5.  The applicant was born in 1961 in Gubadly and currently lives in Sumgayit. 6.  The applicant and his family are internally displaced persons from Gubadly. In 1993, during the occupation of the region by Armenian military forces, they fled their permanent place of residence and came to Sumgayit. 7.  After their flight from Gubadly, the applicant's family of six (himself, his wife, three children and the applicant's mother-in-law) resided temporarily in various places in Sumgayit. Immediately prior to the events outlined below they lived in a room in a State-owned hostel. 8.  From 17 June to 5 July 1999 the applicant's wife, Chichek Mammadova, underwent in-patient treatment in the Sumgayit City Emergency Hospital with a diagnosis of “closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion; contusion of soft tissues of the crown of the head; hysterical psychosis”. 9.  In late 2003 the applicant discovered that there were three vacant rooms in an old administrative building that belonged to the Sumgayit City Military Commissariat (the army recruitment office), which, however, no longer occupied the building. Part of the building was occupied by an association of war veterans, but the rooms that the applicant was interested in were abandoned and in a state of neglect. The rooms were located in auxiliary premises which had a separate entrance from the rear side of the building. The applicant occupied these rooms and conducted substantial repair work there for three months. According to him, the other occupants of the building were aware of his activities but did not object to them. Likewise, according to the applicant, there were no objections by any public authorities to the repair works carried out by him. 10.  After completing the repair works, at the end of 2003 the applicant left his hostel room and moved into the new dwelling together with his family. 11.  On 26 March 2004 two officials (E.G. and Y.A.) of the Sumgayit City Executive Authority (“the SCEA”), an employee of the local housing maintenance and utilities board (K.A.) and a number of police officers arrived in the applicant's new dwelling. They had no court order for his eviction. 12.  At an unspecified time after the arrival of the above-mentioned officials, the applicant's wife, Chichek Mammadova, poured some kerosene on herself and ignited it, apparently in protest at what she perceived as the authorities' intention to evict her family. It appears that at least one of the police officers helped put out the fire on her body, using a blanket he found inside the applicant's home. Chichek Mammadova's brother, who arrived slightly later, took her to hospital by taxi. 13.  Following this incident, the police loaded the possessions of the applicant's family onto a lorry and transported them back to the hostel where the applicant's family had previously resided. 14.  The applicant's wife suffered multiple second- and third-degree burns affecting 50% of the body surface. On 30 March 2004 she died in hospital of complications resulting from her injuries. The results of the autopsy released on 2 April 2004 confirmed that the death had been caused by the extensive burns to her body surface. 15.  According to the applicant, prior to 26 March 2004 he was summoned several times to meet the SCEA officials, who orally demanded him to vacate the rooms in the old Commissariat building and even asked him for a bribe in order to allow him to stay there. He refused their demands. 16.  On 26 March 2004 E.G., Y.A. and a large number of police officers arrived in the applicant's new dwelling and demanded that he and his family immediately vacate the premises. The applicant estimated the total number of police officers at around twenty-five to thirty, noting that most of them were equipped with batons. When the applicant and his family members refused, the police used force on the applicant and his mother-in-law. 17.  At this time Chichek Mammadova experienced a state of shock and psychological anxiety. She poured some kerosene on herself and threatened to set fire to herself if the police officers did not leave immediately. However, the SCEA officials and police officers did not take her threats seriously. E.G. even offered her a box of matches, mockingly encouraging her to keep her word and set fire to herself. 18.  At that moment, the applicant was outside trying to help one of his children, who had fainted a few moments earlier from fright. Therefore, the applicant could not immediately rescue his wife. According to the applicant, none of the police officers made an attempt to rescue her, because they were all busy carrying the applicant's possessions and loading them onto a lorry. 19.  Only Chichek Mammadova's sister, who was also in the vicinity, came to her rescue and extinguished the fire. Only one police officer offered some belated assistance. By this time, Chichek Mammadova had already suffered serious burns. Her brother, who arrived shortly after the incident, took her to hospital by taxi. 20.  According to the Government, at 11 a.m. on 26 March 2004 two SCEA officials, accompanied by five police officers, visited the premises occupied by the applicant's family. The aim of the visit was merely to explain to the applicant that his family was occupying these premises illegally. The applicant immediately left, together with a child of his, and went to a post office to send a complaint against the SCEA officials and the police. After the applicant had left, his wife supposed that her family would be evicted by force. She became anxious and set fire to herself in protest. None of the State officials present had provoked her to do so. A few minutes later her close relatives took her to hospital. 21.  Following this, the officials decided, on the spot, to move the applicant's family's belongings back to the hostel where they had previously resided. 22.  An investigator of the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office carried out a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of Chichek Mammadova's death. 23.  It appears that the investigator questioned a number of witnesses, including the applicant, his mother-in-law, his sister-in-law, the municipal employee K.A., the SCEA officials E.G. and Y.A., and seven police officers (J.M., C.V., N.A., E.N., N.G., N.I. and S.S.) (see summaries of the relevant witness testimonies in section F. below). 24.  By a decision of 14 May 2004 an investigator of the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the death of the applicant's wife. 25.  Based on the witness testimonies, the investigator concluded that there was no proof supporting the applicant's allegations that E.G. and Y.A. had entered the applicant's dwelling, that E.G. had offered matches to Chichek Mammadova, that E.G. had ever asked the applicant for a bribe, or that any police officers had used force against Chichek Mammadova. As there were no indications that any third persons had been in any way responsible for the fact that the applicant's wife had attempted suicide, there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings. 26.  Following this decision, the applicant sent a number of letters to the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office asking for a new investigation into the circumstances of his wife's death with a view to determining the responsibility of the SCEA officials and police officers involved in the incident. The Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office replied, with similarly worded letters, on 15 July, 20 July, 3 September and 28 September 2004. It was noted in these letters that Chichek Mammadova's death had been suicide and that the preliminary inquiry could not establish any responsibility on the part of the State officials in her death. It was also noted, however, that:
“... during the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Chichek [Mammadova], it was revealed that officials of the City Executive Authority and certain officers of the Sumgayit City Police Office had committed a number of errors [in performing their official duties. The matter has been referred] to the senior management of the City Executive Authority and the City Police Office with a view to eliminating such errors and ensuring that they are not repeated in the future, as well as taking relevant measures against the persons who have committed these errors. ...
... moreover, a report was submitted to the Sumgayit City Police Office in respect of the officers of the Sumgayit City Police Office who exceeded their authority by participating, without a relevant court order, in an operation to evict you from the building where you had settled illegally; the officers responsible for the misconduct have been punished under the disciplinary procedure.” 27.  In March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sumgayit City Court against the decision of the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office of 14 May 2004. On 1 April 2005 the Sumgayit City Court dismissed the applicant's complaint and upheld the decision of 14 May 2004. It noted that the inquiry did not reveal any evidence that a criminal offence had been committed and that, therefore, the decision of 14 May 2004 was lawful. 28.  On 25 May 2005 the Prosecutor General quashed the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office's decision of 14 May 2004 on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings. On 14 June 2005 the case was forwarded to the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office for an additional inquiry into the circumstances of the case. 29.  In the period from 24 June to 12 August 2005, the investigator of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office questioned a number of witnesses (mostly the same ones as those who had been questioned before) and obtained written testimonies from them (see section F. below). 30.  On 20 July 2005 the investigator requested an expert opinion on Chichek Mammadova's mental condition prior to her death and how it might have affected her actions leading to the suicide. In an expert opinion of 10 August 2005 an expert psychiatrist, having studied Chichek Mammadova's medical records and comments by people who had known her, concluded as follows:
“No symptoms of a psychogenic-depressive reaction potentially causing her suicide can be observed in Chichek Mammadova's personality and mental traits. However, in the period preceding Chichek Mammadova's death, she had experienced a state of emotional stress of a degree capable of influencing her behaviour.” 31.  On 17 August 2005 the investigator issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. The decision stated, inter alia:
“[According to the expert opinion of 10 August 2005,] the act of self-immolation by Chichek Mammadova was carried out in an attempt to prevent [her family's eviction]. During the incident, she found herself in the extreme circumstances of facing eviction from the rooms that [her family] had occupied, and reacted inadequately by self‑immolating in an ostentatious manner, having decided that it would attract the attention of those who were around her, evoke in them feelings of compassion towards herself, and help her resolve the conflict situation she encountered. In the period preceding her death, Chichek Mammadova had experienced emotional stress of a degree that could have influenced her subsequent actions.
... the additional inquiry revealed that no other person had incited Chichek Mammadova to commit suicide by means of either ill-treating her, debasing her dignity or intimidating her.
The claims of [the applicant] have not been confirmed during the additional inquiry ... It was established that the [SCEA and police] officials had carried out their official duties in a lawful manner, had given lawful instructions and had not committed any breaches of law when implementing those instructions, and that there had been no corpus delicti in [their] actions.
