applicant’s husband);
-  the driver of the truck was liable owing to his failure to drive with care.
In the light of those considerations, the Forensic Medicine Institute found that Şenocak Ltd. Şti. bore 40% of the liability for the accident, Salihli Ltd. Şti. and A.S. bore 20% each, while the remaining liability lay with the driver. 33.  On 18 October 2012 Salihli Ltd. Şti. objected to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report. 34.  Following that objection, seven experts from the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, including the three experts who had prepared the previous report, issued another report on 18 September 2013 (“the second report”). They found that while Salihli Ltd. Şti., Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and A.S. may all have disregarded their legal obligations on the transport of dangerous goods, the accident had been caused by the driver’s carelessness rather than the other defendants’ failure to comply with those obligations. They could not therefore be held accountable for the accident in any way. 35.  On 19 November 2013 the applicant objected to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, which in her opinion conflicted with its previous report of 19 March 2012. The applicant reiterated that her husband had not died as a result of a simple traffic accident, but had burned to death because of the inflammable goods carried unlawfully in the truck, for which all the defendants bore responsibility. The applicant requested that the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance obtain a third report from independent experts to resolve the contradictions between the two reports prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute. 36.  At a hearing held on 29 April 2014, the civil court of first instance appointed a group of experts, consisting of a mechanical engineer and two professors of mechanical engineering and chemistry from Istanbul Technical University. The court asked them to comment on the contradictions between the two Forensic Medicine Institute reports and to state which report they agreed with. 37.  In their report dated 13 November 2014 (“the third report”), the experts established at the outset that the action brought by the applicant concerned the death of her husband as a result of the burns he had sustained because of the fire caused by the accident. The examination in the instant case therefore had to focus not on the technical cause of the accident per se, which was what the second report had done, but on the reasons and the responsibility for the fire that had claimed her husband’s life. The experts stated in that connection that the fire had been caused by chafing fuel, which was a “highly inflammable liquid”, according to the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods and which therefore had to be transported in accordance with the relevant legislation concerning the transportation of such dangerous substances. The truck in which the chafing fuel had been loaded in the instant case had, however, not been suitable for the transportation of dangerous goods: it had not been equipped with an electrical system to prevent short circuits and fire; it had had no warning signs; and the driver had not been trained in the transportation of such goods. Şenocak Ltd. Şti., as the producer of the chafing fuel, bore the principal liability (40%) for the fire on account of its failure to ensure the safe transportation of its merchandise in accordance with the relevant legal requirements. Salihli Ltd. Şti., which had procured the truck in question, and A.S., the owner and operator of the truck, were each 20% liable for agreeing to transport such dangerous goods in a vehicle unfit for the job. A.S. was further liable because he had accepted additional cargo in the truck. The remaining responsibility lay with the deceased driver, who had not kept a safe distance from the vehicle in front. On the basis of those findings, the experts stated that they agreed with the first report’s conclusions. 38.  At a hearing held on 7 October 2015 the civil court of first instance decided to appoint an expert to calculate the applicant’s pecuniary damage, on the basis of the findings of the third report of 13 November 2014. 39.  In a report dated 19 November 2015 the expert calculated the applicant’s pecuniary damage as 229,613 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 75,145 euros (EUR) at the material time). 40.  According to the latest information in the case file, the compensation proceedings are still ongoing in the court of first instance.


