47.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, only Mr Mangîr adduced medical evidence proving that he had been diagnosed with concussion after his release from detention. The other applicants failed to adduce any evidence, such as medical documents or witness statements, in support of their allegations. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article 3, in respect of the four other applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.


70.  The applicant further complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy through which to assert his claim that he had been summoned and sentenced in absentia to seven years’ imprisonment and 70 lashes of the whip by the Revolutionary Court of Teheran and would therefore be exposed to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Article 13 reads:


76.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. He further complained that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention and that the material conditions of his detention had been poor. Lastly, he complained that he had not been provided with food and water on hearing days. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


44.  The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers who, owing to an inadequate investigation, had been neither identified nor punished. They also complained that the German legal system did not provide them with an effective judicial remedy to complain about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation. In this connection, the applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3.


146.  The Government have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the applicant’s injuries recorded following his transfer from Kentron Police Station. The applicant, on the other hand, has consistently and repeatedly raised his allegations of ill-treatment before various domestic authorities (see paragraphs 37, 44 48, 55, 81 and 86 above). In the absence of such explanation, either at the domestic investigation stage or before the Court, the Court concludes that the applicant has suffered treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention at the hands of the police.


118.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during the abduction of Murad Gelayev, the second and fourth applicants were subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that Murad Gelayev was subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention following the abduction, while at the hands of State agents. They further complained that the Russian authorities failed to comply with the procedural obligations arising from Article 3 to investigate these alleged instances of ill-treatment and torture. Article 3 reads:


37.  The Government firstly submitted that the obligation to investigate under Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In that connection, they submitted that the investigation of the assault against the applicant had been prompt, independent and adequate – the investigating authorities had established all the essential circumstances of the assault and had identified the perpetrators, the applicant had been sufficiently involved in the proceedings as a victim and as a civil party, and there had not been any lengthy periods of delay. The Government argued that the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings due to the expiry of the statute of limitations had not automatically rendered those proceedings ineffective.


123.  The applicant maintained that he had been ill-treated and tortured by the police in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his assertion he submitted the transcripts of oral submissions of F (the co-suspect in the alleged killing of MS), B, M and V (his ward mate in Hospital no. 39) taken by two human rights activists in 1999 as part of the unofficial investigation into the events of September 1998 (summarised above in the “Facts” part). Further, the applicant alleged that the statements made by the police officers during the investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment had been fundamentally inconsistent, reflecting the fallacious nature of the version of events advanced by the authorities. In support of his observations the applicant also referred to a number of documents from the official investigation case-file, but to which he had no access at present.


61.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the Gdansk Detention Centre had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the conditions of detention had been inhuman. The design of cells made it impossible for two detainees sharing the same cell to move around freely. Cells were equipped with separate toilets but the surface of the toilet was included in the calculation of the surface of the cell.


39.  The Government submitted that on 24 July 2008 the applicant had been released from Łowicz Prison. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.


51.  The applicant claimed in particular that he had been transported in cramped conditions to and from the City Court on one hundred and ninety-five days. At the courthouse he had been kept in a cell measuring 1.5 square metres with two to three other persons. There had been no bench, no ventilation and no natural light in the cell. He had been given no food or drink on those days. The applicant argued that his confinement at the assembly section of the remand centre prior to departure, his transport in overcrowded vans and confinement at the courthouse, including lack of food on those days, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


89.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment at the time of his arrest on 19 October 2001, that he had been kept in solitary confinement, that he had been detained under the special regime reserved for “dangerous prisoners” and that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with the ophthalmological care required by his medical situation. Furthermore, he complained under Articles 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention of a lack of sufficient evidence for his arrest and the alleged lack of a legal basis for his pre‑trial detention starting from 18 March 2004. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the impossibility, prior to the CCP being amended by Law no. 281/2003, to appeal against the interlocutory judgments extending his pre‑trial detention and the lack of a legal basis for his pre‑trial detention after 17 June 2004. He further complained about the length of that period of detention. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention of the alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the judges who had extended his pre‑trial detention and the breach of his right to presumption of innocence following the alleged publication of press articles containing “compromising accusations” about him before the judges had examined the extension of his pre‑trial detention.


102.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in the light of the case-law of the Court. They submitted that the judgments cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all the necessary measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute in itself just satisfaction.