Therefore ... the institution of criminal proceedings should be refused.” 32.  It appears that, following this decision, the applicant sent a number of letters to the Prosecutor General's Office, complaining that the investigation into the circumstances of his wife's death had been inadequate. In letters of 22 September and 10 October 2005 the Prosecutor General's Office responded that the inquiry by the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office did not reveal any criminal elements in the actions of the State officials and that the applicant could challenge the decision of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office of 17 August 2005 in the courts. The applicant did not lodge a judicial complaint. 33.  On 7 June 2006 the First Deputy to the Prosecutor General quashed the decision of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office of 17 August 2005 on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings. Having regard to the contradictory testimonies of key witnesses and indications of possible breaches of law by the SCEA and police officials, the First Deputy to the Prosecutor General found that the inquiry had been incomplete and instituted criminal proceedings under Article 125 (incitement to suicide) of the Criminal Code. The Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office was instructed to carry out the investigation. 34.  On 10 June 2006 the applicant was given the procedural status of a “legal successor to a victim of crime”. In June and July 2006 the applicant submitted to the investigator a number of petitions requesting him, inter alia, to summon certain additional witnesses and to remove certain SCEA and police officials from their official posts during the investigation period. On 1 August 2006 the investigator rejected these petitions. 35.  It appears that the investigator again questioned mostly the same group of witnesses who had been questioned before (see paragraphs 23 and 29 above and section F. below). 36.  On 7 September 2006 the three-month investigation period was extended for another two months. 37.  On 1 October 2006 the investigation was suspended. On 14 November 2006 it was resumed. No documents are available in the case file in respect of these procedural events. 38.  On 15 November 2006 the investigator from the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation, owing to the inability “to determine the perpetrator of the criminal offence” of incitement to suicide. 39.  The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against the investigator's decision of 15 November 2006 to suspend the investigation. On 19 March 2007 the Binagadi District Court quashed the impugned decision and instructed the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office to resume the investigation. The court noted, inter alia:
“It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal investigation has not been full and comprehensive, and there was no basis for suspending the criminal proceedings as no face-to-face confrontations between witnesses have been held, and it has not been determined whether there were lawful grounds for the [SCEA and police] officials to enter the residential premises and remove the victim's belongings from there, whether the police officers indeed went to the scene of the incident with the aim of carrying out prophylactic measures, whether such prophylactic measures were lawful, whether any physical force were used against the residents of the premises, and whether the [State officials] at the scene of the incident abused their official authority.” 40.  On 9 April 2007 the investigation was resumed. However, on 25 April 2007 the investigator of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office decided to suspend the investigation again. In his decision he noted that, after the resumption of the investigation on 9 April 2007, “a number of investigative steps ha[d] been carried out”; however, it was still impossible to determine the perpetrator of the offence of incitement to suicide. The nature of such investigative acts was unspecified. 41.  The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against the investigator's decision of 25 April 2007 to suspend the investigation. On 7 June 2007 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint and upheld the investigator's decision. On 4 July 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the Binagadi District Court's decision. 42.  On 16 September 2008 the investigator of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office issued a decision terminating the criminal proceedings on account of the absence of corpus delicti for the purposes of Article 125 of the Criminal Code in the actions of any of the persons involved in the incident resulting in the applicant's wife's self-immolation. The decision contained, inter alia, the following findings:
“From 5 March 2004 the [SCEA] became aware of the fact that [the applicant and his family] had changed, of their own free will [without authorisation], their place of residence and were illegally residing in a State-owned non-residential building. Despite several early warnings given by [SCEA and police] officials, [the applicant and his family] continued to illegally reside in those non-residential premises.
At around 11 a.m. on 26 March 2004, pursuant to an instruction by the [SCEA's] senior administration, [SCEA officials E.G. and Y.A.], police officers [N.G., E.N., N.A., C.V.], and the Deputy Head of the Sumgayit City Police Office J.M. went ... to the above address to have a prophylactic conversation with [the applicant and his family].
During the prophylactic conversation ... Chichek Mammadova became anxious and, having presumed that [her family] would be evicted from the premises, poured kerosene on herself and ignited it; a state of tension ensued at the scene of the incident; Chichek Mammadova was taken to hospital by her relatives; her husband [the applicant] had left the scene prior to Chichek Mammadova's self-immolation to send a complaint by telegram; as a result, a process of eviction was started in accordance with an instruction given on the spot by [E.G. and Y.A.]; the police officers loaded [the applicant's] belongings onto a lorry and transported them to [the hostel where the applicant's family had previously lived] and delivered them to [R.N.], the superintendent of the hostel.
It has been determined that the senior administration of [the SCEA] sent [E.G. and Y.A.] with the purpose of carrying out prophylactic measures in respect of the internally displaced persons who were illegally occupying the State-owned non‑residential premises in order to ensure that [the latter] vacated the premises voluntarily, and that the senior management of [the SCEA] did not instruct its officials to evict the internally displaced persons by force. However, after [the applicant's] wife Chichek Mammadova, who was suffering from a mental illness, had set fire to herself, [E.G. and Y.A.] instructed the police officers to move out the [applicant's] belongings, organised the transportation of those belongings to the hostel..., delivered them to the superintendent [R.N.] and signed a deed of delivery. ...
It has been determined that, pursuant to an oral instruction from [the SCEA], the police officers were sent to the above-mentioned address by the administration of the Sumgayit City Police Office in order to participate in carrying out the prophylactic measures and, after the act of self-immolation by Chichek Mammadova, received an instruction directly from [E.G. and Y.A.] to move [the applicant's] belongings.
[Summaries of witness testimonies and forensic evidence follow.]
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Law on Social Protection of Internally Displaced Persons and Individuals Equated to Them of 21 May 1999, the relevant local executive authorities are responsible for temporary housing of internally displaced persons. Internally displaced persons may be allowed to settle temporarily on their own only if the rights and lawful interests of other persons are not infringed. Otherwise, the relevant executive authority must ensure resettlement of the internally displaced persons to other accommodation ...
Pursuant to clause 4 of the Regulations on Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons to Other Accommodation, adopted in Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 200 of 24 December 1999, in cases where the temporary settling of internally displaced persons breaches the housing rights of other individuals, the local executive authorities must provide the former with other suitable accommodation.
According to a statement received from the Sumgayit City Court, there has been no judicial order for the eviction of [the applicant] from the premises where he had settled.
[A summary of the expert opinion on Chichek Mammadova's mental state follows.]
The investigation did not reveal evidence in support of [the applicant's] allegations that [the SCEA] officials demanded a bribe from him, abused or exceeded their authority, or unlawfully evicted [the applicant's family], or that the police officers ... abused or exceeded their authority, or used force against [the applicant] and his family members or his mother-in-law. The decisions and actions of [the SCEA and police] officials taken in connection with the premises illegally occupied [by the applicant's family] were lawful and did not transgress the limits specified by the legislation [in force]. The actions of [the SCEA and police] officials did not contain any elements of offences under Articles 308, 309, 311 and 125 of the Criminal Code or any other criminal offences.
