5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived in Nakhchivan at the time of the events. 6.  The applicant was an independent journalist and worked as a reporter of the Yeni Musavat newspaper in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (“the NAR”). 7.  The applicant was the author of two critical articles about the economic and political situation in the NAR published in the Yeni Musavat newspaper in August and September 2007. The articles, entitled “Food has become considerably more expensive in Nakhchivan (owing to Vasif Talibov’s “care”)” (“Naxçıvanda ərzaq xeyli bahalaşıb (Vasif Talıbovun “qayğısı” sayəsində)”) and “Vasif Talibov rebuilds his native village” (“Vasif Talıbov doğulduğu kəndi söküb yenidən tikdirir”), related in particular to the activities of the Speaker of the Parliament of the NAR, Vasif Talibov, who is also “the supreme official of the NAR” (“Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikasının ali vəzifəli şəxsi”) under its Constitution of 29 December 1998. 8.  On 17 September 2007 the applicant also met a reporter from Radio Liberty and helped him to prepare a report about the economic and political situation in Nakhchivan. 9.  At around 2 p.m. on 22 September 2007, when the applicant was in a café in the village of Jalilkand in the Sharur District, the head (M.M.) of the district department of the MNS approached him. M.M. accused the applicant of publishing defamatory articles about the NAR, and ordered four men in uniform to arrest him. 10.  The applicant was taken to the premises of the MNS in Sharur by car. His mobile phone was taken away while he was being transported there. When they arrived at the MNS building M.M. told him to stop spreading misinformation about the NAR. He further ordered agents of the MNS to explain to the applicant “the meaning of his activity as a reporter” and left the room. 11.  Five men then began to torture the applicant. They hit him repeatedly with truncheons, kicked him and punched him in the head. Approximately an hour later, M.M. returned and asked the applicant whether he had “grown wise”. M.M. further ordered five men to make the applicant “understand his mistakes”. The applicant was then subjected to further ill-treatment. 12.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the office of M.M. who demanded that he become a member of the ruling political party (YAP - Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyası) and to write defamatory articles about opposition leaders. The applicant refused to do so. 13.  The applicant was released at 2 a.m. on 23 September 2007; his mobile phone was returned to him. Before his release, M.M. told him that if he did not “grow wise”, he would be brought back to the MNS. 14.  Following his release, the applicant immediately informed the Yeni Musavat newspaper of his arrest. According to the applicant, his relatives also took photographs of the injuries on his body. However, he was unable to see a doctor immediately, because it was night. 15.  The Government submitted that on 22 September 2007 the applicant was not arrested, detained or ill-treated, by agents of the MNS. 16.  In the morning of 23 September 2007, while the applicant was about to go and see a doctor, he was arrested by the police and taken to the Sharur District Police Office. 17.  The head of the Sharur District Police Office, M.H., shouted at the applicant, demanding to know why he had informed the press of his arrest. 18.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Sharur District Court, which sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention for obstructing the police. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer at the hearing. Two police officers testified against him. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the court decision. 19.  At the request of the applicant, after the court hearing he was taken to the Sharur Central Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor who observed numerous bruises on his body. However, he was not provided with any medical record. 20.  At around 2.30 p.m. on 23 September 2007 the applicant was approached by the police in the centre of the Jalilkand village, because he was using loud and abusive language in public. As the applicant did not comply with the police request to stop his unlawful action, an administrative offence report was drawn up and he was taken to the police station. It appears from the report that the applicant refused to sign it. The relevant part of the report of 23 September 2007 provides as follows:
“On 23 September 2007 H. Mehdiyev did not comply with the lawful request of the police, and continued to shout and use insulting language in the centre of the Jalilkand village.” 21.  On the same day the Sharur District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 310.1 (obstructing the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. It was specified in the decision that it could be appealed against within ten days of its receipt. The relevant part of the decision of 23 September 2007 provides as follows:
“Assessing the evidence at its disposal, the court concludes that the fact that Mehdiyev Hakimeldostu Bayram oglu [the applicant] committed the above-mentioned administrative offence is proved by his confession and the statements of witnesses heard in connection with the case.
The court qualifies the administrative offence committed by Mehdiyev Hakimeldostu Bayram oglu under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Therefore, he must be found guilty under this article and must be punished.” 22.  The Government produced a receipt confirming that the applicant had received a copy of the court decision at 5.30 p.m. on 23 September 2007. The receipt was dated 23 September 2007 and signed by the applicant. 23.  At around 7 p.m. on 23 September 2007 the applicant was taken to detention facility no. 8 to serve his sentence. 24.  During his detention the applicant was deprived of food and water. He was not provided with any bedding and was forced to spend nights outside on a concrete walkway. The applicants’ hands were handcuffed at all times and due to the detention facility’s proximity to the River Aras, he suffered badly from mosquito bites. 25.  At midnight on 25 September 2007, the Minister of National Security of the NAR arrived at the detention facility with two other men. They appeared to be drunk. The Minister insulted the applicant and then all of them beat him. 26.  The Government submitted that there was no detention facility no. 8 in the NAR and the applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR. 27.  The applicant was detained alone in a cell which was 2.8 metres high, 5.2 m long, and 2.2 m wide. The cell was adequately lit and ventilated. The applicant was provided with a separate bed and bedding, as well as with other necessities. In support of their account of the conditions, the Government produced photographs of the detention facility in question and the cell in which the applicant was held. 28.  The Government also produced a medical record dated 16 December 2013 from the doctor on duty at the detention facility at the time. According to the medical record, at 7.45 p.m. on 23 September 2007 the applicant was examined by the doctor and “no pathology was revealed” (heç bir patalogiya aşkar edilmədi). The medical record of 16 December 2013 provides as follows:
“Examination by the doctor on duty:
At 7.45 p.m. on 23 September 2007 Mehdiyev Hakimeldostu Bayram oglu accompanied by two police officers came to the admission department for examination. During the examination of the citizen, no pathology was revealed. The blood pressure was 120/85 mm Hg. Practically healthy (praktiki sağlam). The doctor on duty: I.M.” 29.  Following the applicant’s administrative detention, various Azerbaijani and international human rights organisations asked the Azerbaijani authorities for the applicant’s release. In particular, on 26 September 2007 Reporters Without Borders submitted a request to the Azerbaijani authorities to stop the applicant’s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to order his release. In respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by agents of the MNS on 22 September 2007, the request reads:
“The day before his arrest, Mehdiyev was forced into a car by national security ministry agents and held all day in a ministry building where, according to Reporters Without Borders’ sources, he was beaten because of his reports about gas and electricity problems in the region.”