39.  The applicant made three distinct complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention: he alleged (i) that the material conditions of his detention in prison no. 7 had been poor; (ii) that he had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis there; and (iii) that he had not been provided with appropriate medical care for his various diseases in prison. The relevant provision reads as follows:


21.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the author of the “protest letter” that had been found by the authorities. The applicant was only one of about 135 prisoners who had signed the letter, which had been addressed to the Minister of Justice. Moreover, the letter voiced the prisoners’ criticism of proposed legislative changes and should under no circumstances have been considered as putting the security of the prison at risk. The applicant pointed out that no collective remonstrance had taken place in the months following the incident, which proved his assertion.


33.  The Government stressed that the applicant had had the right to receive a visit from a family member or a phone call once a week. Moreover, once a week he had the right to visit a “day room” in which he could participate in cultural and educational activities. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision.


53.  The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the conditions of his detention under the additional security measures, in particular the use of handcuffs on him at all times when he was outside of his cell and his being banned from using the prison’s sports facilities and exercising, the restriction on his movement and communication with others and the ban on participating in social and family events, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.


58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of that inadequate medical care had been secured to him in Dobrowo and Koszalin Remand Centres. He submitted that because of the poor sanitation conditions and limited opportunities for keeping clean he had contracted various skin diseases. Some of those ailments still affected the applicant up to this day. The applicant also complained that, contrary to doctor’s recommendations, he had not been assigned a bottom bunk bed.


58.  The applicant maintained that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the prison officers had “used violence and caused injuries” to him. He considered these actions unlawful. The applicant referred to his injuries as identified following a forensic medical examination (see paragraph 34 above). With a reference to the Ribitsch judgement (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no.  336), he alleged that physical force against him had not been necessary. He further argued that the use of restraint measures against him had not been justified or proportionate, as his behaviour could not have been considered an attack on prison officers. The applicant pointed out that there were three prison officers against him. He had been in prison for a long time, was not armed, and was far from young.


33.  The Government argued further that any suffering on the part of the first applicant during the events at issue had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the prosecution authorities had been well aware of his state of health, and had carried out their actions – searches of his premises and cars, preparation of the necessary documents and court hearing concerning the proposal to place him under house arrest – as quickly and painlessly for him as possible. Moreover, the first applicant’s care assistant and the second applicant had been allowed to help him, and the first applicant had been allowed to remain in his car, where the police had brought the equipment necessary for the bringing of charges. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the authorities had never meant to deliberately humiliate the applicant.


86.  The applicant sustained a fracture of the jaw and some other injuries (see paragraphs 37, 46, 52 and 54 above). Although some of the injuries did not constitute damage to health by national standards, this does not prevent the national authorities and the Court from establishing whether those injuries were sufficiently serious to reach the “minimum level of severity” under Article <mask> of the Convention. Giving an affirmative answer to this, it remains for the Court to examine whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 for the injuries.


61.  The applicant complained that his proposed removal would place the United Kingdom in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While the domestic authorities found that certain aspects of his account were not credible, he now relied solely on facts which were not in dispute, namely that he was a southern Bhutanese of Nepalese origin, who was a failed asylum seeker forcibly being returned to Bhutan.


63.  The applicant submitted that his detention pending the moratorium on executions amounted to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given the fear of a possible resumption of executions, the long time spent in uncertainty (1990 -98) and the detention's material conditions and regime. That situation was exacerbated by the fact that no judicial remedies capable of improving the applicant's situation were available.


140.  The applicant submitted that the reason why his action had been rejected as unsubstantiated had been the refusals of the courts to carry out an on‑the‑spot inspection of the detention facility and to question the director of the National Investigation Service. On the other hand, the administration of the detention facility had refused the experts’ access to it, thereby hampering the establishment of the conditions in it, which were the basis of the applicant’s action. The possibility to prove the impact of these conditions on the applicant had therefore become pointless. For this reason he had not brought witnesses, hoping that the Supreme Court of Cassation would consider the refusals of the courts below to order an inspection and an expert report serious breaches of the rules of procedure and remit the case. However, because of the legislative changes in November 2002 the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation had been discontinued, thus excluding this possibility. In the applicant’s view, the particular requirements of the State Responsibility for Damage Act, coupled with the stance of the courts and the impossibility to have an appeal on points of law examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation had rendered the action under the Act an ineffective remedy against the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, it was not open to the applicant to make a claim under the general tort law, because of the rule of section 8 of the Act.