4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Yekaterinburg. 5.  On 13 May 2009 he was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On the following day the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court in Yekaterinburg remanded him in custody and set the time-limit until 12 July 2009. 6.  On 13 July 2009 the District Court granted a two-month extension of the detention period. However, on 31 July 2009 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the extension order as it had been issued outside the authorised detention period, and ordered the applicant’s release. 7.  The applicant was not released. He was not allowed to leave the police ward and was re-arrested on the charge of theft. The arrest record mentioned the charge, without specifying when or where the theft had been committed or why the applicant was suspected of it. 8.  On 2 August 2009 the District Court adjourned the detention hearing for seventy-two hours, at the request from the applicant’s counsel. On 4 August 2009 the District Court issued a detention order which did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention or give any assessment to the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant.  On 2 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal. 9.  Further extensions of the applicant’s detention were granted by the Leninskiy District Court on 29 September, 20 October and 2 November 2009. The last extension order was issued in the absence of the parties. On 25 November 2009 the Regional Court found that extension order unlawful and set it aside, but extended the applicant’s detention for a future period. 10.  On 23 December 2009 the Bogdanovichi Town Court in the Sverdlovsk Region opened the trial and extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s appeal against the extension order was rejected by the Regional Court on 11 June 2010. 11.  On 2 March and 22 April 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention. Each time the court referred to the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s criminal record. The appeals against the orders were rejected on 30 June and 11 June, respectively. 12.  Throughout the trial the applicant was held in a metal cage. 13.  On 13 May 2010 the applicant was found guilty of theft and armed robbery and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 18 August 2010 the Regional Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years’ imprisonment. 14.  On 24 June 2010 the applicant’s mother died. His request to be allowed to attend the funeral was rejected by the governor of the IZ-66/1 remand prison and upheld by the courts on the ground that remand prisoners did not have the benefit of a leave of absence under Russian law. When his father died on 5 November 2010, the director of the correctional colony in Sosnovoborsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region also refused his request for a short-term absence, on account of the funeral being held outside of the region where the colony was located. 15.  The Sosnovoborsk colony was located some 2,400 kilometres away from Yekaterinburg where the applicant’s family lived.


4.  The applicants are serving either life sentences or a lengthy period of imprisonment in different prisons in Bulgaria. 5.  The applicant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in November 2011. As it transpires from documents in the file, pursuant to an order of the prison governor referring to section 248(1)(1) of the 2009 Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act (see paragraph 18 below), on 29 July 2011 the applicant was placed in isolation in Burgas Prison, in a permanently locked cell without the possibility to take part in collective activities. The applicant described, and the Government did not comment on, the conditions under which he had been detained there as follows. He was kept in isolation since 29 July 2011, without running water and toilet in his cell. He had to use the same bucket to relieve himself and as a chair at meal times as he ate in the cell. The heating was insufficient in winter and the temperature was excessively high in the cell in summer. There was poor ventilation and poor natural light in his cell. Also, the light in his cell was kept on during the entire night, the cell was infested with rats and cockroaches, and the latter sometimes also reached his food. On an unspecified date before July 2016 the applicant was transferred to Varna Prison and he has not complained about the conditions there. 6.  The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in a final decision by the Supreme Court of Cassation of 10 November 2005. He complained about the conditions under which he has been serving his sentence since 12 July 2007 when he had been transferred to Plovdiv Prison. He described, and the Government did not comment on, the conditions under which he had been detained there as follows. There has been no running water or toilet in his cell which measured about 6 square metres. He has had to use a bucket to comply with the needs of nature in his cell; he has also been taking his food in the cell. The cell was overly humid, which was not mitigated by the fact that he has had to hang his clothes to dry there after washing them. The ventilation was poor, which aggravated the repugnant smell coming out of the sewers situated close to his cell. In the summer the temperatures were very high and in the winter the heating was switched off at around 6 p.m. as a result of which it became very cold in his cell. 7.  