On 27 September 2007 the Committee to Protect Journalists also called upon the Azerbaijani authorities to stop the applicant’s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to carry out a thorough investigation in this respect. The applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment by agents of the MNS on 22 September 2007 and his administrative detention were also covered by the Azerbaijani media. 30.  On 27 September 2007 the applicant was released from administrative detention. No official reason was given for his early release from detention. 31.  According to the applicant, after his release from detention, he was treated in the Nakhchivan Republic Hospital, however all the medical institutions refused to give him an official medical certificate. The doctor who examined the applicant told him that his seventh rib was broken. In support of his claim, the applicant relied on a medical record dated 1 October 2007 in which the doctor indicated that an X-ray examination of the applicant’s seventh rib had been carried out, without providing further information. Although the name of the doctor appeared on the medical record, it was not signed or stamped and there was no information about the medical establishment in which the examination was carried out. The medical record of 1 October 2007 provides as follows:
“Mehdiyev Hakimeldostu Bayram oglu; born in 1961 in Jalilkand;
X-ray examination of the ribcage and the seventh left side rib in the back armpit (sol yeddinci qabırğasının arxa qoltuqaltı).” 32.  Relying on Articles 3, 5 and 10 of the Convention, on 3 October 2007 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sharur District Prosecutor’s Office asking for the institution of a criminal investigation. He submitted the same factual information as what he submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 9-14 above) i.e. that at around 2 p.m. on 22 September 2007 he had been arrested, at the request of the head (M.M.) of the district department of the MNS, in a café in the village of Jalilkand in the Sharur District by agents of the MNS, and had been taken to the premises of the MNS in Sharur. Once there M.M. demanded that he stop spreading misinformation about the NAR. He further ordered the agents of the MNS to explain to the applicant “the meaning of his activity as a reporter” and left the room. Five men then began to torture him. They hit him repeatedly with truncheons, kicked him and punched him in the head. Approximately an hour later, M.M. returned and asked him whether he had “grown wise”. M.M. further ordered the five men to make him “understand his mistakes”. He was then subjected to further ill-treatment and was only released at around 2 a.m. on 23 September 2007. Before his release, M.M. told him that, if he did not “grow wise”, he would be brought back to the MNS. 33.  The applicant sent his complaint by recorded delivery and it appears from the postal document submitted to the Court that the Sharur District Prosecutor’s Office received it on 4 October 2007. 34.  The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint. 35.  On 19 October 2007 the applicant lodged the same complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ombudsman. The applicant produced postal documents confirming that the letters had been sent to the above-mentioned authorities. 36.  By a letter of 25 October 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to the Prosecutor of the NAR for examination. 37.  On 7 November 2007 the applicant re-submitted the same complaint to the Sharur District Prosecutor’s Office by recorded delivery. The applicant produced a postal document confirming the receipt of his letter by the Sharur District Prosecutor’s Office. 38.  By a letter of 23 November 2007, the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to the Minister of Internal Affairs of the NAR for examination. 39.  No action was taken in respect of the applicant’s above-mentioned complaints. 40.  On 9 February 2008 the applicant lodged an action with the Sharur District Court in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 449‑451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals against actions and decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. Relying on Articles 3, 5 and 10 of the Convention, he reiterated his previous complaints and asked the court to declare unlawful the prosecuting authorities’ failure to examine his complaint. 41.  The applicant did not receive any reply from the Sharur District Court. 42.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court of the NAR, reiterating his previous complaints. He further complained that the Sharur District Court had failed to examine his complaint concerning the prosecuting authorities’ inaction. 43.  In the meantime, the applicant sent the same complaint to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan, complaining that the Sharur District Court had failed to examine his complaint. By a letter of 1 April 2008 the Supreme Court forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Sharur District Court for examination. 44.  By a letter of 29 April 2008, the Supreme Court of the NAR informed the applicant that his complaint could not be examined by it because, as an appellate court, it examined appeals only against first‑instance courts’ decisions. 45.  On 28 July 2008 the applicant made representations to the Judicial Legal Council, stating that the Sharur District Court had failed to examine his complaint. 46.  By a letter of 5 August 2008, the Judicial Legal Council forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Sharur District Court, asking the court to examine the complaint and to take necessary measures. The Judicial Legal Council further asked the Sharur District Court to inform the applicant about the result of the examination. 47.  On 8 January 2009 the applicant applied again to the Judicial Legal Council, arguing that, despite its letter of 5 August 2008 sent to the Sharur District Court, he had not been informed of any decision taken by the Sharur District Court. 48.  By a letter of 14 January 2009, the Judicial Legal Council forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Sharur District Court. The Judicial Legal Council’s letter of 14 January 2009 was identical in wording to its letter of 5 August 2008. 49.  On 18 June 2009 and on 6 January 2010 the applicant sent further letters to the Sharur District Court, reiterating his previous complaints. 50.  The applicant did not receive any response from the Sharur District Court.


5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant retired from the position as a consultant at the Ministry of Finance of Russia. 7.  In 1996 – 1997 he repeatedly applied to the Ministry of Labour for additional retirement benefits due to former State employees. By decision of 3 October 1997 a deputy Minister granted the applicant’s request and increased his pension as of 9 September 1997. 8.  Thereafter the applicant sued the Ministry of Labour seeking arrears for the period between 1 April 1996 and 8 September 1997. 9.  On 19 December 1997 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, stating that the applicant had only become eligible for a higher pension as of 9 September 1997 and therefore he had no right to arrears. 10.  On 14 April 1998 the Moscow City Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 11.  On 15 September 1999 the Basmanny District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour confirming his entitlement to additional retirement benefits as of 1 April 1996 and ordered the Ministry of Labour to re-calculate his pension. 12.  No appeal was lodged, and on an unspecified date the judgment of 15 September 1999 became final. 13.  On 25 November 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced. 14.  On 26 October 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999. 15.  On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined and rejected the extraordinary appeal in supervisory review proceedings, thus upholding the judgment of 15 September 1999. 16.  On 2 February 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General filed another extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000. 17.  On 23 February 2001 the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000, and remitted the case to the first instance court. It is not clear whether the applicant has pursued the proceedings. 18.  In 2001 – 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of the decision of 23 February 2001. 19.  During the fresh examination, on 27 February 2003, the Basmanny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. 20.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. 21.  By decision of 29 August 2003 the Basmanny District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal brief as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of ten days.


5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Belgorod in the Belgorod Region. 6.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant's husband bought municipal property, including the premises of a former restaurant. According to the applicant, several years later her husband, fearing for his life and for the safety of his family, signed a contract with a number of individuals, transferring title to the restaurant building to them. 7.  On 5 May 2002 the applicant, in the interests of her minor child, lodged an action against her husband, seeking invalidation of the contract. She claimed that her husband had acted ultra vires while signing the contract, as he had not been the sole owner of the building. A part of the building had belonged to their minor child. 8.  The Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod accepted the claim for examination and listed a hearing.  However, on 13 August 2002 it transferred the case to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region for further adjudication. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“By virtue of paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation, which entered into force on 6 August 2002, the present case falls into the jurisdiction of a commercial court.
Under Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Putting into Operation the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation” cases which are in the process of adjudication by courts of general jurisdiction and which, according to the Code of Commercial Procedure..., have been placed under the jurisdiction of commercial courts, should be transferred by courts of general jurisdiction, with the plaintiff's consent, to commercial courts within two weeks after paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure has entered into force... If the plaintiff does not consent to the transfer of the case from the court of general jurisdiction to the commercial court, the court of general jurisdiction discontinues the proceedings in the case at issue because the case is not within the jurisdiction of the court of general jurisdiction.
At the hearing the plaintiff, [the applicant], consented, which she had confirmed in writing, to the transfer of the case to the commercial court.
The court finds it necessary to transfer the case pertaining to the [applicant's] action against [her husband]... to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region.”
An appeal against the District Court's decision could have been lodged before the Belgorod Regional Court within ten days. 9.  On 17 October 2002 the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region discontinued the proceedings because it found that it had no jurisdiction over the claim. 10.  On 10 December 2002 the Appeal Division of the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region upheld the decision of 17 October 2002, endorsing the reasons given by the Commercial Court. On 24 March 2003 the Federal Commercial Court of the Central Circuit, in the final instance, upheld the decisions of 17 October and 10 December 2002.