58.  The Government accepted, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court, that the applicant had been detained by the army for five days in April 1996 and ill-treated in the manner described. They maintained, however, that he was not of sufficient interest to the Sri Lankan authorities to warrant his arrest and detention on return and, consequently, that there would be no risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


32.  The Government noted at the outset that, in contrast to Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001‑III), where the applicant had spent at least two months in a remand facility and the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the present case, similarly to the Court’s decision in Karalevičius v. Lithuania (no. 53254/99, 6 June 2002), the applicant had spent only seven days in the Anykščiai Facility. During that time, he had been held with another person for only three days; for the remaining four days he had been held alone. Furthermore, the remand facility was very small, consisting of only seven cells in total. The inmates were taken out of the cell daily for an hour’s walk, which improved their well-being.


106.  The Government argued that in so far as the applicants complained of a breach of the authorities’ procedural positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to investigate the incident of 1 February 2011, their complaints were inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule. They first explained that the incident in question was to be regarded as a one-off act which had not produced any permanent consequences or a continuous situation. The Government further referred to the Court’s case-law, according to which in the absence of an effective remedy the six-month time-limit begins to run from the moment the event complained of occurs. That was precisely the situation in the present case, where the applicants complained that the response by the domestic authorities to the incident of 1 February 2011 had not been appropriate.


107.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that their relatives had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 and that no investigation had been carried out into this claim. They also stated that as a result of their close relatives’ abduction and subsequent murder and the authorities’ complacency in the face of their complaints they had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


41.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture in police custody on 1 May 2004 and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


82.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicant’s relatives had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the applicant’s mental suffering. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the applicant by the fact of her relatives’ disappearance, that, in the Government’s view, was beyond the evaluation of the law enforcement authorities and could not be objectively measured, as it related to psychological aspects, such as the emotions and personalities of the individuals concerned.


100.  The applicant alleged that in thus rejecting her request for a stay of execution, the Aliens Appeals Board, contrary to the Court’s case-law on Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, had deprived her of the only possibility under Belgian law of obtaining automatic suspension of the expulsion measure, which was liable to be enforced at any time after 22 December 2010.


38.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and intense physical and mental suffering because, even though the domestic authorities had been aware of her serious medical condition, on 6 November 2014 she had been forced to wait eight hours for an interview at the DNA’s offices without water, food or a seat. She had then been detained in an overcrowded, squalid and cold cell with smokers, without sufficient clean air, physical exercise, food or water, with no access to warm water and without being provided with bed linen or a duvet. Moreover, the detention centre’s doctor had refused to provide her with the treatment needed to prevent a miscarriage. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


28.  The applicant complained that the transport conditions provided for his prison leave to attend his grandmother’s funeral, namely a small compartment without a seat belt or handles, had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court considers that this complaint should be analysed from the standpoint of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:


60.  The Government considered that the applicant’s rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had not been infringed and that there had never been any intent on the part of the Russian authorities to subject the applicant to torture through physical or mental suffering during the time he had been serving a prison sentence. In respect of the data provided by them as regards the correctional colony population, they provided certificates prepared by the colony administration in 2010 and a copy of the records of prisoner profiles.


75.  The Government noted that, in the present case, the first applicant’s account of the risk of persecution by al-Qaeda until 2008 was essentially consistent and detailed, did not contain contradictory information, and was supported by relevant country-of-origin information. He had thus discharged his burden of proof and was therefore entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt. However, as the applicants had not sought asylum until December 2010 and September 2011, they had to plausibly establish that, as matters stood at the time of the domestic proceedings, they would still face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention upon returning to Baghdad. They had failed to discharge this burden of proof. It was only after the Migration Agency had denied the applicants residence permits that they had come up with new claims and evidence which had been incoherent and contradictory. As the essence of their account had changed, they could not be given the benefit of the doubt. As there was a lack of credibility, the domestic authorities and courts had no reason to investigate these claims any further. The applicants’ situation had changed after 2008 and their need for protection had ceased. During the domestic proceedings the migration authorities had taken all relevant circumstances into account and ensured that the investigation of the case was adequate and complete. The domestic decisions did not imply that an excessive burden of proof had been placed on the applicants.