In addition, between 2007 and 2011 he had been kept under the very impoverished and restrictive “special regime”, alone in a cell. According to the applicant, while his regime was formally changed from “special” to the lighter “strict” one on 6 June 2011, in reality the restrictions and inadequate conditions in which he has been detained did not change. He has been handcuffed systematically upon leaving his cell. 8.  The applicant was sentenced to whole-life imprisonment on 26 July 2004 in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation. He complained about the “special regime” and inadequate material conditions of detention in which he has been serving his sentence since 24 January 2012 in Varna Prison. The period of detention of this applicant before that date was subject to examination in an earlier Court’s judgment in which it found a violation of Article 3 on account of the excessively strict prison regime and poor conditions of detention (see Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 128, 24 January 2012). 9.  The applicant submitted that he has been serving his sentence in isolation from the surrounding world, namely in a permanently locked cell. He has not been involved in any collective activities or provided with work and has been denied contact with prisoners who are serving sentences lighter than life imprisonment. Every time he was taken out of the high security zone, he has been hand-cuffed. The authorities have not carried out meaningful assessments of the need to keep him serving his sentence under the “special regime”. Thus, their assessments did not involve an analysis of his psychological and physical state, or of his attitude and demonstrated willingness to change, and were not conducted by specially-trained personnel. 10.  As to the material conditions in which he has been kept since 24 January 2012, the applicant submitted that, although a toilet had been installed in his cell in August 2012, it stands at about 45 cm from his bed. As the toilet has not been separated from the rest of the space, he has had the intrusive feeling of living in a toilet. Given that the prison administration has been refusing to provide hygienic products for cleaning the toilet, such as brushes and washing products, the toilet has been unusable. The overall hygiene in the cell and the common spaces has been extremely poor, with cockroaches and rats roaming about. 11.  On 10 June 2011 the first instance court sentenced the applicant to a whole-life sentence, which was confirmed by the appellate court on 27 June 2013. The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the whole-life imprisonment sentence in a final judgment of 21 May 2014. 12.  The applicant submitted, and the Government did not comment on, that he has been kept in a permanently locked cell in Pazardzhik Prison, isolated from the rest of the prison population and only allowed to communicate with other life prisoners during the one-hour daily physical exercise he took outside his cell. There has been no running water or toilet in his cell which measures less than 6 square metres. The hygiene in the cell has been very poor and there have been cockroaches and bed bugs, and the prison administration has done nothing to get rid of them. As there is no table in his cell the applicant has been eating over a newspaper spread over his bed. While the natural light which reached the cell has been extremely weak, the artificial light has been kept on throughout the night. The temperature in the cell was inadequate, fluctuating between extremes in the summer and winter.


5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Zagreb. 6.  She gave birth to her first three children in hospital. In 2011 she became pregnant with her fourth child and had a due date in February 2012. 7.  In November 2011 she sent a letter to the Croatian Chamber of Midwives (Hrvatska Komora Primalja), enquiring about the possibility of having professional assistance with a home birth. She explained that her first three hospital deliveries had gone normally, without the need for much medical intervention, but that she had not felt fulfilled afterwards. She therefore wanted to give birth to her fourth child at home. 8.  On 1 December 2011 she received a reply that according to the relevant domestic legislation health professionals, including midwives, were unable to assist with home births. In particular, although the Act on Midwifery allowed the setting up of private practices by midwives, the Healthcare Act, as the general Act in the sector, still did not expressly provide for such a possibility. Therefore, since the matter was not clearly regulated, no midwife had set up a private practice or officially assisted with home births. The letter also cited a statement from the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi Republike Hrvatske - hereinafter “the Ministry of Health”) issued in August 2011 and published on the Croatian Chamber of Midwives’ website:
“Having regard to the current circumstances, where the requirements for organising a system of professionally conducted home births do not exist (education and training of personnel) and where the other accompanying elements (availability of emergency transport and proper admission [to a medical facility] in the case of complications) which would enable safe delivery at home are lacking, we are of the opinion that in this area of healthcare the lawmaker has ensured, as far as possible, all the conditions for the care of mothers and the right of children to life and health. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the protection of children, who do not choose the circumstances of their coming into this world, takes precedence over respect for a woman’s right to freely choose to give birth outside a medical facility.”