4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.  On 21 May 2004 at 08.15 two household workers (“M.R.” and “I.B”) discovered the body of the applicant’s daughter (“S.J.”) at her home in Ventspils. She had a rope around her neck, the other end of which was thrown over the top of a door and tied to the door handle on the other side. 6.  At 08.20 M.R. and I.B. reported the incident to the Ventspils City and District Police Department of the State Police (“the Ventspils State Police”). Three police officers from the Ventspils State Police were dispatched to S.J.’s home. S.J.’s husband (“A.J.”), who worked as a policeman-driver for the Ventspils State Police, arrived separately. 7.  The Government have provided details of the investigation which followed. Their account has not been disputed by the applicant. 8.  From 09.40 to 10.35 officers G.A. and A.G. from the Ventspils State Police examined S.J.’s home. They prepared the procedural record, photographed the scene and seized material evidence. Later that same day S.J.’s body was transported to the Ventspils City Morgue and A.G. requested an autopsy and forensic medical examination of the body. He also submitted an internal report to the Head of the Ventspils State Police which stated that he and G.A. had arrived at the scene, established that S.J. was dead, arranged for the transportation of the body, examined the scene, and took statements. In the report he noted that the persons transporting S.J.’s body to the morgue had removed the rope from around her neck. 9.  In a letter dated 23 May 2005 a Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office admitted to the applicant that the examination of the scene by A.G. had not been done “qualitatively” or in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. He had been subjected to disciplinary action and prosecuted under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Law (Failure of a State Official to Perform His Duties) and under Article 327(19) (Forgery of a Document by a State Official). The second prosecution would appear to relate to the forgery of a Doctor’s signature on a document purporting to set out an expert’s conclusion. A.G. was later released from criminal liability. 10.  In the same letter the Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that another officer from the Ventspils State Police (“A.M.”) had been subjected to disciplinary action for violating the Criminal Procedure Law when verifying the fact of S.J.’s death. It is not clear whether or not the disciplinary action related to the examination of the scene on 21 May 2004. 11.  On 24 May 2004 the police took statements from the applicant and S.J.’s sister (“B.L.”), both of whom expressed the opinion that S.J. had no reason to commit suicide. 12.  On 25 May 2004 a forensic expert, having examined S.J.’s body, concluded that she had died on 21 May 2004 and attributed the cause of death to mechanical asphyxiation. The report stated that there was no evident sign of violence, aside from the strangulation, although it noted that S.J. had bruises on her shoulder, hands and legs and three scratches on her right palm which could have been acquired up to three days prior to her death. 13.  The following day the police obtained statements from a neighbour (“M.N.”) and two of S.J.’s colleagues. M.N. recalled that between 22.00 and 22.15 on 20 May 2004 she had observed a red vehicle similar to the one driven by A.J. parked in the courtyard of the building where S.J. and A.J. lived. Another neighbour (“Ma.N.”) subsequently recalled seeing such a vehicle in the courtyard from 22.00 to 22.30. 14.  S.J.’s colleagues confirmed that she had finished her shift in the shop she worked in at 22.00 and headed to an office where she had a second job as a cleaner. Another witness later confirmed that she had arrived at the office at 22.15 and left at 22.45 ‑ 22.50. 15.  The Government submitted that on 27 May 2004 the Kurzeme Regional Division of the Organised Crime Combating Department (“the OCCD”) requested a list of incoming and outgoing calls to S.J.’s mobile phone from her operator. 16.  On 30 May 2004 the son of S.J. and A.J. (“Av.J.”) made a statement. He said that A.J. had picked him up at home at 18.00 on 20 May 2004. He had remained with his father until 23.00, when his father returned to work and he went to the home of his sister (“D.J.”). A colleague of A.J. later reported going with him to the cafeteria in the police station at 23.00 and the chief officer on duty that night confirmed that A.J. had remained with the squad until his shift ended at 07.00 on 21 May 2004. He also told the investigators that after midnight the police station was locked and the main gate closed, with the consequence that no person – or vehicle – could leave the premises without his permission. 17.  On 1 June 2004 Officer A.M. performed a further examination of S.J.’s home. He examined marks and traces left by the rope on the door and seized several samples for forensic traceology examination. 18.  On 8 July 2004 a household worker gave a statement to the police confirming that on 20 May 2004 A.J. had returned home at 18.00 to collect Av.J. On 20 July 2004 D.J. confirmed that A.J. and Av.J. had arrived at her home at 23.00 that night. 19.  On 21 July 2004 the State Forensic Expertise Centre reported that the groove marks on the upper fragment of the door had been chafed into the wooden surface by the rope attached to S.J.’s neck. Those marks could only have been made by pulling the weight of S.J.’s body towards the door handle, to which the rope was subsequently tied. 20.  On 23 July 2004 the OCCD initiated criminal proceedings to investigate the aggravated murder (murder with mercenary intent) of S.J. From this point onwards, Inspector V.L. of the OCCD was responsible for the investigation under the supervision of the General Prosecutor’s Office. A.L. was the Prosecutor in charge and he reported to A.B., who was the supervising Prosecutor. 21.  On 23 July 2004 A.J. was interrogated as a suspect and he was informed that he could not change his registered place of domicile. Av.J., D.J. and B.L. were questioned as witnesses. 22.  A couple of days later, M.N. and Ma.N. were again interviewed about the red vehicle parked in the courtyard of S.J.’s home. Both indicated that they had believed the vehicle to be the one driven by A.J. 23.  Throughout the following months witnesses were interviewed, including A.J. (who was questioned repeatedly), his relatives and acquaintances, S.J.’s relatives (including the applicant), the couple’s neighbours, a number of police officers, S.J.’s employer and some of her colleagues, her household workers and her dentist. The General Prosecutor’s Office also instructed the OCCD to order further forensic tests, although records indicate that many were in fact ordered by the Ventspils State Police. 24.  Attempts were made to establish the exact time of death but on 11 August 2004 the forensic expert indicated that “considering that the forensic medical examination of S.J.’s body had been performed four days after it was found and that livor mortis appears within the first hour of death, a more precise time of death could not be established”. 25.  A.J.’s uniform and the seat covers of his service car were seized on 9 August 2004 and DNA samples were taken from him. On 9 September 2004 the expert reported that there were several different DNA samples on the rope used to hang S.J. but none belonged to A.J. The expert was unable to establish the gender identification of the samples. On 16 September 2004 an expert concluded that some fibres found on S.J.’s coat possibly came from A.J.’s car seat but the results were inconclusive. 26.  Further tests were also carried out on S.J.’s body, but no injuries were found which would indicate a struggle or self-defence. 27.  Furthermore, S.J.’s bank records were requested, as were details of all red vehicles matching the description of the one seen at the scene of the crime. S.J.’s family members were also questioned repeatedly about whether or not she had kept a personal diary. On 23 March 2005 the diary appears to have been handed over to the police and attached to the criminal file. 28.  On 1 December 2006 a further forensic traceology report suggested that there was a “high probability” that if S.J. had committed suicide the grooves on the top of the door would not have appeared as they did. 29.  On 21 March 2007 A.J. was again declared a suspect. Further DNA tests were performed on the rope and experiments were carried out to determine the driving time from Ventspils Police Station to S.J.’s home. The results of the latter test appeared to confirm A.J.’s alibi and on 13 November 2008 the decision to once again declare him a suspect was quashed. 30.  On 11 January 2011 a new OCCD investigator (“A.Jo.) assumed jurisdiction over the case file. 31.  On 20 August 2007 the OCCD acknowledged D.J. (the applicant’s granddaughter) as a victim in the criminal proceedings. 32.  On 26 May 2004 the applicant wrote to the Head of the OCCD alleging that S.J. had been murdered. The OCCD informed the applicant on 2 July 2004 that the circumstances of S.J.’s death were still being investigated. 33.  The applicant subsequently submitted further complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office concerning the conduct of the investigation. In the course of these complaints, he implied that A.J. was directly or indirectly implicated in S.J.’s murder and that his colleagues on the police force were deliberately obstructing the investigation. 34.  On 22 December 2004 A.Mi., a senior Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court, informed the applicant that an in-depth investigation was being carried out. It was being conducted in an impartial manner and there was no evidence of any deliberate obstruction by the police. A.Mi. noted that the investigation was complicated and was supervised by another prosecutor from the same office (“A.L.”). 35.  On 23 May 2005 a Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the investigation was still ongoing and that the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient to bring charges against any specific persons. The Prosecutor admitted that A.G. had not carried out the initial examination of the scene of S.J.’s death “qualitatively”, that both A.G. and A.M. had violated the requirements of the laws on criminal procedure and that the two officers had received disciplinary penalties. In addition, criminal proceedings had been initiated against A.G. for criminal inaction of a State official (section 319 of the Criminal Law) and for the forgery of official documents (section 327 of the Criminal Law). However, on 14 March 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court had decided to release A.G. from criminal liability pursuant to Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 36.  