Moreover, the investigation revealed no indications that Chichek Mammadova was driven to commit suicide by way of ill-treatment debasing her dignity or threatening her, and found no person guilty of such acts. No elements of an offence under Article 125 of the Criminal Code have been established in the actions of any person [in connection with this incident].” 43.  Below are summaries of testimonies of the witnesses questioned at various times by the investigation authorities in the course of the above‑mentioned proceedings. The summaries have been derived either from copies of the witness depositions submitted by the Government in their observations or from the texts of the investigation authorities' decisions, or both. It appears that a number of the witnesses were questioned more than once; in such cases, the summary includes the content of all their testimonies. 44.  The applicant testified that, prior to 26 March 2004, he had been called to the SCEA several times and had been demanded to vacate the premises in the Sumgayit Commissariat. On one occasion, he had been accompanied to the SCEA by a police officer, C.V. The applicant claimed that, during these meetings with the SCEA officials, he had been asked for a bribe. 45.  At 11 a.m. on 26 March 2004 K.A. knocked on the applicant's door and did not tell him the real reason for her visit when he asked. When he opened the door, K.A. entered the dwelling with E.G., followed by police officers N.I., S.S. and C.V. (whom the applicant identified by their first names), and several other police officers unknown to him. A “large number” of other unknown police officers remained outside. N.I., S.S. and C.V. used force on the applicant immediately after they had gone inside. The applicant's wife, who witnessed this, asked the police officers why they were doing this and threatened to set fire to herself. In reply, E.G. mockingly challenged her to do so. At that moment, the applicant was able to escape from the police officers and go outside in search of a phone to call his relatives for assistance. When he came back, he saw a burnt blanket at the entrance of the dwelling and found out that his wife had performed self‑immolation and had been taken to hospital. He went to the hospital to see his wife. From the hospital he went to a post office to send telegrams to various authorities complaining about the incident. When he came back to his dwelling from the post office, he saw that his possessions had been removed. 46.  The testimony of the applicant's mother-in-law mostly corroborated the applicant's statements. Unlike him, she was inside the dwelling during the entire incident. She estimated that there had been around twenty to twenty-five officials and police officers during the incident and noted that they all had entered the dwelling. She also noted that, at one point, police officer N.I. had used force on the applicant by twisting his arms. She further submitted that E.G. had gone inside the dwelling and provoked Chichek Mammadova by offering her a box of matches. Following this, Chichek went into another room and emerged from it burning. One of the police officers helped put out the fire by throwing a blanket and a carpet on Chichek Mammadova. 47.  The applicant's sister-in-law was in accord with her mother's testimony. 48.  E.G. stated that the applicant and his family members had been notified earlier about the illegality of their actions and had been asked to vacate their dwelling in the Commissariat building. On 25 March 2004 S.R., a head of department at the SCEA, instructed him and another colleague of his (F.K.) to participate, as “observers” from the SCEA, in the “prophylactic measures” that would be taken the next day in connection with the applicant's illegal occupation of part of the Commissariat building. On 26 March 2004 he went to that address together with Y.A., while F.K. joined them much later. There were already an unspecified number of police officers there. An unspecified number of unidentified relatives and friends of the applicant were also there. The latter verbally insulted him and Y.A. The Deputy Head of the Sumgayit City Police Office (J.M.) was also there and spoke to the applicant about vacating the premises. 49.  E.G. specified that K.A. had knocked on the applicant's door and, immediately after it had been opened, several policemen had gone inside and spoken to the applicant. E.G. himself was standing, together with Y.A., outside the building, about 40-50 metres away from the entrance to the applicant's dwelling. “A little while later”, he heard screams from inside the applicant's dwelling and saw the police officers bring out Chichek Mammadova, who was badly burnt and was then taken to hospital. The applicant was not there at this time, as he had gone away somewhere. After Chichek Mammadova had been driven away, the premises occupied by the applicant and his possessions were left unattended by his family members, so they were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more “secure place”, that is, the hostel where the applicant had lived before. 50.  E.G. denied speaking to the applicant prior to the incident and asking for any bribe from him. He also denied offering any matches to Chichek Mammadova and repeatedly insisted that he had been standing outside when she had immolated herself. He noted that the police officers had not used any force against the applicant or his family members. He also denied issuing any instructions to move the applicant's possessions out of the dwelling and stated that the police officers had decided to do so by themselves. 51.  Y.A. testified that, on 26 March 2004, his colleagues E.G. and F.K. had asked him to accompany them to the premises that the applicant had illegally occupied. When they arrived, there were already an unspecified number of police officers and an unspecified number of the applicant's relatives and friends. He and E.G. were standing outside the building, a significant distance away from the entrance to the premises occupied by the applicant. A little while later, they heard a commotion inside the premises and saw several police officers run inside. The latter brought out a badly burnt woman and sent her to a hospital. One of the police officers, E.N., helped put out the fire and, as a result, suffered a burn injury to his hand. (However, in another deposition Y.A. slightly changed his recollection of the above events and specified that, after K.A. and several police officers had knocked on the applicant's door, they had all gone inside. A little while later, Y.A. heard screams from the inside and heard the police officers bring out Chichek Mammadova.) 52.  The applicant, by this time, had gone away somewhere else and there was a state of confusion and disarray at the scene of the incident. Therefore, the applicant's possessions were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more secure place (the hostel) for “temporary storage”. Subsequently, the applicant reclaimed his possessions and took them back to the same premises in the Commissariat building that he had illegally occupied. 53.  Y.A. insisted that he and E.G. had been standing outside when Chichek Mammadova had immolated herself and that E.G. had never offered any matches to her. He submitted that the police officers had not used any force against the applicant or his family members. 54.  F.K. testified that S.R., a head of department at the SCEA, had instructed him and E.G. to participate, as “observers” from the SCEA, in the “prophylactic measures” that would be taken the next day in connection with the applicant's illegal occupation of the premises in the Commissariat building. However, in the early morning of 26 March 2004 he was away on another assignment and arrived at the scene of the incident only after Chichek Mammadova had immolated herself. He had assisted in the transportation and delivery of the applicant's possessions to the hostel's superintendent. 55.  S.R. testified that, in early March 2004, he had received information that a family of internally displaced persons had illegally settled in the administrative building of the Sumgayit Commissariat. Thereafter, the applicant came to the SCEA to meet him personally and asked him to allow his family to stay in that building. However, S.R. refused, stating that the applicant's actions were illegal. 56.  He further noted that, on 26 March 2004, he had instructed E.G. and Y.A. to go to the applicant's premises and have a “prophylactic conversation” with the latter. He also requested the Sumgayit City Police Office to send some police officers there in order to “avoid any incidents”. However, S.R. insisted that he had not instructed either E.G. and Y.A. or the police officers to evict the applicant's family by force. The applicant's possessions were moved out of the premises only after the act of self‑immolation by Chichek Mammadova pursuant to a decision taken on the spot by the SCEA officials, in order to preserve the possessions from possible theft in the atmosphere of confusion which ensued at the scene of the incident. 57.  J.M. testified that he had received an oral instruction to carry out a “prophylactic conversation” with the applicant's family and to protect public order at the site during such “prophylactic” measures. For this purpose, he sent police officers E.N. and N.G. to the Commissariat building. He himself also went there at around noon on 26 March 2004 and talked to the applicant and the SCEA officials who were already there. About 5-10 minutes after his arrival, he heard screams from inside the applicant's dwelling and saw E.N. and N.G. go inside. The latter helped to put out the fire on Chichek Mammadova's body and to send her to hospital. Thereafter, he called more police officers to the scene in order to restore order and preserve the applicant's possessions. 58.  C.V. testified that on 26 March 2004 he and his colleague N.A. had been told that the authorities would carry out a “prophylactic conversation” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the Commissariat building with the aim of protecting public order. When they arrived at the site, there were four other police officers (J.M., E.N., N.G. and S.S.), as well as E.G., Y.A. and K.A. Then K.A. knocked on the door and the applicant came out. The applicant and J.M. engaged in a conversation. The other police officers, including himself, were standing nearby. E.G. and Y.A. were standing about 30 metres from the entrance to the dwelling. While J.M. and the applicant were talking, C.V. heard screams from inside. He and two other police officers (N.A. and E.N.) went inside and saw Chichek Mammadova on fire, coming out of a back room. The police officers, including himself, put out the fire on her body by throwing blankets on her. At this time, the applicant went away somewhere, possibly to a post office. About 15 minutes later, one of Chichek Mammadova's relatives arrived and took her to hospital. Out of the applicant's family, only the applicant's elderly mother-in-law remained at the scene and she was in a state of shock because of her daughter's suicide attempt. The applicant's home possessions were essentially left unattended at this moment, so they were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more secure place. 59.  C.V. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members. He did not assist in moving out the applicant's possessions. 60.  N.A. testified that on 26 March 2004 he had received an instruction from his superiors to go to the Commissariat building with the aim of protecting public order during the eviction of the applicant's family. He went there together with C.V., another police officer. At an unspecified moment, he heard screams from inside the applicant's premises, and he and other police officers ran inside and saw Chichek Mammadova on fire. They helped put out the fire and took her to hospital. He returned to the scene around two hours later and saw that the applicant's possessions had been loaded onto a lorry. He denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members. According to him, E.G. was standing outside when Chichek Mammadova immolated herself, never went inside the applicant's premises and never offered her matches. 61.  E.N. testified that on 26 March 2004 he had been told that the authorities would carry out a “prophylactic conversation” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the Commissariat building with the aim of protecting public order. The aim of the “prophylactic conversation” was to persuade the applicant to vacate the illegally occupied premises voluntarily. There were a total of five police officers at the site (including himself, J.M., C.V., N.A. and N.G.). E.G. and Y.A. were also there and were standing some distance away from the premises, because the applicant's relatives and friends kept insulting them. During J.M.'s conversation with the applicant, E.N. heard screams from inside the premises and immediately ran there. He saw a woman on fire. He took a blanket and extinguished the fire on her body. While doing this, he himself was injured, suffering a burn to his hand. 62.  E.N. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members. He also did not assist in moving out the applicant's possessions, as he had to leave the scene to receive medical treatment for his injury. 63.  N.G. testified that on 26 March 2004 he had been told that the authorities would carry out a “prophylactic conversation” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the Commissariat building with the aim of protecting public order. He went there together with E.N., his colleague. While one of the police officers engaged in conversation with the applicant, E.G., Y.A. and all the police officers (including himself) were standing outside. At this moment, he heard screams from inside the premises. He and E.N. went inside. E.N. extinguished the fire on Chichek Mammadova's body and, while doing this, suffered an injury to his hand. He accompanied E.N., who needed medical treatment, to hospital. Chichek Mammadova was taken to hospital by her relatives. When he returned about an hour later, he saw that the applicant's possessions were being loaded onto a lorry by the applicant's own relatives and friends. Police officers were occasionally assisting them. 64.  N.G. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members. He insisted that all the police officers had been standing outside the applicant's premises when Chichek Mammadova had set fire to herself inside the premises. E.G. and Y.A. were also outside, further away from the building. Police officers N.I. and S.S. were not at the scene of the incident at the time of Chichek Mammadova's suicide attempt and arrived only after the incident. 