The Croatian Chamber of Midwives thus declined to assist with the applicant’s planned home birth. It noted that home births nevertheless occurred in Croatia, and for that reason it had urged the Ministry of Health to clearly regulate the matter as soon as possible. 9.  On 15 February 2012 the applicant gave birth to her child at home, assisted by a midwife from abroad. 10.  After the birth a paediatrician and a gynaecologist allegedly declined to examine the applicant and her baby but she eventually managed to find doctors who examined them both. 11.  On 23 February 2012 the applicant registered the birth and obtained a birth certificate. 12.  On 11 May 2011 the Ministry of Health sent a letter in reply to an enquiry from the Ombudswoman for Children (Pravobraniteljica za djecu), which stated that the relevant domestic law provided that babies were to be delivered in medical facilities. The question of home births had not been regulated by law and medical assistance in such procedures was considered as quackery. It further stated that home births were the personal responsibility of the mother and the person assisting with the delivery. In the event of a delivery outside a medical facility and where a woman claiming to be the mother did not have any medical documentation, the doctor carrying out the first examination of the child was obliged to make note of the absence of such documents. The doctor was not allowed to register data which he or she was not able to verify. 13.  On 25 August 2011 the Ministry of Administration (Ministarstvo uprave Republike Hrvatske) sent a letter in reply to an enquiry from the Parents in Action - Roda NGO (Roditelji u Akciji – Roda) stating that the law provided for the possibility to register the civil status of a child born outside a medical facility. It further stated that officials were obliged to verify data reported to them before putting anything down in the State register. Consequently, a person reporting the birth of a child born outside a medical facility was required to submit proof that the woman reported as the child’s mother had indeed given birth to the child. The medical documentation required for proving such circumstances was a matter for the health administration authorities. 14.  On 31 May 2012 the Ministry of Health replied to an enquiry from Parents in Action – Roda NGO by saying that it had never instructed doctors not to examine children born at home. On the contrary, having regard to the increased frequency of situations in which doctors were faced with having to examine children born at home without any medical documentation, it had consistently held that doctors were obliged to examine such children but were not allowed to register any data that they were not able to verify. It added that home birth was still not regulated by law and that therefore there was no mechanism for registering requests for home birth or regulations on the duty to report them. 15.  On 24 January 2012 the Croatian Chamber of Midwives reported on a case in which, according to the media coverage, a woman who had given birth at home had been separated from her child for two days. In particular, the hospital had called the police and social workers in order to establish that she was indeed the child’s mother after she had refused to be examined by a gynaecologist in a hospital. In addition, several midwives suspected of having taken part in the birth had been questioned by the police. 16.  According to information submitted by the Government, no health professional has ever been prosecuted in criminal proceedings or sanctioned for assisting with a home birth. 17.  In the Concluding Observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports on Croatia issued on 24 July 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concern regarding the lack of oversight procedures and mechanisms for ensuring adequate standards of care, the protection of women’s rights and their autonomy during deliveries and the lack of options for giving birth outside hospitals. 18.  A survey on maternity practices in Croatia undertaken by the Parents in Action - Roda NGO in March 2015 noted situations of women’s wishes being disregarded by medical staff during childbirth, of a lack of consent for procedures conducted during labour, and limits on the presence of an accompanying person during childbirth. 19.  The Gender Equality Ombudsperson (Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova) issued a research report in 2013 which noted inconsistencies in hospital practices regarding the presence of an accompanying person during childbirth.