On 17 July 2007 the applicant wrote to A.L., the supervising Prosecutor, and asked to see certain expert reports and other specific information concerning the investigation into S.J.’s death. More particularly, he asked for additional information concerning the violations committed by the police officers A.M. and A.G. He also enquired when the case would be sent to a court. 37.  On 20 August 2007 the Prosecutor replied to the applicant. He informed him that the pre-trial investigation was still ongoing and a forensic biological analysis of DNA was being carried out. Further investigative steps would be planned after receiving the results of that analysis and it was therefore impossible to predict the date of the completion of the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was further informed that under the Law of Criminal Procedure he had no right to read the case file or to receive copies thereof. The only persons who had such a right were the accused and the victims, but only after the completion of the criminal proceedings. With regard to the violations committed by the police officers, the applicant was advised to contact the Ventspils State Police. 38.  On 10 September 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General concerning the Prosecutors’ responses of, inter alia, 22 December 2004, 23 May 2005 and 20 August 2007. He principally complained that the investigation was being deliberately delayed in order to protect S.J.’s murderer(s). 39.  The applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court. On 1 October 2007 he received a response from A.Mi. informing him that the investigation and the gathering of evidence were continuing “in order to establish important facts”. Unspecified expert reports had apparently been ordered and their results were expected no earlier than December. Finally, the applicant was informed that his “allegation that the investigator and the supervising Prosecutor were not sufficiently active and were uninterested in establishing the truth were unfounded”. 40.  On 26 October 2007 the applicant submitted a further complaint to the Prosecutor General. He criticised the Office of the General Prosecutor’s decision to forward his complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court. He also denounced the response of 1 October 2007 as “passive and unfounded” and considered that the fact that it did not address the substance of his complaints demonstrated that A.Mi. was not interested in establishing the truth about S.J.’s murder. 41.  On 13 November 2007 the Prosecutor General gave a final response to the applicant’s complaint. In the relevant parts of the response the applicant was informed:
“... [the senior prosecutor A.M.] in his response of 1 October [2007] informed you that the investigation of the criminal case ... was ongoing, that expert reports had been ordered, and that after receiving expert reports further investigative steps would be planned. While criminal proceedings are pending, the materials in the criminal case file are an investigative secret (section 375 of the Law of Criminal Procedure), which is why it is impossible to give you more specific information concerning the investigative steps that have been taken and will be taken. It might be for that reason that you have formed an incorrect opinion that the investigation is being intentionally delayed and not conducted with the aim of establishing the culprit; however, such an opinion does not find support in the steps actually taken in the criminal proceedings.
In the course of the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case ... a sufficient amount of investigative steps were carried out: more than 15 expert reports were ordered and received and the need to order [additional] expert reports and the planning of further investigative steps was determined by the [findings of the] expert reports already received. In addition, the preparation of expert reports took significant time; more than 40 witnesses were questioned and other investigative steps carried out. Unfortunately the pre-trial investigation to this date has not allowed us to establish the circumstances [of S.J.’s death] or the culprit.”


4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Sevastopol. 5.  The circumstances of the case concern a dispute between the applicant and a State company over the execution of a contract pursuant to which the latter undertook, in June 1990, to install a tombstone at the applicant’s son’s grave. 6.  On 21 August 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol against the company for the alleged failure to comply with the contract. 7.  On 28 December 2000 the court adopted a judgment, partly allowing the applicant’s claim. It ordered the company to install the tombstone or to reimburse the money the applicant had paid for it. The court noted that although the applicant had missed the statutory time-limit for lodging her claim, it was justified, in the applicant’s particular situation, to renew the time-limit. 8.  On 6 February 2001 the Sevastopol City Court quashed that judgment, finding that the first instance court had erred in the assessment of facts and the application of law, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 9.  On 19 June 2001 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s claim as time-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s request for renewal of the statutory time-limit as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 29 January 2002 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 19 June 2001. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at that time, the applicant had three months to lodge an appeal in cassation. 11.  On 4 April 2002 an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure became effective providing for one-month, instead of three-month, time-limit for lodging appeals in cassation. 12.  The applicant appealed in cassation on 25 April 2002. The Leninsky Court refused to refer the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that it had been lodged more than one month after the delivery of the decision of 29 January 2002. 13.  The applicant challenged the refusal, arguing that in her case the previous three-month time-limit had been applicable. 14.  Subsequently, for about a year the courts at two levels of jurisdiction (first and appeal) reconsidered the admissibility of the applicant’s cassation appeal. In particular, on 3 September 2002 and 23 January 2003 the applicant appealed against the first instance court’s decisions of 7 August 2002 and 14 January 2003 respectively which concerned the admissibility of her cassation appeal. 15.  Eventually, on 10 April 2003 the cassation appeal was referred to the Supreme Court. 16.  On 25 January 2006 the Supreme Court, having examined the appeal in camera, rejected it as unsubstantiated. It found no ground to annul the decisions on the merits of the applicant’s case. 17.  A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 18 April 2006. The applicant received it on 26 April 2006. 18.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceeding, the applicant amended her claim for non-pecuniary damages and submitted additional petitions. Also, out of thirty-two scheduled hearings, five were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her representative’s failure to appear, one hearing was not held because of the respondent’s failure to appear, one hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s absence for health reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the applicant’s request, the term for lodging an appeal which resulted in delays of about three months. 19.  According to the applicant, she attended all the hearings.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Negotino. 6.  On 22 November 2001 the public prosecutor requested an investigating judge of the Negotino Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) to open an investigation against the applicant on the count of forgery of a notice convening a meeting of shareholders of a company, N., in which he was also a shareholder (“the notice”). The applicant was accused of having deceived a considerable number of shareholders into signing the notice by misleading them in the belief that there would be only one item on the agenda, instead of eight, as was actually the case. The investigating judge heard the applicant and 47 witnesses. After the investigation had been completed, on 29 May 2002 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant. 7.  The trial court fixed twelve hearings, including that of 6 May 2004, which the applicant did not attend, although he had been summoned properly. During the trial, the court again heard oral evidence from the applicant, who had a court-appointed lawyer, and the 47 witnesses and admitted other documentary evidence. On 31 May 2005, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer only, the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment suspended for one year. It did not rely on the statements made by the witnesses before the company's management denying that they had been informed about the remaining items on the agenda. The court rejected the applicant's defence as self-serving and the testimony of 6 defence witnesses as inconsistent and implausible. 8.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant who, at the relevant time, was not represented by counsel, appealed against that decision. He did not request to be notified of the date of the session (седница) of the Court of Appeal. 9.  On 2 November 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. The court decided in private. The public prosecutor was present, but not the applicant. The court addressed the public prosecutor's written submission of 17 October 2005 and her oral pleadings requesting that the applicant's appeal be dismissed. 10.  The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005. 11.  On 19 January 2006 the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request with the Supreme Court for the protection of legality (“legality review request”).