65.  N.I. was a police officer whom the applicant and his mother-in-law specifically identified by first name in their statements, alleging that N.I. had used force against the applicant. 66.  N.I. testified that at around noon on 26 March 2004 he had received information that a woman had immolated herself at the Commissariat building and that a large crowd of people had gathered there. He went to the Commissariat building and saw a lorry loaded with various household items. He enquired of the officials who were there what had happened. He then left the site. 67.  N.I. insisted that he had not participated in this operation, that he had not been at the scene of the incident at the time when Chichek Mammadova had attempted suicide, that he had not met the applicant before, and that he was unaware of any reasons why the applicant had specifically mentioned his name in his complaints. 68.  S.S. was a police officer whom the applicant identified by first name in his testimony, alleging that S.S. had used force against him. 69.  S.S. testified that at around noon on 26 March 2004 he had received an instruction by portable radio to go to the Commissariat building. When he arrived there at around 12.30 p.m., he found out that a woman had committed an act of self-immolation and had been taken to hospital. Other police officers told him the entire story. After he arrived, he only witnessed how the applicant's possessions were being loaded onto a lorry by the applicant's own relatives and friends. Police officers were occasionally assisting them. Out of the applicant's family, only his elderly mother-in-law was there. The applicant and his child had gone. 70.  S.S. insisted that he had not been at the scene of the incident at the time when Chichek Mammadova had attempted suicide and that neither he nor any other police officer had used any force against the applicant or his family members. 71.  K.A. stated that on 26 March 2004 her colleague at the Housing Maintenance and Utilities Board, B.I., had requested her to go to the applicant's dwelling following an instruction received from the SCEA. When she arrived there, she saw E.G., Y.A. and five or six police officers. E.G. and Y.A. told her that they needed a female to knock on the applicant's door and asked her to do it. When the door was opened, both the police officers and the SCEA officials quickly entered inside. Before she knocked on the door, Y.A. had also instructed her to procure a lorry. Therefore, she immediately left the scene after knocking on the door. For this reason, she did not witness the act of self-immolation by the applicant's wife. When she returned to the scene of the incident about 30 minutes later, she heard that Chichek Mammadova had attempted suicide and had been taken to hospital. K.A. was then asked to enter the applicant's dwelling and write an itemised list of the applicant's household items that were being loaded onto the lorry. She did not want to do this, but did so under forceful orders from the SCEA officials. 72.  B.I. stated that he had gone to the applicant's dwelling together with K.A., but had left before all the events had happened because of other urgent business. During the short period when he was there, he saw five or six police officers standing near the Commissariat building and E.G. and Y.A. standing a little further away. 73.  T.M. testified that at around 1 p.m. on 26 March 2004 she had heard about the incident in the Commissariat building. She immediately went there together with a camera operator. However, when they arrived, everything was over and they could not get any video footage of the relevant events. Thereafter, she went to the hospital where Chichek Mammadova had been taken, but was not able to interview her. 74.  R.N. was the superintendent of the State-owned hostel where the applicant's family used to live before they moved to the new dwelling at the Commissariat building. According to him, the applicant's family lived in his hostel from 1994 to January 2004. The applicant's wife suffered from a “nervous disease” and was “mentally unstable”. In January 2004 the applicant's family left the hostel. On 26 March 2004 the SCEA officials and police officers brought the applicant's household possessions back to the hostel for “temporary storage” (as they explained). He signed the list of items and locked the applicant's possessions in a separate room. On 6 April 2004 the applicant reclaimed his possessions. 75.  N.Q. testified that, prior to the applicant's eviction from his dwelling, he had gone to the SCEA together with the applicant with the purpose of obtaining permission for the applicant to stay in the dwelling. He noted that, during that meeting, the SCEA officers had explained to the applicant that he was occupying the dwelling illegally. They had not demanded any bribes from the applicant in return for permission to stay there. 76.  S.B. was a member of an association of veterans which occupied part of the premises in the Commissariat building. He described in general how the applicant had carried out repair works in his dwelling. He noted that there had been no objections from any State authorities during the time when the applicant had carried out the work.


5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Stronie Śląskie. 6.  On 3 August 1997 the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) entered into force. 7.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant, a candidate for the European Parliament, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services. He was subsequently elected as a Member of the European Parliament. 8.  On 9 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had cooperated with the secret services. 9.  On 17 February 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration since he had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the State’s secret services. The court established that the applicant had met on probably two occasions in 1973 with agents of the secret services and had agreed to help them as a consultant. 10.  The applicant appealed against the decision. He submitted that he had never collaborated with the secret services and the meeting in question had been in connection with the preparation of an article. The applicant also referred to his subsequent activity in the “Solidarność” movement for which he had been persecuted and detained by the communist authorities. Subsequently, he was allowed to leave Poland and between 1985 and 1994 he was a deputy of the Polish Section of Radio Free Europe in Munich. 11.  On 6 June 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment. 12.  On 1 February 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. That decision was notified to the applicant on 8 March 2007.


5.  The applicant was born in 1946. He was the Minister of Health Care from 1993 to 2005. 6.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant was summoned to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”). He arrived at the MNS at around 3 p.m. and was questioned until 7 p.m. 7.  After being questioned he was detained on suspicion of abuse of official authority, embezzlement of public funds and complicity in an attempted coup d’état, allegedly planned to take place after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005 and masterminded by former Parliament Speaker R. Guliyev (who was living abroad at that time) and several other high-ranking government officials. He was held in the detention facility of the MNS. 8.  It appears that he was dismissed from his ministerial office on the same day. 9.  On 22 October 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office formally charged the applicant with criminal offences under Articles 28/220.1 (preparation to organise public disorder), 278 (actions aimed at usurping State power), 179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement), 308.2 (abuse of official authority entailing grave consequences), 311.3.2 (repeated bribe-taking) and 311.3.3 (high-level bribe-taking) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was formally charged in criminal case no. 76586. 10.  On 22 October 2005 the Nasimi District Court remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months (until 20 January 2006). On 13 January 2006 the same court extended this period by another four months (until 20 May 2006). On 19 May 2006 this period was extended again, by another five months (until 20 October 2006). Lastly, on 16 October 2006 the period was extended again, by another six months (until 20 April 2007). The applicant lodged appeals against each of these decisions. All his appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. An appeal by the applicant against the extension decision of 16 October 2006 was dismissed by a decision of the Court of Appeal on 2 November 2006. 11.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation, the investigating authorities carried out a search of the applicant’s home and found, inter alia, large amounts of cash in various currencies, large quantities of gold items and jewellery, and deeds of a number of residential properties. 12.  On 19 January 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a new indictment charging the applicant with criminal offences under Articles 28/220.1, 278, 179.3.2, 306.2 (failure by a public official to execute a final court judgment), 308.1 (abuse of official authority), 308.2, 311.3.1 (bribe‑taking), 311.3.2 and 311.3.3 of the Criminal Code. 13.  On 24 January 2007 a new criminal case (no. 76932) was severed from criminal case no. 76586. Under criminal case no. 76932 the applicant was formally charged with the offences under Articles 179.3.2, 306.2, 308.1, 308.2, 311.3.1, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 313 (forgery in public office) of the Criminal Code. 14.  Specifically, the applicant was accused of having committed the following criminal acts, inter alia:
(i)  Between 1997 and 2004 he had created conditions for unlawful disposal (by way of privatisation) of numerous State-owned real-property assets (land and non-residential premises) which were on the books of the Ministry of Health Care and had a total estimated value of 27,221,574 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 23,500,000 euros (EUR) at that time). Among other things, the applicant was accused of falsifying, with the assistance of accomplices, certain documents related to the above-mentioned assets, in order for that property to be designated suitable for privatisation under the State Privatisation Programme and privatisation laws, whereas in fact those assets did not qualify as such, and were necessary for the proper functioning of State health care institutions. Most of these assets were privatised by dummy companies affiliated to the applicant or his acquaintances and were subsequently resold to the applicant’s family members and acquaintances. In connection with the above transactions, the applicant also received bribes in the total amount of 200,000 United States dollars (USD) (equivalent to AZN 195,460);
(ii)  He had embezzled AZN 115,240 of public funds in order to pay for the publication of one of his books;
(iii)  He had taken a number of bribes in the total amount of USD 76,900 (equivalent to AZN 75,423) and another bribe in the amount of AZN 2,800 in exchange for issuing licences to private companies for operating pharmacies, and had kept 70% of the above amounts for himself while distributing the remainder among his accomplices;
(iv)  He had continually failed to comply with seven final domestic judgments (the earliest of which had been delivered in 1994), ordering the reinstatement of former Ministry of Health Care employees who had been unlawfully dismissed from their positions; and
(v)  He had committed a number of other acts of embezzlement and abuse of official authority. 15.  On 24 January 2007 the investigating authorities informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation in criminal case no. 76932 had been completed. Criminal case no. 76932 was sent for trial in the Assize Court. The original criminal case no. 76586, which still carried the charges under Articles 28/220.1 and 179.3.2 of the Criminal Code, was not sent for trial, but was not terminated either. 16.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant’s lawyers lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General, alleging that the defence had not been allowed to properly familiarise themselves with the case materials. In particular, they complained that not all the annexes to the case files had been presented to the defence and that the defence had not been allowed to take photocopies of case materials. By a letter of 2 February 2007 the Prosecutor General rejected this complaint, noting that during the period from 24 to 30 January 2007 the applicant and his lawyers had been allowed access to all forty‑three volumes of the case file, three video-tapes, photographs and other material evidence, and that on 30 January 2007 they had signed a record of familiarisation with the case file together with the annexed time sheets. Furthermore, he stated that, from the content of the other, unrelated complaints lodged with the prosecution authorities at around the same time, it was clear that the defence had sufficient knowledge of the entire investigation case file. Lastly, the Prosecutor General added that, if necessary, the defence would be given an opportunity to consult and take photocopies of the investigation materials again during the trial. 17.  On 15 February 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Assize Court, arguing that the defence had not been given an opportunity to adequately familiarise themselves with the case file and requesting the court to suspend the proceedings on this ground and to send the case back to the investigation stage. By an interim decision of 15 February 2007 the Assize Court refused this request, finding that the defence had been given adequate access to the case file. 18.  The applicant was tried at the Assize Court with ten others, who were either former officials of the Ministry of Health Care or had been involved in commercial transactions with the Ministry. Each of the ten was charged with complicity in some of the criminal offences with which the applicant had been charged. In connection with the embezzlement charges, a civil claim was also advanced against the applicant and some of the other defendants in the criminal case. 19.  In addition there were around twenty civil defendants in the case, against whom no criminal charges had been brought. The civil defendants were the current private owners of the formerly public property which had allegedly been unlawfully embezzled or sold by the applicant.