6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is detained in Verona, Italy, in connection with criminal charges unrelated to the present case. 7.  In the early morning of 22 July 2005 a sales clerk, G., was attacked in a shop in Kharkiv where she worked. She suffered multiple cuts, including a penetrating chest wound, which led to pneumothorax. She was hospitalised in an intensive-care unit. 8.  According to the subsequent findings of the domestic court which convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery (see paragraph 18 below), the applicant had attacked G., whom he had known previously, and seized a certain amount of cash belonging to her employer, the company that ran the shop. 9.  According the applicant’s account, which he maintained throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts and before this Court, G. owed him money and he had gone to the shop to collect the debt. However, G. had attacked him with scissors and, trying to defend himself, he had hit her back, seized the scissors from her and stabbed her with them. When the shop’s alarm had gone off, he had taken the money and run away. 10.  According to the applicant, late on 22 July 2005 he was arrested by the police and taken to a police station where he was questioned about the incident. Allegedly, his request for a lawyer was ignored. 11.  In a statement (объяснение) dated 22 July 2005 taken by a police officer, the applicant gave the account of events as set out in paragraph 9 above. 12.  On 23 July 2005 a number of reports were drawn up: (i) an arrest report according to which the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery; (ii) a record stating that the applicant’s procedural rights as a suspect had been explained to him, including the right to remain silent, to have a legal aid lawyer appointed and to consult him prior to the first questioning; (iii) a record stating that the applicant, having been informed of the right to legal assistance, had decided to waive it; (iv) a transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a suspect: the applicant’s account of events was as set out in paragraph 9 above. 13.  On 25 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. He repeated his account of the fight with the victim (see paragraph 9 above), adding that in the course of the fight the victim had hit him in the jaw with a mug. He stated that he had not been ill-treated by the police. The expert noted that the applicant had a hematoma on his jaw and a number of cuts on his right hand, and concluded that the injuries were consistent with the applicant’s account. 14.  According to the applicant, at the close of the pre-trial investigation and then, subsequently, in preparation for his appeal, he had not been given sufficient time to study the case file. 15.  On 17 October 2005, at the opening of the trial before the Kharkiv Kyivsky District Court (“the trial court”) the applicant stated that he wished to defend himself and waived his right to legal assistance. He subsequently alleged that he had been forced to do so by the police guards present in the courtroom. 16.  In the course of the trial the applicant repeated the account of events set out in paragraph 9 above. 17.  Also in the course of the trial the applicant asked the trial court to call certain witnesses, without clearly identifying them. He claimed that they could have testified to the existence of the victim’s debt to him and to his good character. The trial court refused his applications in that respect (see paragraph 19 below). 18.  On 18 October 2005 the trial court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The court relied on, inter alia: (i) the applicant’s admissions in the course of the trial; (ii) the victim’s court testimony, denying, in particular, having borrowed any money from the applicant, as well as her statements incriminating the applicant given in the course of a reconstruction of the crime scene and confrontation with the applicant; (iii) money and clothes with brown spots seized from the applicant on 22 July 2005;[1] (iv) testimony given by D., the applicant’s girlfriend, who denied any knowledge of the applicant having lent any money and stated, on the contrary, that he himself had been borrowing money from her; (v) the testimony of the victim’s sister and son, equally denying knowledge of any debt. The sister stated that at 7 p.m. on 22 July 2005 in the hospital, the victim had told her that she knew the attacker; (vi) the pre-trial statement of M., a sales clerk in a neighbouring shop, who had stated in the course of the pre-trial investigation that he had seen someone looking like the applicant enter the victim’s shop and then run away from it after the alarm had gone off; he had then discovered the victim injured. 19.  As far as the applicant’s requests to call additional witnesses were concerned, the trial court stated that he had failed to indicate the names and addresses of those individuals, whom he had supposedly informed about the debt and who could have overheard a telephone call he had had with the victim’s son in that connection. The trial court considered those allegations to be an obfuscation tactic on the part of the applicant and pointed out that his girlfriend, with whom he had lived for two years, did not know of any debt. On the contrary, she had testified that he had had no money to lend. 20.