4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zonguldak. 5.  On an unspecified date the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey of plots of land in Belen village in the Ereğli district of Zonguldak. Following this survey, plot nos. 2 and 3 were registered in the Land Registry in the names of A.G. and K.G. respectively. 6.  On 22 February 1985 the applicant brought a case before the Karadeniz Ereğlisi Cadastral Court requesting that plot nos. 2 and 3 be registered in his name. 7.  On 12 December 1986 the court joined the case in question to another claim, having regard to the fact that the parties and the subject matter of the cases were the same. 8.  On 6 December 2000 the court granted the applicant's request in part. The parties appealed. 9.  On 12 December 2002 the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the first-instance court on grounds of incorrect service. 10.  On an unspecified date the first-instance court rectified the error in service and sent the case to the Court of Cassation for re-examination. 11.  On 29 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 6 December 2000. 12.  On 11 October 2006 the first instance court dismissed the case. 13.  On 13 March 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 11 October 2006. 14.  The case was remitted to the first-instance court for further examination. 15.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.


6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained currently in Matīsa Prison. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 21 March 2002 the State Police telephoned the applicant and asked him to appear at their station. According to the applicant, at the State Police station, prior to any formal charges being laid against him, he was accused of murdering Ģ.Č. The police officers used physical force against him in order to obtain a confession to the crime. As a result of the duress brought to bear upon him, the applicant made a written confession. 8.  On 23 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to a short-term detention facility. 9.  On 23 May 2002 the police opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct of police officers at the time of the applicant’s questioning. On 25 June 2005 a prosecutor concluded that the complaint was no longer subject to the prosecutor’s review. The prosecutor referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 April 2005 (see paragraph 40 below) dismissing the allegation of ill-treatment. 10.  Further details in relation to the events following the applicant’s appearance on 21 March 2002 at the State Police station are set out in the decision in Cesnieks (cited above), where the Government acknowledged, inter alia, that the applicant had been ill-treated while in police custody and there had been a lack of effective investigation of the applicant’s complaint of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 30, 32 and 36). 11.  The typewritten transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a witness dated 21 March 2002 from 5.20 p.m. to 6.40 p.m.[1] recorded the applicant’s statement to the police. 12.  The applicant declared that he had given Ģ.Č. documents concerning his late father’s company, T.S.C., because Ģ.Č. had been looking for a company to carry out the leasing of motor vehicles. Later, Ģ.Č. had asked the applicant whether he knew anyone who could make withdrawals at the bank. The applicant had suggested his acquaintance Z.K. Occasionally Z.K. had sent Ģ.Č. sums of money that he had withdrawn from the bank via the applicant. 13.  On the applicant’s evidence at the end of January 2002 he travelled to Moscow. While there Ģ.Č. had called him looking for Z.K., because Ģ.Č. had needed Z.K. to collect money at the bank. 14.  The applicant gave further information in his police statement about meeting Z.K. in Riga upon his return from Moscow and Z.K. telling him about a withdrawal of the funds and their handover to Ģ.Č. 15.  The applicant stated that he had learnt of Ģ.Č.’s murder from the police officers on the day the police had contacted him. 16.  In the applicant’s handwritten confession dated 22 March 2002[2], he stated that in October 2001 he had borrowed the sum of 4,500 Latvian lati (LVL), which he had been unable to pay back. 17.  On 25 January 2002 the applicant together with his acquaintance O.O. had travelled to Moscow hoping to obtain money there, but they were unsuccessful. 18.  The applicant had told O.O. about the transfers of money to Ģ.Č. by Z.K. and himself. O.O. had also learnt that the sum of LVL 17,000 would arrive in the coming days in the bank account, to be sent on to Ģ.Č., and had told the applicant that he could resolve the issue of the debt if the applicant gave him full information. 19.  On 1 February 2002 they had left Moscow and had arrived the next day in Riga. At around 2 p.m. the applicant had phoned Z.K., who later gave him LVL 5,600 and told him that the remaining amount would be withdrawn on Monday. On Sunday O.O. called the applicant, saying that everything was in order. Later the applicant realised that something terrible had occurred. 20.  The same handwritten confession contained an addendum to the effect that O.O. had said that he would murder Ģ.Č. 21.  According to the typewritten transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a suspect dated 22 March 2002 from 11 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.[3], the applicant confirmed the truthfulness of his confession. 22.  He added that he had concealed the circumstances and the purpose of his travel to Moscow. 23.  He declared that he had borrowed a sum of money from his acquaintance O.O. which he had failed to return. O.O. had demanded to be repaid in a threating manner and to go with the applicant to Moscow. O.O. had insisted that the applicant keep the money intended for Ģ.Č. and give him some of it in repayment of the debt instead. O.O. had told the applicant to forget about Ģ.Č., meaning that O.O. had decided to kill him. 24.  After their return to Riga, on 3 February 2002 O.O. had told the applicant over the phone that he could now forget about Ģ.Č. and that nobody would ever find him. The applicant had understood him to mean that Ģ.Č. had been murdered. 25.  A typewritten transcript of a further interview of the applicant as a suspect dated 22 March 2002 from 11.30 p.m. to 12.50 a.m.[4] indicated that the applicant wished to supplement his previous statement. 26.  The applicant stated that he had concealed the fact that he had sought the killing of Ģ.Č. in order to obtain the LVL 17,000 belonging to Ģ.Č. He had wanted Ģ.Č.’s money because he had been experiencing serious financial difficulties. He had ordered parts for his sports car from Japan but did not have the means to pay for them. 27.  The applicant added that while in Moscow Ģ.Č. had phoned him, looking for Z.K. The applicant then had learnt that Z.K. was to withdraw the sum of LVL 17,000 for Ģ.Č. On 31 January 2002 the applicant had asked O.O. to kill Ģ.Č. That same day, using the applicant’s phone, O.O. had called an acquaintance in Riga about the job and told his acquaintance that he would give details later. In the evening they had again phoned the same person from a hotel. That person had been Latvian and had had difficulty understanding Russian. O.O. had passed the phone over to the applicant, who had provided more information about Ģ.Č. On 1 February 2002, while on a bus to Riga, O.O. had again called the same person. 28.  Both transcripts of the applicant’s questioning recorded that he had wished to give a statement in the absence of a lawyer. 29.  The applicant and three co-accused O.O., V.Z. and J.G. were brought before the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) to stand trial on charges related to the murder of Ģ.Č. 30.  On 11 October 2004 the Riga Regional Court found V.Z. and J.G. guilty of aggravated murder. The Regional Court established that V.Z. and J.G. had murdered Ģ.Č. on 2 February 2002, which they had partly admitted in the course of the trial. 31.  The Regional Court was unable to establish the guilt of the applicant and O.O. 32.  With reference to the applicant, the Regional Court reasoned that at trial he had pleaded not guilty to the criminal offences he was charged with and recanted the statements he had given to the police. According to the applicant, he had provided these statements as a result of ill-treatment by police officers, who had beaten him and broken his nose. In this regard the Regional Court reasoned:
“In assessing the [applicant’s] explanation the court does not have a reason to not believe it, because, as is evident from the case materials, on 21 March 2002 from 5.20 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. [the applicant] was questioned as a witness ... however ... he was taken into custody on 21 March at 8 p.m. ... [but] he was not transferred to a detention facility until 1 a.m. on 23 March, remaining in the premises of the Riga police station (Rīgas rajona policijas pārvalde)...