(a)  Hearings at the Assize Court 20.  A preliminary hearing was held on 15 February 2007 and hearings on the merits were held from 22 February to 20 April 2007. The hearings were held on working days between around 9.30 a.m. and around 6 p.m., but sometimes lasted until after 7 p.m. 21.  According to the Government, more than 120 witnesses were heard during the trial. The Assize Court’s judgment of 20 April 2007 summarised statements from a large number of witnesses, who testified in connection with all of the accusations against the applicant and the other accused persons. 22.  In addition to hearing witnesses, the court also examined various documentary and other material evidence presented by the prosecution, including various expert reports on forensic handwriting analyses of a large number of documents, reports on valuation of unlawfully privatised properties, and so on. Among this documentary evidence, an important role in the prosecution’s submissions was given to three audit reports of 27 June, 11 August and 18 December 2006 concerning the “audit of the financial and economic activities of the Ministries of Health Care and Economic Development”, prepared by a number of employees (sometimes referred to as “experts” in the relevant court documents) of the Ministry of Finance, the Chamber of Auditors and other State agencies, pursuant to a decision of the Nasimi District Court of 29 November 2005. In sum, these reports concluded that, despite the fact that the State privatisation programme allowed privatisation of State health care facilities only by a decision of the President of the Republic, the applicant had exceeded and abused his official powers and, together with “other persons”, had unlawfully issued instructions and otherwise created conditions for unlawful privatisation of a large number of State-owned health care facilities, plots of land, and other assets. Furthermore, the reports also found that there had been a number of breaches of accounting requirements, instances of mismanagement of State budgetary resources allocated to the Ministry of Health Care, undocumented or improperly documented use of large amounts of money, and so on. It appears that these three reports were among the most decisive pieces of evidence on which the applicant’s eventual conviction was based. In particular, the Assize Court stated in its judgment that these reports confirmed that the applicant had committed acts of abuse of official powers and embezzlement of public funds. 23.  During the hearings, the applicant complained that he was not allowed time to confer with his lawyers in a confidential setting in the course of the hearings, and that whereas the hearings lasted a full day each time, he was not allowed to meet his lawyers at the detention facility at weekends and on other non-working days. In particular, by a letter of 17 March 2007, he complained to the MNS about the MNS Detention Facility’s refusal to allow his lawyers to enter the facility for meetings with the applicant at weekends. Furthermore, in his complaints about the Assize Court judges made in late March and early April 2007, the applicant complained, among other things, that the judges had ignored his complaints concerning inadequate time and facilities for meetings with his lawyers and that the court had repeatedly refused the defence’s requests for short adjournments to the hearings in order to allow the applicant and his lawyers to hold confidential discussions concerning their defence strategy. Instead, they had been forced to confer with each other in the presence of prosecutors and judges. 24.  According to the applicant, the Assize Court essentially ignored the above complaints. According to the Government, the Assize Court examined the applicant’s complaints about meetings with his lawyers and, in particular, on 30 March 2007 adjourned the hearing for the defence to confer and prepare a representation. Also, the Assize Court sent a letter to the acting head of the MNS Detention Facility, reminding the latter of the applicant’s right to meet with his lawyers and requesting him to allow such meetings on days when no hearings were scheduled.
(b)  Various requests by the applicant concerning examination of additional witnesses 25.  During both the preliminary and the trial hearings, the applicant made a number of requests to the Assize Court concerning various substantive and procedural matters, including examination of additional witnesses, as summarised below.
(i)  In respect of charges relating to privatisation fraud and abuse of official power 26.  On 15, 22 and 28 February and 6, 7, 12 and 30 March 2007, the applicant requested the court to summon and hear a number of witnesses in connection with the accusations against him of creating conditions for unlawful privatisation and sale of State property and other abuses of official powers. 27.  In these submissions the applicant contested the findings contained in the three audit reports of 27 June, 11 August and 18 December 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). He argued that those findings were wrong and mutually contradictory, and claimed that some of the “experts” who had worked on the relevant audits had either refused to sign those reports or had signed them with reservations. In his submissions the applicant repeatedly insisted that the court summon and hear as witnesses a number of those experts who had worked on the audits and authored the reports, including the head of the State Financial Control Department of the Ministry of Finance and three other experts from that ministry, an auditor of the Chamber of Auditors, a section head of the State Committee for Management of State Property, the Deputy Minister and two other high‑ranking officials of the Ministry of Economic Development, and so on. 28.  Furthermore, the applicant noted that, whereas he was accused of having created conditions for unlawful privatisation and sale of State property which belonged to the Ministry of Health Care, under domestic law the agencies responsible for privatisation of State property were the State Committee for Management of State Property (formerly the Department of Management and Privatisation of State Property) and the Ministry of Economic Development. Only these agencies had the authority to dispose of State property. As such, these State agencies had ultimately carried out and approved the sale and privatisation of the assets in question, and officials of these agencies had signed the relevant final acts. The applicant further argued that his role (as Minister of Health Care and Chairman of the State Commission on Reforms in the Health Care System) in the privatisation procedure was limited to merely submitting proposals to the President and the Cabinet of Ministers for items to be included in lists of various assets suggested for privatisation, as well as giving his confirmation to the Ministry of Economic Development on a case-by-case basis that he did not object to the privatisation of specific State-owned facilities which were on the books of the Ministry of Health Care. Therefore, even if the relevant assets had been privatised unlawfully, he could not be held responsible for it, and the officials of the State Committee for Management of State Property and the Ministry of Economic Development were responsible for the entire privatisation process and for any failure to detect abuse or unlawfulness. For these reasons, the applicant repeatedly insisted in his submissions that the court summon and examine as witnesses the Chairman of the State Committee for Management of State Property and the former Minister of Economic Development (the former Minister of Economic Development, Mr Farhad Aliyev, was tried and convicted in separate criminal proceedings at around the same time in connection with, inter alia, charges of alleged corruption and a number of abuses of official power). 29.  At the preliminary hearing of 15 February 2007 the Assize Court examined the above request and heard the parties’ submissions in connection with it. The prosecution submitted that, at this stage, this request was premature because the question whether it was necessary to examine any additional evidence should be decided after the judicial examination of the prosecution material submitted to the court. Having heard the parties’ submissions, the Assize Court refused the applicant’s request without providing any reasoning. 30.  On 22 February 2007 the Assize Court examined the applicant’s repeated request and refused it on the ground that it had been raised prematurely at the preliminary hearing stage and that it would be examined at the trial hearing stage. 31.  As regards the applicant’s repeated requests to the same end made on 28 February and 6, 7 and 12 March 2007, the Assize Court refused them during various trial hearings, noting that it would determine whether it was necessary to hear additional witnesses at a later stage. 32.  During the trial hearing of 30 March 2007 the applicant submitted the same request again. The Assize Court refused the request. It noted that during previous trial hearings which had been held in the meantime it had already heard representatives of the State Committee for Management of State Property and examined all relevant privatisation-related and other documents signed by officials of this agency: therefore the part of the applicant’s request seeking that the appropriate officials of this agency be heard was no longer relevant and should be rejected. As regards the request to call the experts who had conducted the audits and authored the reports of 27 June, 11 August and 18 December 2006, the Assize Court refused this part of the applicant’s request too, noting that if the court considered, once the relevant reports had been read out at the subsequent hearings, that there were indeed some contradictions in those reports and that it was necessary to seek clarification, the court could decide to grant the request at one of the future hearings and to call those experts to testify. 33.  It appears that at the subsequent hearings the Assize Court did not take up this matter again. 34.  The court’s judgment of 20 April 2007 (see below) was silent in respect of the applicant’s procedural requests for additional witnesses to be heard.