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant appealed to the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). He raised, notably, various matters concerning the assessment of the evidence. He asked the Court of Appeal to provide him with a lawyer. 21.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant reiterated the latter request. 22.  On 2 February 2006 the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal asked the regional Bar association to assign a lawyer for the applicant. There is no indication of any follow-up. 23.  On 20 July 2006 the Court of Appeal held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor, and upheld the applicant’s conviction. 24.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant asked the trial court to appoint a lawyer for him, for the preparation of an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 28 August 2006 the trial court replied that, as his conviction had been upheld on appeal, there were no lawful grounds for appointment of a legal aid lawyer. The applicant was free to hire such a lawyer himself. 25.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant lodged a handwritten appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. He raised various matters of fact, disagreeing with the lower courts’ assessment of the evidence. He also complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer before the first police interview on 22 July 2005, had been forced to waive his right to legal assistance on 17 October 2005 under duress from the police (see paragraphs 10 and 15 above), and that the Court of Appeal had failed to appoint a lawyer for him. 26.  On 28 February 2007 a Supreme Court judge, sitting in private, rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. The judge considered that the applicant’s appeal concerned only matters of fact and assessment of the evidence, which were not grounds for the opening of proceedings. 27.  Following his arrest, in July and August 2005 the applicant was allegedly held in a police station, a hospital and a police temporary detention facility. 28.  On 17 August 2005 the applicant was transferred to the Kharkiv pre‑trial detention centre (“SIZO”). According to him, he was held in a cell that had twenty-four sleeping places, with more than fifty other inmates. 29.  According to the Government, at the SIZO the applicant was held in the following cells:
Cell no.
Dates
Cell area, in square metres
Number of sleeping places
Square metres per sleeping place
657
17/08/05-18/08/05 1.34
250
07/06/06-16/07/06
no information as that cell no longer existed at the time when the Government submitted their observations
276

17/07/06-28/08/06
05/10/06-14/12/06 30.  On 28 August 2006 the applicant was transferred from the SIZO to Kharkiv correctional colony no. 18, where he served the rest of his sentence until being released on 3 October 2012. From 5 October to 14 December 2006 he was returned to the SIZO to enable him to study the case file in preparation for his appeal on points of law. 31.  On arrival at the SIZO, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that he had no health problems at the time. The doctor noted, however, that in 1999 the applicant had been treated for tuberculosis, which was currently inactive. The applicant was recommended periodic courses of prophylactic treatment to prevent the reactivation of his tuberculosis, which he subsequently underwent in the course of his detention. In September 2011 he was diagnosed with the first signs of a cataract in the left eye. Glasses were prescribed and issued to him. On one occasion in October 2011 he was diagnosed with high blood pressure and was given the relevant medication. No other complaints in this respect were recorded. On several occasions in the course of his detention the applicant was treated for seasonal influenza, back pain and headaches. 32.  On 28 January 2008 the applicant’s representative engaged a lawyer practising in Kharkiv to visit him in prison and advise him on legal matters. From 6 to 18 February 2008 the lawyer examined the applicant’s criminal case file. 33.  In a letter to the Court of 12 December 2008, the applicant submitted that the domestic authorities were refusing to provide him with certain documents, which could prove his innocence, for his application to the Court, namely:
(i)  the statement by M. and documents concerning the court’s efforts to summon that witness (see paragraph 18 (vi) above);
(ii)  the statement of the victim;
(iii)  documents concerning a civil claim for damages made by the shop that had been robbed;
(iv)  the transcript of a particular hearing before the trial court;
(v)  statements made by the applicant in the course of the investigation on 22 and 23 July 2005;
(vi)  search and seizure records of 22 July 2005.
The applicant added that he did have copies of the documents from the criminal case file but they were of poor quality, preventing him from sending them to the Court. 34.  On 23 August 2010 the Registry pointed out to the applicant that his application was incomplete and asked him to provide copies of:
(i)  his first appeal;
(ii)  his requests for the appointment of a legal aid lawyer;
(iii)  his appeal on points of law. 35.  On 4 September 2010 the applicant responded by providing copies of his first appeal and his request of 6 January 2006 to the Court of Appeal that a lawyer be appointed for him (see paragraph 22 above). He added that the trial court and the Supreme Court had not provided him with the remaining documents he had requested.