The fact that [the applicant] had been asked at around 11 a.m. on the morning [of 21 March] to attend the police station was confirmed by the witness [S.R.], an employee of the Department for the Combat of Organised Crime (Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde)...
The foregoing was also confirmed by witnesses [A.B.], a police employee, and [I.K.], an inspector, who were unable to explain to the court why [the applicant] had not been released from the police station after having been questioned as a witness.
The fact that [the applicant] ... suffered bodily injuries while in custody is confirmed by the expert reports contained in the file...” 33.  In that light, the Regional Court found that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated with respect to the applicant, irrespective of the fact that the criminal case against the police employees had been terminated. 34.  The Regional Court also added that the applicant’s statements of 22 March 2002 had been contradictory. It deemed unreliable an expert report finding that there were no signs that the applicant had written the confession “in the circumstances of anxiety, fear or physical ill-treatment”. The Regional Court reasoned that the expert report did not contain “a study section” (izpētes daļa) that would allow it to understand how the expert had arrived at her conclusion. 35.  Accordingly, the Regional Court ruled that the applicant’s statements of 22 March 2002 could not be used in the applicant’s conviction. 36.  It further held that no other evidence had been obtained to the effect that the applicant had in any way organised, assisted or incited another person to commit Ģ.Č.’s murder. The evidence established that transactions involving money transfers had taken place between the applicant, Z.K. and Ģ.Č. This was corroborated by the evidence of witness I.Š., a police inspector who testified about an ongoing criminal investigation into illegal transactions involving all three individuals. 37.  The Regional Court in its judgment referred to telephone call records admitted in evidence. On 1 February 2002 at 5.27 p.m. a phone call had been made from the applicant’s mobile number to V.Z.’s mobile number. At the same time, it reasoned that V.Z. had never testified having spoken on the phone to the applicant or having previously known him. In addition, the Regional Court considered that it had no reason to conclude that O.O.’s testimony that he had used the applicant’s phone in order to contact V.Z. about a vehicle had been false. It was evident from the telephone call records that on several occasions between 20 January and 18 March V.Z. had been contacted from a number which according to O.O. was his. 38.  The first-instance judgment was appealed against to the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) on behalf of the prosecution, the victim and both co-accused convicted at first instance. 39.  On 26 April 2005 the Supreme Court overturned the applicant’s acquittal and found him guilty of the aggravated murder of Ģ.Č. 40.  The judgment of the Supreme Court noted that in the appeal proceedings the applicant had continued to deny his initial statements and maintain that he had given them as a result of ill-treatment by police employees. In that regard, the Supreme Court reasoned as follows:
“The Regional Court groundlessly (nepamatoti) accepted that [the applicant’s] statements and [his] confession given during the pre-trial investigation were not truthful.
The file does not contain impartial evidence affirming [the applicant’s] assertion that he gave these statements as a result of physical and psychological ill-treatment by police employees, [and] that police employees dictated the testimonies [to him]. That it was merely a coincidence that during the commission of the crime [the applicant] was together with [O.O.] ... [and] that a call was made from his phone at that time to [V.Z.].
The criminal case ... against police employees that they possibly had exceeded their powers and inflicted injuries on [the applicant] has been terminated and [the applicant’s] defence has not disputed this decision...
The Regional Court groundlessly rejected the expert report ... which concluded that the confession had been written by [the applicant] and [that there was] no indication ... of it being written in the circumstances of anxiety, fear or physical ill-treatment ... because the said expert report provides answers to the questions put to the expert. The expert report contains a study section providing the manner in which the expert reached the conclusion.
Furthermore ... in comparing [the applicant’s] complaint of 25 March 2002 ... and the confession written on 22 March 2002 ... [there can be] no doubt ... that it is [the applicant’s] free style (brīvais stils) [of handwriting].” 41.  The Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s statement of 22 March 2002 to be admitted in evidence and relied on it in its judgment. 42.  The applicant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment, with confiscation of property and police control for two years. The applicant was immediately taken into custody. 43.  The defence lodged an appeal on points of law with the Criminal Cases Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments), arguing that the Supreme Court had convicted the applicant in violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention because he had given the pre-trial confession and other statements relied upon by the court as a result of ill-treatment by police employees. The defence presented an extensive volume of evidence and pointed out that the applicant had been injured while in police custody and the circumstances of the injuries had not been explained. They submitted that there had been no other evidence in the file attesting to the applicant’s guilt. The court had been under an obligation to assess the material in the criminal case against the police employees and not merely to rely on the fact that the case against them had been terminated. In the defence’s submission, on 7 April 2004 they had appealed against the decision terminating that criminal case. Pursuing appeal had subsequently become impracticable “because the criminal case regarding the [applicant’s] beating had been joined, as evidence, to the criminal case concerning [Ģ.Č.’s] murder”. 44.  On 26 August 2005 the Senate of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal without holding a hearing. 45.  The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court in its relevant part read as follows:
“... contrary to the [requirements of the] Criminal Procedure Code, the appeals filed ... are not substantiated with [submissions as to] a violation of the said provisions of the law, but [rather] factual submissions are put forward [with the aim of obtaining] a re-evaluation of the evidence on which the appeals court’s guilty verdict is based.
...
Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code ... the re-evaluation of evidence and establishment of new facts ... is not within the competence of the cassation court.