(ii)  In respect of other charges 35.  A large number of individuals had been questioned by the investigation authorities during the pre-trial investigation, with the purpose of establishing and proving the allegations of corruption by Ministry of Health Care officials, including the applicant, in connection with applications for pharmaceutical licences. Not all those questioned by the investigation authorities were ultimately included in the list of prosecution witnesses to testify against the applicant during the trial. In particular, a number of individuals who stated during pre-trial questioning that they had not been asked for, and had not given, a bribe when they made their licence application were not called to testify during the trial. On 30 March and 2 April 2007 the applicant asked for eleven specifically named individuals who had stated at the pre-trial stage that they had not given any bribes in exchange for approval of their applications for a licence to be called as witnesses. It appears that he intended to use these witnesses’ statements to “disprove” the prosecution’s accusations concerning corruption. These requests were refused. 36.  Furthermore, in connection with various other charges, the applicant repeatedly requested that the authors of the expert reports on valuation of privatised and other properties, the new Minister of Health Care and some other employees of that ministry, the chairman of the State committee for admission of students to higher education institutions, the deputy chairman of the Yeni Azerbaijan Party, various officials of the President’s office, several investigators who had conducted various stages of the pre-trial investigation, and others, be called as witnesses. These requests were also refused.
(c)  The verdict and sentence 37.  By a judgment of 20 April 2007 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged on all counts under criminal case no. 76932, and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property and three years’ prohibition on holding official positions in public service. The court found that the applicant had caused in excess of AZN 15,000,000 in financial damage by his criminal actions, and that he was responsible for compensating for this damage, as described below. 38.  Initially, the court allowed the civil claim in part, ordering the in‑kind transfer of part of the unlawfully privatised real-property assets back to the Ministry of Health Care. This covered part of the financial damage caused. On the other hand, the court found that some of the unlawfully privatised assets were now owned by bona fide purchasers, and therefore dismissed the civil claim in the part relating to those assets. 39.  As regards the pecuniary damage remaining to be compensated for after the partial upholding of the civil claim, the court found that the applicant remained responsible for damage in the amount of AZN 527,087 personally, and in the total amount of AZN 7,937,822 jointly and severally with three other criminal defendants. In compensation the court ordered, applying the confiscation sanction under Article 179.3.2 of the Criminal Code, that the following private property of the applicant be confiscated: (a) various precious metals and jewellery items valued at AZN 1,040,486, which had been found in his home; (b) USD 1,309,295 in cash found in his home; (c) EUR 884,475 in cash found in his home; (d) AZN 8,984 in cash found in his home; (e) eleven houses and apartments, some of them with auxiliary premises such as garages, collectively valued at AZN 3,655,179.90; and (f) a car valued at AZN 54,000. 40.  The applicant appealed, claiming innocence and arguing, among other things, that his convictions on all counts had been based on inadmissible, irrelevant or insufficient evidence, that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and to meet with his lawyers in confidential circumstances, and that despite his repeated requests the investigating authorities and the trial court had not sought to hear certain witnesses whose statements could have been crucial for the outcome of the case. The other criminal and civil defendants also appealed, on various grounds. 41.  On 21 September 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the part of the Assize Court’s judgment which related to the applicant. The applicant and his lawyers participated in the appeal hearings. 42.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law reiterating his complaints. Hearings in this appeal were held in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, but in the applicant’s absence. On 16 January 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the parts of the lower courts’ judgments which related to the applicant. 43.  Many years before the events concerning the present case, the applicant, then at an early age, had suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis. It appears that he had been treated successfully and his tuberculosis had been in remission since then. 44.  Prior to the applicant’s arrest, in February 2005 he underwent a magnetic nuclear resonance tomography (“MNRT”) in Munich, Germany, and was diagnosed with “herniation of L3-L4 intervertebral disc”. It was recommended that therapeutic treatment be continued and that ultimately surgery would be necessary if the symptoms persisted. 45.  After his arrest, from 20 October 2005 to 20 April 2007 the applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of the MNS. From 20 April 2007 to 28 September 2007 he was kept in Detention Facility no. 1. He was then transferred to Penal Facility no. 13, where he is currently serving his prison sentence and where he is kept in a large dormitory designed for more than 100 prisoners. According to the applicant, the conditions of detention in all of these facilities were bad (see paragraphs 71-79 below). 46.  While in detention, the applicant complained of health problems on a regular basis. The following is a summary of the accounts of the applicant’s medical treatment in detention submitted by the applicant and the Government. 47.  On 2 February 2006 the applicant was examined by MNS medical experts and was diagnosed with the following conditions: spinal disc herniation; osteochondrosis; progressing hypertension, stage I; unicameral cyst on the left kidney not entailing a loss of the kidney’s function; a post‑cholecystectomy condition; chronic persisting hepatitis in the remission phase; and mild neurotic reactions. The experts considered that his condition was not critical and that outpatient treatment was sufficient. 48.  On 16 January 2006 the applicant was examined by the head physician of a neurosurgery hospital and was prescribed conservative treatment and a new MNRT. According to the relevant medical report, the applicant refused this treatment. However, according to the applicant, he did not refuse to undergo a new MNRT as the report of 16 January 2006 had indicated. 49.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant was examined by the Chief Phthisiologist of the Ministry of Health Care and on 20 May 2006 by the Head of the Neurology Centre; neither examination revealed any need for surgery. 50.  From 25 February to 8 March 2006 and from 30 May to 8 June 2006 the applicant had medical examinations on an inpatient basis in the Neurological Unit of the Ministry of Justice’s Medical Facility. The applicant was diagnosed with spinal disc herniation and was offered a new MNRT before a decision was made on whether there was a need for surgery. According to the relevant records, the applicant declined this proposal and received only conservative treatment. 51.  However, according to the applicant, he did not refuse an MNRT or surgery. He claimed that the medical records concerning his alleged refusal did not “reflect reality”, as they did not bear his signature. He noted that the Ministry of Justice’s neurological unit lacked a neurosurgery department and specialists to carry out surgery, so he requested surgery in one of the neurosurgery clinics in Baku, but his request was not answered. According to him, his treatment in the Ministry of Justice’s medical facility was terminated abruptly and he was returned to his cell. 52.  According to the relevant medical records, when the applicant was transferred to Detention Facility no. 1 on 20 April 2007 he had no serious complaints about his health. On 1 and 9 June 2007 he was examined by experts of the neurology and therapy units of the Ministry of Justice’s Medical Facility and no need for either inpatient or outpatient treatment was identified at this time. According to the relevant records, on 2 and 4 June 2007 the applicant refused to undergo blood and urine tests. On 6 June the applicant, in the presence of his lawyers, refused to undergo an ultrasound examination. In September 2007 it was proposed that the applicant undergo an MNRT in a private medical clinic (the Tusi Clinic) in order to determine whether surgery was needed. The examination was scheduled for 25 September, but did not take place. According to the Government, the applicant refused to go to the Tusi Clinic at the last moment. According to the applicant, he did not refuse to undergo any tests and the relevant records were falsified. 53.  According to the Government, in January and February 2008 it was suggested three times that the applicant be transferred to the Ministry of Justice Medical Facility in connection with his complaints about pains in his back, but he refused those offers. According to the applicant, in the winter of 2008 he was indeed offered transport to the Medical Facility, but in an “iron-covered unheated lorry”, which was not suitable for his health. As the applicant could not stand or sit comfortably because of pains in his back and legs, and as transportation in such a lorry would be very hard for him to endure, he requested in writing to be transported in an ambulance, lying down, offering to pay any transportation costs himself. This request was refused. 54.  According to the applicant, he continued to suffer from severe pain in his back and lower extremities due to the herniation of the intervertebral disc. His detention in a cold unventilated cell in Penal Facility no. 13 aggravated his health problems. 55.  On 14 August 2008 the applicant, without providing detailed information about the nature of his illnesses, requested the Court to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that he should be provided with adequate treatment and with conditions of detention which were appropriate for his illness. In reply, the applicant was requested to provide more detailed information about the nature of his ailments and complaints. The applicant complied with this request. He submitted, inter alia, that urgent surgery was necessary to treat his herniated disc. 56.  On 16 September 2008 the Government was requested, under Rule 49 § 3 of the Rules of Court, to provide information concerning any medical treatment provided to the applicant during the entire period of his detention. In reply, the Government submitted the information summarised above, supported by a number of medical records. The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the Government’s submissions; these comments, where relevant, are also included in the above summary. 57.  Having regard to the parties’ submissions, on 25 November 2008 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the following interim measures, applied until further notice:
“-  the applicant be immediately transferred to the prison medical facility of the Ministry of Justice;