50.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints had been investigated and it had been concluded that the applicant had not been ill-treated. The Government noted that the applicant’s complaints at the national level had been too general and had been submitted too late (for example, his complaint of 25 October 2005 in which he had complained of his ill-treatment for the first time). They also stated that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant was irrelevant, as it did not contain information about the time and manner in which the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant. Therefore, the Government concluded that there had not been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention.


50.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been tortured in police custody during the investigation in 1999. He next complained under the same provision that he had suffered from diseases incompatible with imprisonment, while the doctors examining him had established incorrect diagnoses to make him ineligible for early release on health grounds. He further complained in this respect about the allegedly insufficient medical treatment that he was receiving in prison for atherosclerosis of the lower limbs. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that between 1999 and 2005 many prisoners had died of starvation in Penitentiary no. 60. Finally, he alleged under this provision that he had been beaten by the prison duty officer on 27 October 2006.


26.  The applicant submitted that his detention gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as it was inapt to his conditions. He further claimed that he had been mobbed and sexually assaulted by other inmates. He explained that, due to his intellectual impairment and general inability to communicate, he was not in a position to complain of any assault or give indication of the inappropriateness of his circumstances, and that it was unreasonable to expect him to do so. He also noted that the visits of his mother, limited to two occasions per month, were not sufficient to address his problems and his communication needs occurring in detention. With regard to the governor’s special instruction, the applicant asserted that it was unsuitable to deal with the situation of a deaf and dumb, intellectually disabled and illiterate person.


43.  The applicant alleged that the life sentence imposed on him by vice-presidential decree, in denying him any possibility of early release, is inhuman and degrading. He also complained about the conditions of his detention in Pleven prison, the excessively strict prison regime applied to him, the lack of a legal framework for the regime concerned and the quality of the medical care dispensed to the prisoners. He relied on Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


260.  The Government however went on to emphasise that improvement in prison conditions was a long process that engaged not only the authorities but society as a whole. In their view, the fact that the authorities had made efforts to improve these conditions and that overcrowding, while still a problem, had decreased as a result showed that the cases of the applicants were not representative of the penitentiary system as a whole. In recent times, there had been a discernible improvement in material conditions and the provision of medical care to inmates. The situation in the present case was different from that obtaining in Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski (both cited above), as in Bulgaria the Constitutional Court had not given any ruling with respect of conditions of detention. Nor were the prison authorities systemically failing to provide proper conditions of detention; any failings in relation to the refurbishment of old facilities and the construction of new ones, and the resulting poor conditions and overcrowding, were not due to a lack of efforts on the part of these authorities but to financial difficulties engendered by the country’s economic situation. The situation in the present case also differed from that obtaining in Ananyev and Others (cited above) because the number of cases against Bulgaria in which that Court had found a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to this issue was not very high, and neither was the number of pending applications. Moreover, unlike in that case, in recent times overcrowding in Bulgarian prisons had ebbed as a result of measures taken by the authorities.


39.  The Government denied that the applicant had been subjected to any form of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention during or after his arrest. They acknowledged that abrasions on the applicant’s back and the back of his head had been found on 6 July 2001, when he had been in police custody; however, they argued, with reference to the applicant’s explanatory note of the same date, that he had sustained those injuries because he had fallen the day before.


95.  The Government contested that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They did not dispute the fact that on the day after his arrest, he had been taken to the specialist hospital in view of his complaints concerning lower back pain. The Government admitted that a hyperextension injury had been established, but noted that the applicant had a pre-existing spinal injury which had already been operated on. They pointed out that the doctors had not established any visible bodily injuries on the applicant’s body. The Government relied on the police officers’ statements, and argued that during his arrest the applicant had been aggressive and drunk. Having seen a gun in his pocket, the officers had pushed him to the ground, had pulled his arms backwards and had handcuffed him. The Government admitted that the applicant’s spine had been twisted backwards extensively and that that a certain degree of force must have been used on him. They acknowledged that the applicant’s pain might have been caused by the police officers’ conduct.


103.  The applicant considered that his confinement to the restraint bed on 22 October 2009 and the use of force and handcuffs on him on the following day amounted to torture and inhuman punishment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the measures of restraint had been used for punitive purposes. He had posed no danger to the officers since he had been in a locked cell and could only communicate with the prison officers through a hatch. He argued that in these circumstances the use of force against him had also been unlawful under the domestic law.