The reference in the appeal on points of law to a violation of ... the relevant international Convention in the course of [the lower court’s] adjudication is not based on the materials of this case and is therefore [purely] formal in nature.” 46.  The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court was not subject to appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969. A native of Chechnya, from 1996 she lived in the settlement for internally displaced persons from Chechnya in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya (also known as Sleptsovskaya), in the Ingush Republic of the Russian Federation (Ingushetia). The applicant later left Russia with her children and sought asylum in another country, where she now resides. She is the wife of Sultan Khatuyev, who allegedly disappeared in 2004 following his arrest by the security forces. 6.  On 2 August 2004 at about 8.00 a.m. an operation was carried out in the Ordzhonikidzevskaya settlement by the security forces with a view to finding members of illegal armed groups. More than one hundred servicemen and numerous vehicles were involved in the operation. 7.  The applicant stated that her home had been searched during this operation by two servicemen who neither introduced themselves nor produced any document. They checked Sultan Khatuyev's passport and ordered him to follow them to their car. In response to the applicant's questions, the servicemen told her that her husband would be taken along with some of their neighbours to the Sunzhensky district department of the Interior (ROVD) for an identity check. Six other persons were apprehended and taken to the Sunzhensky ROVD during the same operation. They were all neighbours and knew each other. 8.  As soon as the operation was over the applicant went by car to the Sunzhensky ROVD together with R.A., a relative of another apprehended person. They saw the seven apprehended men being taken from the yard into the ROVD building. 9.  Three of these men were released at approximately midnight. Two of them later stated that they had initially been detained for several hours in a wing on the ground floor and then taken to the second floor for questioning. 10.  On 3 August 2004 at approximately 1 a.m. a ROVD officer informed the applicant and the three men who had just been released that the other detainees, including Sultan Khatuyev, would be released in the morning. 11.  Around 8.00 a.m. on 3 August the applicant went back to the ROVD with relatives of the other detainees. They were told that the four remaining detainees had been taken to the Federal Security Service (FSB) office in Magas. The applicant and the other detainees' relatives immediately went there. While they were not allowed to enter the premises, an officer confirmed that the four people, including Sultan Khatuyev, were being detained at that office. 12.  In response to the applicant's repeated requests an officer came out of the building at 4.00 p.m. and released two more persons. He also told the applicant that the other two persons, Sultan Khatuyev and U.I., had already been released. According to U.I.'s relatives, he had indeed been released in an extremely poor condition by FSB officers between 1.00 and 2.00 p.m. and left alone at a rubbish dump. The applicant went to the rubbish dump to look for her husband but did not find him or any of his personal belongings. 13.  U.I. later told the applicant that he and Sultan Khatuyev had been detained in two neighbouring cells on the FSB premises and that he had heard Sultan Khatuyev groaning. He told her that he had been beaten by the FSB officers and that, given the sounds coming from the other cell, Sultan Khatuyev had been beaten as well. The lawyer representing the applicant submitted a written statement about his conversation with U.I. to that effect; however, he noted in the same statement that U.I. had feared reprisals and refused to sign any testimonies about his detention. According to the lawyer's submissions, U.I. and Sultan Khatuyev had been taken in the same car from the Sunzhenskiy ROVD to the FSB office in Magas. U.I. had had a plastic bag over his head but he had heard the voice of the applicant's husband, whom he had known well as they had been neighbours. He also told the lawyer that the car had not stopped anywhere on the way to Magas and that at one point he had heard Sultan Khatuyev screaming in the building. 14.  The applicant has had no news of Sultan Khatuyev since 2 August 2004. 15.  In support of her own statements, the applicant submitted statements by her relatives and a statement by one of the persons who had been detained on 2 August 2004 at the Sunzhenskiy ROVD together with Sultan Khatuyev. 16.  The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the applicant's husband's detention on 2 August 2004. 17.  Since 3 August 2004 the applicant has repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. She has been supported in her efforts by NGO Memorial. In her letters to the authorities the applicant referred to her husband's detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicant's requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors' offices. The applicant submitted some of the letters to the authorities and the replies to the Court, which are summarised below. 18.  On 3 August 2004 the applicant lodged a written complaint with the Sunzhensky ROVD about the abduction of her husband. She was informed by the ROVD officers that they were not aware of his fate after he had been taken to the FSB office in Magas. 19.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant again went with her relatives to the ROVD office to inquire about her husband and talked to officer A.B., whom she had seen take part in the operation at issue. He gave them no information, but insulted the applicant and her sister-in-law using obscene language. The incident was interrupted by another officer, A.G., who had also taken part in the operation. The latter informed the applicant, after a telephone call to the FSB office in Magas, that Sultan Khatuyev was still being detained there. A.G. promised to find out the reasons for his detention, but failed to provide any further information in response to the applicant's subsequent telephone calls. 20.  On 6 August and 9 August 2004 the applicant complained to the Sunzhensky District Prosecutor's Office (hereafter “the district prosecutor's office”) about the abduction of her husband and demanding an investigation into the matter. 21.  By a letter of 9 August 2004 the FSB office of Ingushetia informed the applicant that they had no information about Sultan Khatuyev's apprehension and whereabouts. 22.  On 12 August 2004 the applicant requested the Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia to identify the servicemen involved in the abduction of her husband. 23.  On 19 August 2004 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office and submitted additional details of her husband's disappearance. 24.  On 20 August 2004 the District Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation (case file no. 04600054) into Sultan Khatuyev's kidnapping under Article 126, part 1, of the Criminal Code. The applicant was informed thereof by letters of 31 August and 8 September 2004. 25.  In September 2004 the applicant received a reply from the acting Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia. The letter stated that on 2 August 2004 eight persons, including Sultan Khatuyev, had been apprehended during an operation carried out jointly by the FSB Department for Ingushetia and the special forces of the Ingush Ministry of the Interior (OMON) with a view to identifying and arresting persons involved in illegal armed groups. The Minister also confirmed that four of those persons had been released, while four others, including Sultan Khatuyev, had been relocated pursuant to the orders of the head of the FSB group Mr M.Ye. The Minister indicated that the investigation to find out Sultan Khatuyev's whereabouts was under way. 26.  On various dates in October 2004 the applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor's office. She inquired about the progress of the criminal proceedings, requested to be granted victim status and access to the case file and to question the six witnesses who had been apprehended together with her husband. The prosecutor's office replied on 1 November 2004 and confirmed that four persons including Sultan Khatuyev had been taken to the ROVD and subsequently transferred to the FSB office in Magas and that Sultan Khatuyev's whereabouts were still not known. 27.  On 4 November 2004 the applicant asked the district prosecutor to bring criminal charges against the persons involved in the abduction of her husband. She again requested access to the criminal case file. She also asked specifically for the other men who had been apprehended on the same day and the officials involved, including the ROVD officers who had arrested her husband and the FSB officer M.Ye., who had ordered his transfer to the Magas FSB Department, to be questioned. 28.  The applicant received no response to these requests. In reply to her subsequent requests the prosecutor's office indicated, by letter of 19 February 2005, that the investigation concerning criminal file no. 04600054 was still ongoing. 29.  On 20 February 2005 the investigation was discontinued given the failure to identify the persons against whom the charges were to be brought (Article 208, part 1, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the applicant was informed thereof by letter of 5 March 2005. 30.  On 5 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sunzhensky District Court (“the district court”) under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She requested the court to declare the inaction of the prosecutor's office unlawful, to quash the prosecutor's decision adjourning the investigation and to order a thorough and effective investigation into Sultan Khatuyev's abduction. 31.  On 24 May 2005 the district court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court noted in particular that the investigation authorities had questioned certain officers of the Sunzhensky ROVD, including A.G., and complied with the plan of investigation measures. The court also noted that the necessary measures had been taken to secure the questioning of FSB officer M.Ye., but the latter had failed to appear due to circumstances beyond the investigator's control. 32.  On 4 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia reviewed the applicant's cassation appeal against this decision. The court quashed and remitted the decision of 24 May 2005, with an instruction to the investigation authorities to question Mr M.Ye. 33.  The applicant received no further information about the proceedings in the case concerning her husband's abduction. In 2008 she informed the Court that she had been threatened by unnamed representatives of the security forces, who had allegedly told her to stop complaining. They threatened to plant drugs or arms on her teenaged sons or accuse them of being involved with illegal armed groups. The applicant and her family left Russia and sought asylum in another country. 34.  