4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison. 5.  On 3 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed. 6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the Board”). 7.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter. 8.  On 25 December 2007 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant`s objection. 9.  On 15 January 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2007.


5.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 2007 respectively and live in İzmir. 6.  On 25 October 2008, as the first applicant was driving in İzmir with his wife and one year-old daughter in the back seat, he lost control of his car when the road curved into a sharp bend. As a result, the car dropped into an empty concrete canal running along the right-hand side of the road, some five to six metres below the level of the road. The first applicant’s wife, Yeşim Çakır, lost her life at the spot and his daughter (the second applicant) was slightly injured. 7.  The accident report – prepared on the same day by the traffic police on the basis of their findings and the statements of the first applicant – indicated that after the first applicant had lost control of the vehicle on the bend, it had first crashed into the metal barrier alongside the road, and had then fallen over the barrier into an empty canal. The report specified that the crash barrier at that particular spot had been damaged prior to the accident. It also indicated that a road sign warning of a sharp bend ahead had been in place at the time of the accident. 8.  After the accident the first applicant was taken to a police station to give a statement. He told the police that as he had been approaching the sharp bend, he had felt his car skidding to the left. When, at the same time, he had noticed another car approaching him from behind on his left, he had first applied the brakes and had then swerved his car to the right, at which point he had lost control of the car and hit the crash barrier on the right side of the road. However, since the barrier had been damaged prior to the incident, it had not stopped the car and, therefore, the car had dropped down into the empty canal. He claimed that he had lost control of the car as a result of the dangerous bend in the road. 9.  On the same date, the police also took a statement from M.S, an eyewitness. M.S. told the police that as he had been driving down the opposite side of the road, he had seen the first applicant’s car suddenly swerve to the right, after which it had hit the crash barrier on its right-hand side and had dropped down the side of the road. 10.  Later the same day the İzmir public prosecutor questioned the first applicant in connection with the accident. The first applicant admitted before the public prosecutor that he had lost control of the car as he had been taking the bend. He said that, for a reason unknown to him, his car had skidded. He claimed that the road had not been wet, but there had been some slippery substance on it, like sand. 11.  On 28 October 2008 the İzmir public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Assize Court against the first applicant, for causing death and bodily injury by negligence. 12.  At the first hearing held before the İzmir Assize Court on 15 December 2008 the first applicant stated that as he had been driving along the road at a normal speed, his car had started skidding to the left for an unknown reason, and that he had swerved the car to the right to avoid hitting the car approaching him from the opposite lane on the left. He did not ask the court to carry out an additional investigation into the incident, but stated that the fatal accident had taken place as the crash barrier alongside the road, which was supposed to have been able to stop the car, had been badly damaged. 13.  At the same hearing, the İzmir Assize Court decided that although the first applicant had been charged with causing death and bodily injury by negligence and that his negligence in that regard had been established, there was no need to subject him to a criminal penalty as it could be accepted that he had been aggrieved by the accident, which had resulted in the death of his wife, to a sufficient degree within the meaning of Article 22 § 6 of the Turkish Criminal Code. That judgment, which was not appealed against by the first applicant, became final on 23 December 2008. 14.  In the meantime, on 17 November 2008 the first applicant applied to the İzmir Magistrates’ Court for a declaratory judgment in order to establish (i)  whether and to what extent the state of the crash barrier alongside the road had contributed to the fatal accident and whether the barrier had been repaired after the accident; and (ii)  whether there had been any structural problems with the road, such as unusual sloping. 15.  The expert report submitted to the İzmir Magistrates’ Court on 5 December 2008 made the following findings:
-  the crash barrier at the bend in question had been damaged prior to the accident and the damaged parts of it had not been repaired after the accident;