-  at the earliest possible time and without any undue delays on both sides, a medical panel be set up on a parity basis, the Government and the applicant each appointing three members from among the qualified medical experts in Azerbaijan, to diagnose the applicant’s specific problems (in particular, the herniated disc problem) and to conclude whether any long-term or immediate treatment, including surgery, is required to treat the problem(s);
-  on the basis of the findings of the above medical panel, the Government design and submit to the Court [by 20 January 2009] an appropriate and detailed plan of the applicant’s treatment.” 58.  On 19 January 2009 the Government informed the Court about the measures taken. 59.  In particular, according to the documents submitted by the Government, on 12 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Medical Facility of the Ministry of Justice. A joint medical panel was composed on a parity basis. The panel consisted of two neurosurgeons, two phthisiologists, and two uro-nephrologists. During the period from 22 to 24 December 2008 a number of medical tests were carried out on the applicant, including an MNRT, urine test, blood test, biochemical tests, ultrasound and others. The medical panel examined the applicant several times. Additionally, cardiologists, gastroenterologists and dentists were invited to carry out necessary tests and examinations. 60.  On 10 January 2009 the medical panel issued its final opinion, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyers. The panel found that the applicant was suffering from the following primary and secondary conditions: a herniation of the L3-L4 spinal disc; osteochondrosis; mild hypertension, stage II; residual signs of inactive (cured) tuberculosis of the right lungs; unicameral cyst on the left kidney; chronic colitis; and signs of first-degree dysbacteriosis. However, the panel unanimously concluded that his condition was not critical and that no surgery was required. His overall health was considered satisfactory. It was noted that he was fully autonomous and could walk using a cane. The diagnosed pathologies were chronic and slow to develop, requiring “conservative” treatment, which could be carried out either on an inpatient or an outpatient basis. 61.  The panel designed a detailed long-term plan for treatment for the applicant’s health problems, noting that for the first month the applicant would receive inpatient treatment in the Medical Facility of the Ministry of Justice, while thereafter such inpatient treatment could be replaced with outpatient treatment in the prison. The relevant treatment, including a detailed list of medications and recommendations, was prescribed. The panel’s opinion indicated that the applicant agreed with the diagnosis and the treatment plan. 62.  On 2 February 2009 the applicant submitted his comments on the Government’s submissions. While he appeared to argue against the Government’s allegedly wrong “interpretation” of some of the joint medical panel’s findings, he did not expressly contest the panel’s conclusions or the prescribed treatment plan. 63.  On 12 February 2009 the President of the Chamber decided to lift the interim measures previously indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 64.  The treatment prescribed by the joint medical panel was carried out on an inpatient basis in the Medical Facility of the Ministry of Justice up to 16 March 2009. 65.  On 7 March 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon who was not a member of the joint medical panel. He noted that there had been positive progress of the applicant’s condition and found no necessity for further treatment of the herniated disc, but recommended a spinal corset. 66.  On 14 March 2009 the applicant was examined by the two neurosurgeons who were members of the joint medical panel. The examination did not reveal any pathology in the applicant’s peripheral nervous system. Taking into account the applicant’s complaints of pain, they recommended applying two different types of medicinal ointment, to the backbone and left thigh areas. 67.  On 16 March 2009 the applicant was transferred back to Penal Facility no. 13. According to the Government, his medical treatment was continued on an outpatient basis, as prescribed by the joint medical panel. According to the applicant, the treatment did not comply with the panel’s prescriptions. 68.  Following the applicant’s repeated complaints of pain, on 10 April 2009 he was examined by a neurosurgeon and was prescribed treatment with Reton, a therapeutic ultrasonic device. According to the Government, within a short period of time the Medical Sanitary Unit of Penal Facility no. 13 had acquired this device and the treatment was followed through. According to the applicant, he did not receive this treatment. 69.  With regard to preventative treatment against the recurrence of tuberculosis, the joint medical commission had prescribed anti-tuberculosis medication including Rifampicin and Izoniazid. The treatment was scheduled to start in March 2009. However, the applicant refused to take Rifampicin and asked for Pirazinamid instead. The applicant later agreed to take Rifampicin and the treatment began on 8 April 2009. 70.  From April 2009 the applicant was treated on an outpatient basis by means of daily administration of two drugs for the regulation of blood pressure, two for the prevention of the recurrence of tuberculosis and two ointments for alleviation of pain resulting from the herniated spinal disc. He was able to spend a “considerable part” of the day in the open air outside his cell. However, according to the applicant, this treatment was ineffective, as it did not cure his illnesses or alleviate his condition. 71.  From 20 October 2005 to 20 April 2007 the applicant was held in a single-person cell in the detention facility of the MNS, which was poorly lit during the daytime. The light was not switched off at night. 72.  From 20 to 30 April 2007 the applicant was held in cell no. 119, designed for four inmates, in Detention Facility no. 1. The surface area of the cell was 9.6 sq. m, or 2.4 sq. m per occupant. 73.  From 30 April 2007 to 28 September 2007 the applicant was held in another cell in Detention Facility no. 1, cell no. 123, which was designed for eight inmates. The area of the cell was 15.84 sq. m, or 1.98 sq. m per occupant. The cell was unventilated. The air inside was humid, and the cell was smelly and stuffy. It was too hot inside. There was no wall or other form of separation between the toilet area and the table and beds. The applicant had to eat his meals at the table in close proximity to the toilet. 74.  In both the MNS Detention Facility and Detention Facility no. 1 the applicant was allowed only half an hour’s “outdoor exercise” per day, which was confined to small areas specially designated for this purpose. There was no radio or television or other form of in-cell entertainment in those establishments. The applicant was allowed to read only official State newspapers. 75.  Since 28 September 2007 the applicant has been serving his sentence in Penal Facility no. 13. He is held in a 225 sq. m dormitory, which was designed to hold 128 inmates. According to the applicant, most of the time the dormitory was occupied at full capacity (128 inmates), however occasionally there were fewer inmates when some were released after the expiry of their prison terms. 76.  The air inside the dormitory is stale and humid and filled with cigarette smoke. The inmates hung their laundry to dry inside the dormitory (presumably due to the absence of proper laundry facilities). 77.  The dormitory has no heating or permanent water supply, and no natural gas supply. In winter the temperature inside dropped below freezing. In this connection, in response to a request from the applicant’s lawyer, the head of the Azerbaijani Committee against Torture (a non-governmental organisation) informed the former by a letter of 30 December 2007 that he had personally visited the applicant in Penal Facility no. 13 on 25 December 2007 and witnessed that: (a) there was no heating system in the dormitory where the applicant was held; (b) the floor in the dormitory was made of stone; and (c) there were no natural gas pipes in the dormitory. 78.  There are only seven showers and fourteen toilets available to a total of about 700 to 950 prisoners held in Penal Facility no. 13. The toilets are in bad sanitary condition and have no running water for days, so that the inmates were forced to bring bottles of water with them and stand in a queue to use the toilet. 79.  In all the places he was detained the applicant had to use bedding and clothing brought by his family, as he was not provided with those items. The applicant was not provided with the special-diet meals that he felt he needed because of his health, so he ate only the food brought to him by his family in packages twice a month. 80.  Referring to the fact that Detention Facility no. 1 was demolished in 2009 (without specifying the exact date), the Government claimed to have been unable to conduct an examination of the facility or to provide a detailed account of its conditions. Instead, in connection with the conditions of detention both in Detention Facility no. 1 and Penal Facility no. 13, the Government referred to the findings contained in the judgment of 2 November 2007 of the Nasimi District Court concerning the applicant’s claim of bad conditions of detention (see paragraphs 92-96 below). 81.  In addition, in respect of the conditions of detention in Penal Facility no. 13, referring to the various domestic rules and regulations for penal institutions, the Government provided the following information. 82.  The dormitory in which the applicant was held was designed for 116 inmates. However, after the applicant’s arrival, only 70 to 90 inmates occupied the dormitory at any given time. Until January 2009, “the dormitory was heated by electric heaters”. In January 2009 a central heating system was installed in the dormitory. In support of this submission the Government supplied photographs of the new heating system. 83.  Every prisoner is allowed to have a shower at least once a week. His or her underclothes and bedding are changed at regular intervals. The applicant has access to the running water in the dormitory. Each prisoner has a right to a bed, a cupboard and a chair. Each prisoner also has a right to be provided with individual bedding and other amenities, including two types of blankets, a mattress, a pillow, two bed sheets, two pillow cases, and two towels. 84.  Under the relevant rules, prisoners are provided with meals three times a day at State expense. The daily food norm is 3,265 calories and includes bread, various cereals, pasta, meat, fish, fat, margarine, vegetable oil, granulated sugar, dry tea, salt, potatoes, vegetables, bay leaf, tomato paste, unsalted fresh butter, and eggs. A specific menu is planned on a weekly basis. Smokers are provided with 100 cigarettes every ten days. Prisoners are also allowed to purchase, at their own expense, both food and a certain amount of other necessary products. Prison cells are provided with various board games, and the dormitory is equipped with radio and television sets. 85.  The relevant domestic rules also provide for a right to receive clothing at State expense. Male prisoners have a right to the following clothing items: two types of headwear, a warm waistcoat, two “work” suits, two cotton shirts, two sets of both thin and warm underclothes, two sleeveless vests, two pairs of underpants, three pairs of cotton socks, two pairs of wool-mix socks, two pairs of shoes, a pair of slippers, a cotton belt and a pair of cotton gloves. Each item of clothing is issued to be used for a period of one to three years, depending on the specific item. Prisoners have a right to purchase, at their own expense, additional shoes, clothing and sportswear of the types allowed to be worn in prisons. 