The applicant submitted that her health had deteriorated significantly since the events of 2 August 2004 and the disappearance of Sultan Khatuyev. Without presenting any documents, she claimed that in 2008 she had been diagnosed with a benign tumour, which she thought was a result of the endured stress. 35.  With reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government submitted that the investigation of the abduction of Sultan Khatuyev had commenced on 20 August 2004. 36.  On unspecified dates the investigation questioned the applicant and Sultan Khatuyev's parents. The applicant was granted victim status on 25 August 2004. 37.  The Government stated that two servicemen of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD had been questioned in the course of the investigation. They testified that on 2 August 2004 their office had assisted the FSB and the criminal police of Ingushetia in the security operation in Ordzhonikidzevskaya. One serviceman had taken part in this operation, while the other one had not. The aim of the operation had been to identify members of illegal armed groups and to check that the inhabitants of the settlement of internal migrants from Chechnya were complying with residence rules. The participating serviceman had been aware of the detention of four men, the identities and the reasons for detention of whom he had not known. The other serviceman (presumably, this was A.G., questioned on 3 September 2004 – see paragraph 31 above) had learnt of Sultan Khatuyev's detention from the latter's relatives. The witnesses had no other information about Sultan Khatuyev. 38.  It also appears from Government's observations that on an unspecified date the investigators questioned U.I., who refused to submit any complaints about the alleged ill-treatment. As it appears, no other witnesses were identified or questioned. 39.  The Government further cited the report of the border security regiment of the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia of 8 November 2004. According to them, 60 servicemen of the regiment had participated in the joint operation on 2 August 2004 aimed at identifying the persons who had taken part in a terrorist attack on 22 June 2004. Several persons had been delivered to the Sunzhenskiy ROVD. 40.  The Government also referred to a report from the Ingushetia Department of the FSB of 15 September 2004, according to which Sultan Khatuyev had been questioned in the service car in order to establish his identity. The FSB officers thus found out that in fact they had been looking for a relative of his, A.B. Khatuyev. In view of this Sultan Khatuyev had been released from the car at the gas station situated at the exit from Ordzhonikidzevskaya, before the road police block “Volga-20”. Sultan Khatuyev had rejected the servicemen's offer of a lift home. 41.  The Government submitted that in November 2004 the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various State bodies. On an unspecified date the Ingushetia department of the FSB stated that their office had not detained Sultan Khatuyev and had no information about his whereabouts. The Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya also replied, on 7 September 2004, that their agents had not detained Sultan. Also on unspecified dates the remand centres in the Northern Caucasus informed the investigation that the missing man had never been detained there. 42.  As far as the applicant's attempts to obtain judicial review of the prosecutor's decisions are concerned, the Government added that on 28 July 2005 the district court had granted the applicant's action against the prosecutor's office and had obliged the latter to carry out a complete and effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband's abduction. 43.  The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Sultan Khatuyev. The law enforcement authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained Sultan Khatuyev on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. The Government insisted that the incident should be qualified not as detention, but as “apprehension with the aim of identifying personal identity” (“задержан для уточнения личности») and that as soon as his identity had been established, he had been released. 44.  According to the information submitted by the Government, between 20 August 2004 and 4 February 2008 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions, and has so far failed to identify those guilty. The latest decision to resume the investigation was dated 4 February 2008. 45.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any of the documents of criminal case no. 04600054. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.


8.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Diyarbakır. 9.  On 28 October 2001 he was arrested by gendarmes and taken into custody at the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command. 10.  On 30 October 2001 the gendarmes took a statement from him. He was suspected of having assisted and supported the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation under Turkish law. He allegedly signed his statement while blindfolded. At the end of his detention in the gendarmes' custody, he was examined by a forensic medical expert. No signs of ill-treatment were observed on his body. 11.  On 1 November 2001, after being interviewed by the public prosecutor, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Diyarbakır National Security Court, who ordered his detention pending trial. Before both the prosecutor and the judge the applicant denied the accusations against him. He was subsequently taken to Diyarbakır Prison. 12.  On 1 November 2001, ruling on applications by the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, and on the basis of Article 3 (c) of Legislative Decree no. 430 on additional measures to be taken in connection with the state of emergency, the judge granted leave for the applicant to be sent back to the gendarmerie command for questioning for a period not exceeding ten days. The applicant was returned to the gendarmes' custody at 10.45 p.m. that day. 13.  On 6 November 2001 the National Security Court dismissed an objection by the applicant's family, on the ground that the length of his detention was consistent with the limits laid down in domestic law. 14.  On 10 November 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by ten days, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430. 15.  On 15 November 2001 an objection by the applicant's representative was dismissed by the National Security Court. 16.  On 20 November 2001 the applicant was taken back to prison. 17.  On 20 and 21 November 2001 the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430, asked the judge to extend the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days. 18.  On 21 November 2001 the judge refused that request on the ground that the case file did not contain any evidence to substantiate it and that such an omission was attributable to the authorities. 19.  The public prosecutor lodged an objection against that decision. 20.  On 22 November 2001 the National Security Court allowed the objection and observed that the applicant was the subject of three other investigations. It granted a further ten-day extension and leave for the applicant to be taken from prison for questioning. 21.  On the same day the applicant was handed over to the gendarmes. 22.  On 1 December 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days. 23.  On 12 December 2001 the applicant was taken back to Diyarbakır Prison. 24.  Each time the applicant left and returned to the prison, he was examined by a doctor. The reports subsequently drawn up did not mention any signs of blows to the applicant's body. 25.  In an indictment of 6 April 2001, the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 168 of the Criminal Code, by which it is an offence to be a member of an armed gang. 26.  At a hearing on 26 June 2001, the National Security Court ordered the applicant's provisional release. 27.  On 27 August 2001 he was acquitted in the absence of any evidence other than his initial statement to the gendarmes. 28.  On 20 September 2001 the judgment became final. 29.  On 9 November 2001 the applicant's representative lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor at the National Security Court against the gendarmes, alleging that they had ill-treated the applicant in order to obtain a confession from him. He asked for the applicant to be given a thorough medical examination. He further submitted that the applicant's recurring periods of detention at the gendarmerie command had breached both the provision of the Constitution governing the maximum length of detention in police custody and Article 5 of the Convention. 30.  On 13 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the National Security Court ruled that he did not have jurisdiction and forwarded the file to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office. 31.  On 13 December 2001 the applicant was interviewed by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. He asserted that he had been sprayed with cold water, had been insulted, threatened and beaten, had had his testicles squeezed and had been placed naked in front of a fan blowing cold air. He lodged a criminal complaint against the gendarmes involved in questioning him. He also requested a medical examination and treatment. 32.  In a letter of 21 December 2001 to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant's representative reiterated his allegations of torture and asked for his client to be examined at a specialist medical department. 33.  On 14 February 2002 the public prosecutor ordered thorough medical examinations to be carried out at the urology department and a testicular scintigram and pelvic ultrasound scan to be carried out at the nuclear medicine department of Dicle University in order to detect any signs of ill-treatment. 34.  In a document of 27 March 2002, addressed to the Diyarbakır provincial governor, the public prosecutor sought leave to bring proceedings against the gendarmes in whose custody the applicant had been held. 35.  A urological ultrasound scan of 18 April 2002 and a testicular scintigram of 13 May 2002 did not reveal any abnormalities. 36.  A preliminary investigation was opened by the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council in respect of the gendarmerie commander. 37.  On 1 May 2002 the Administrative Council decided, in the absence of sufficient evidence, not to open an investigation with a view to prosecuting the official in question. 38.  On 22 May 2002 the applicant lodged an objection against that decision with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. 39.  On 31 December 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court upheld the decision. The Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office subsequently discontinued the proceedings. 40.  On 7 February 2003 the applicant appealed to the Siverek Assize Court against the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 41.  On 26 March 2003 the appeal was dismissed in view of the decision by the Diyarbakır provincial governor's office.