-  there was a slight dent in the road right by the damaged barrier; however, there was no structural problem with the slope of the road surface. 16.  On 2 March 2009 the first applicant applied for compensation from the General Directorate of Highways (“the General Directorate”) and the Municipality of İzmir (“the Municipality”) in connection with the road traffic accident that had claimed his wife’s life. According to him, it was evident from the traffic accident report that the crash barrier at the site of the incident had been damaged prior to the incident, which suggested that other road accidents had taken place at that same spot. He argued that the defective state of the barrier, which had been put in place to prevent cars from dropping down the side of the road in the event of impact, had greatly aggravated the outcome of the accident. Had the barrier been repaired prior to the accident, it would most probably have prevented the car, which had been travelling within the legal speed limit, from dropping down into the canal, in which case his wife would possibly not have sustained fatal injuries. He further claimed that the fact that there had been other accidents at the same spot in the past suggested a structural problem with the road. 17.  Both the General Directorate and the Municipality denied responsibility for the maintenance of the crash barrier at issue. 18.  On 20 May 2009 the applicants brought an action for compensation before the İzmir Administrative Court against the Municipality alone, arguing that the latter had been responsible for Yeşim Çakır’s death on account of its failure to repair the crash barrier in a timely manner, as well as the possible structural problems with the road. The applicants submitted to the Administrative Court as evidence the expert report ordered by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court (see paragraph 15 above). 19.  The Municipality once again denied responsibility for the maintenance of the crash barrier in question, but also stated that in any event, sole responsibility for the accident lay with the first applicant, who had lost control of his car despite the road signs warning of a sharp bend ahead. 20.  In their response to the Municipality, the applicants repeated that the state of the roadside barrier showed that other accidents had happened at that exact spot on previous occasions, which in turn suggested a structural problem with the road, such as an unusual sloping towards the side. They requested an expert examination on that matter. 21.  By an interim decision dated 18 February 2010 the İzmir Administrative Court requested a copy of the criminal case file, as well as detailed information from the Municipality and the General Directorate in order to be able to determine which of those authorities had been responsible for repairing the crash barrier. It appears from the information submitted by the authorities that the repair work in question fell under the responsibility of the Municipality. 22.  On 16 April 2010 the applicants once again requested an expert examination of the road in order to establish any structural problems that may have triggered the accident. They also asked the Administrative Court to find out how many accidents had happened on that road in the past. It appears that the Administrative Court did not obtain the information requested by the applicants. 23.  Relying mainly on the findings in the traffic accident report and the statements of the first applicant, on 27 May 2010 the İzmir Administrative Court found that the first applicant bore sole responsibility for the accident in question, as he had lost control of his car while taking the bend, despite a sign warning of the sharp bend ahead. It therefore rejected the applicants’ claims against the Municipality. 24.  The applicants appealed against that judgment. They argued that the judgment was based solely on the traffic accident report, and that a technical expert opinion was required to be able to ascertain whether the first applicant had lost control of his car as a result of an anomaly in the road. They also argued that although the roadside barrier had been damaged to the point of completely losing its protective capacities, the Administrative Court had not taken that factor into account in assessing the Municipality’s responsibility for the accident. 25.  On 25 January 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the İzmir Administrative Court.


4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  During the events which led to the fall of the communist regime in Bucharest, on 21 December 1989, the applicant suffered injuries caused by impingement and compression, as a result of which she needed 50 days of medical care, her life not being imperilled. 6.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office opened, of its own motion, several investigations into the ill-treatment and injuries suffered by those participating in the events of December 1989. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no. 11/P/2014). As regards the applicant, an investigation was opened under a separate file and she gave a statement as a witness on 23 June 1994. Her case has been further examined at a later date in the main criminal investigation. 7.  The most important procedural steps were described in the case Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011), and also in Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15 and 38 others, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are referred to below. 8.  On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaint regarding the offence of attempted homicide committed against the applicant was statute-barred. This decision was annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation under file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date. 9.  On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken to gather information from domestic authorities: the prosecutor’s office contacted 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of the events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, and verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television. 10.  At the date of the latest information available to the Court (see Sidea and Others, cited above, § 11), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.