86.  On 14 May 2007 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Sabail District Court against the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice (Ədliyyə Nazirliyi Penitensiar Xidməti), complaining about his conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical treatment. 87.  On 28 May 2007 the Sabail District Court refused to hear his action, noting that claims against the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice should be lodged with the Nasimi District Court. 88.  In June 2007 the applicant, through his lawyer, lodged a civil action with the Nasimi District Court, indicating as defendants the Minister of Justice and the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice. He complained that he had not been provided with the necessary inpatient treatment, that the conditions of his pre-trial and post-trial detention had been bad and inadequate for his health, that he had been prohibited from receiving newspapers in pre-trial detention, and that his transfer to Penal Facility no. 13 had been unlawful, because this prison was located too far from his home. 89.  On 19 June 2007 the Nasimi District Court refused to hear the case, owing to non-compliance with the formal requirements concerning the number of copies of the submissions and notarisation of the power of attorney for the applicant’s lawyer. It appears that subsequently the applicant complied with these requirements and the Nasimi District Court admitted the case for examination. 90.  Prior to the examination of the merits of the case, in August 2007 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court, inter alia, to ensure the applicant’s personal attendance at the hearings. This request was refused, on the grounds that the applicant could effectively argue his case through his legal representative and that ensuring his attendance at the hearings in the civil proceedings could interfere with the criminal proceedings against him, which were taking place at the same time. 91.  During the examination of the merits of the applicant’s claims, the Nasimi District Court had regard to his medical records, including the opinion of the MNS’s medical experts issued on 2 February 2006 (see paragraph 47 above). The hearings were held in the applicant’s absence but with the participation of his lawyer. 92.  By a judgment of 2 November 2007 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints. As regards the complaint concerning the failure to provide inpatient treatment, the court found that the applicant himself had repeatedly refused to undergo the medical tests and treatment he was offered. In any event, the medical examinations did not reveal any need for inpatient treatment. 93.  As regards the allegations of poor conditions of pre-trial detention in Detention Facility no. 1, the court found that these allegations were unsubstantiated. In particular, among other things, the court noted that the applicant had been kept in a cell with a total area of 15.84 sq. m, which had eight beds, two windows, two electric lamps and a permanent water supply. Although the cell was designed for eight inmates, “most of the time” only six inmates were kept there; therefore, there was 2.64 sq. m of space per inmate, which was compatible with the domestic minimum standard of 2.5 sq. m for pre-trial detention. 94.  As regards the alleged prohibition on receiving newspapers, the court found that this allegation was unsubstantiated and that the applicant was in fact allowed to obtain four official newspapers from the detention facility authorities or to have any other newspapers brought to him by his lawyer or relatives. 95.  Lastly, with regard to the lawfulness of the applicant’s transfer to Penal Facility no. 13, the court found that it was lawful and that the conditions of his detention in that prison were adequate. It found that the dormitory in which the applicant was held had a total area of 240 sq. m, had ten large windows, and was properly lit and ventilated. It had separate toilet and other sanitary areas and a permanent electricity and water supply. While the dormitory was equipped with fifty-four bunk beds (two-bunk units), it housed a total of seventy inmates at the relevant time. 96.  The court concluded that the applicant received adequate medical assistance and that his conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. It accordingly dismissed his claims. 97.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the Nasimi District Court’s judgment of 2 November 2007. He requested to be present at the appellate hearings and asked the court to conduct a physical inspection of his conditions of detention. His requests were not granted. On 6 February 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s judgment. 98.  On 3 June 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.


5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional colony YuK-25/8 in the Orenburg Region. 6.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated concerted robbery and taken to the Leninskiy District police station of the Orsk town police department. He refused legal assistance, signed a record confirming his refusal and denied the accusations made. He was released on the same day. 7.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant was again remanded in custody. He was charged with aggravated robbery and questioned after he had refused legal assistance. Police officers allegedly threatened and humiliated him with a view to extracting a confession from him. The applicant did not confess. Two days later he was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town. 8.  On 23 July 2002 the local bar association appointed counsel M. to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings. It appears that M. was appointed to represent the applicant as legal-aid counsel. 9.  On 31 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk started examining the applicant's criminal case. On the same day the applicant lodged a written request with the trial court, by which he declined the services of M. and sought leave to represent himself. He explained that it was a voluntary decision and had not been caused by financial difficulties. M. submitted to the court that he agreed with the applicant's request. Having discussed the issue, the court allowed the applicant's request and granted him leave to represent himself. 10.  By a judgment of 10 November 2002, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment. It established that the applicant, together with his two co-defendants, had attacked, robbed and severely beaten up the victim. The applicant's role, previously agreed upon by the co-defendants, consisted, among other things, in threatening the victim with a knife. The court based its findings on partial confessions by the applicant's co-defendants, statements by victims and witnesses and material evidence. It was finally stated in the judgment that it could be appealed against to the Orenburg Regional Court within ten days of its pronouncement or, for the detained defendants, within the same period after receipt of its copy. It was also stated that if the remanded convicts were submitting an appeal statement, they had a “right to request to participate in the examination of the criminal case by the appellate court”. 11.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant appealed against his conviction to the Orenburg Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). He did not dispute that he had taken the money from the victim but disagreed with the way the trial court had established the relevant facts, the distribution of roles between him and his co-defendants and the classification of his own acts. He submitted, in particular, that the trial court had disregarded his testimony and statements by witnesses which supported it, in particular, regarding the trial court's findings about the distribution of responsibility between him and his co-defendants and the classification of his acts as a premeditated robbery. In his appeal statement the applicant neither requested the Regional Court to secure his presence at the appeal hearing nor sought legal representation. According to the Government, the applicant's co-defendants who also appealed against the conviction expressly requested the appellate court to secure their presence at the appeal hearing. 12.  According to the Government, on 25 November 2002 a notification about the appeal hearing was sent to the remand centre where the applicant was being held. 13.  On 19 December 2002 the Regional Court examined the appeals lodged by the applicant and his co-defendants and upheld the judgment. The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing and was not represented before it, while his co-defendants, as well as the prosecutor, attended the hearing and made submissions. 14.  By a judgment of 19 December 2002, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the conviction.


4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Senec. 5.  On 10 February 1999 a company sued the applicant for a sum of money which he allegedly owed for the lease of his flat and for services provided by the company. 6.  On 27 May 1999 the Bratislava III District Court issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros to the plaintiff. 7.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant challenged the payment order. The case was therefore to be heard by the first instance court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8.  The District Court held hearings on 18 May 2000, on 12 June 2000, on 11 September 2000 and on 9 October 2000. At the last mentioned hearing the plaintiff extended the action. 9.  On 27 March 2003 the District Court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion. 10.  On 1 December 2003 the judge instructed the court’s registry to transmit the file to the expert. The expert received the file on 29 December 2003. He submitted his opinion to the court on 24 February 2004. 11.  On 4 May 2004 the District Court decided on the expert’s fee. The expert opinion was delivered to the parties on 13 and 14 May 2004 respectively. On 1 June 2004 the applicant submitted his comments on it. 12.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 September 2004 and on 11 October 2004. A hearing scheduled for 2 December 2004 was adjourned. 13.  In May 2005 the applicant informed the Court that there had been no further progress in the case. 14.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about the length of proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He claimed, inter alia, 800,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 15.  On 13 August 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays. The decision stated that the District Court had remained inactive between 15 June 1999 and 28 January 2000, that is for more than 7 months, and also between 9 October 2000 and 27 March 2003, that is for more than 29 months. 16.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation noting that the applicant had by his conduct considerably contributed to the fact that the dispute had come into being and that the proceedings had been protracted, since in particular he had not regularly paid the sums due and the company therefore had to extend the action. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs related to the constitutional proceedings to the applicant.