53.  The Government submitted that the restrictions imposed on the applicant under the special prison regime had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed first of all that the restrictions in question had been necessary to prevent the applicant, who posed a danger to society, from maintaining contacts with the criminal organisation to which he belonged. It also had to be pointed out that not even the special regime had sufficed to keep the applicant’s criminal behaviour in check as, in spite of the restrictions, he had been the subject of disciplinary action on several occasions on account of his conduct in prison.


42.  The applicant submitted that in the specific context of military service the Government had both positive and negative obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The positive obligation consisted in ascertaining that individuals drafted for military service are sufficiently healthy and fit for such service. The superficial medical examination carried out by the drafting commission in his case had proved to be insufficient to diagnose the condition which had led to his discharge and disability. Furthermore, as regards the negative obligation under Article 3, the applicant pointed out that military servicemen were hierarchically subordinate to their commanders and under the full control of the State authorities. His superiors had forced him to do physical exercise for which there was no military requirement, namely 350 knee bends. That excessive exercise had brought about an aggravation of his condition and disability. His account of the facts had been corroborated by the testimony of his fellow serviceman P. before the domestic courts.


86.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they argued that under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal procedure the applicant could have appealed in court against the decisions of the district prosecutor’s office to dispense with criminal proceeding into his allegations, but he had never used that remedy. The Government argued therefore that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.


43.  The Government submitted that in view of the short duration of the detention, the threshold of severity required by Article 3 was not attained. The Court is not convinced by this, especially when looking at all the above elements cumulatively and taking into consideration the applicant's state of health at the time. It considers that the treatment applied to the applicant could be qualified at least as degrading. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


78.  The Government submitted that when suspects and accused people who faced detention on remand as a preventive measure were escorted to courthouses they were placed before the court on benches “behind a barrier (metal enclosure/cage)” measuring 355 cm in length, 225 cm in height and 115 cm in width. The metal enclosure was primarily intended to enforce the restrictions associated with the custodial measure, that is, to exclude the risk of flight, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice. The applicant’s confinement in the metal cage had not violated the principle of equality of arms and the presumption of innocence. The applicant had been able to communicate freely with the court, his lawyers, the victim and other participants at the trial and exercise his procedural rights without restrictions. When the applicant had not wanted to communicate with his lawyer in the presence of the escort, the court adjourned. Under no circumstances had the applicant’s confinement in the metal cage meant that the court had been predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The Government further submitted that the applicant’s confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom had not amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because the measure in question had been a reasonable and indispensable restriction applied within the framework of the criminal procedure existing in Russia and had not reached the minimum level of severity to attain the threshold of Article <mask> of the Convention.


127.  The applicants complained that Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had probably been ill-treated while in the hands of Russian servicemen following their abduction. They further submitted that, as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured severe mental suffering. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


52.  The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted effective domestic remedies. In particular, he had not requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in which those responsible could have been identified and punished for acts punishable under sections 142 or 143 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above). He had also deprived himself, if the public prosecutor had rejected his complaint, of the opportunity to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor (see paragraph 44 above). Consequently, he had prevented the State from examining his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the compensation proceedings had not been an adequate avenue. In addition, the applicant, who had been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, was responsible for having sought compensation against the wrong defendants. Lastly, the applicant had failed to submit a fresh compensation claim against the economic unit, given the fact that the absolute time-bar (see paragraph 28 above) had not yet expired when he was served with the Court of Appeal’s decision.


103.  The Government submitted that the allegation of the applicant's politically-based persecution had been checked by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order and had been rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Uzbek Prosecutor General's office that there would be no risk of ill-treatment for the applicant if he were extradited to Uzbekistan. With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


14.  The Government submitted that by not claiming compensation for the damage allegedly caused as a result of his detention in inhuman conditions, the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They submitted a summary of forty-six cases examined by the domestic courts in which detainees had lodged claims seeking compensation for violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also pointed to an explanatory decision of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 24 December 2012 concerning the compensatory remedy introduced for violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8.


67.  The applicant complained (i) under Article <mask> of the Convention that on 22 August 2004 the police had tortured him to make him confess to robbery and murder; (ii) under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention had been unlawful; and (iii) under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his detention records stated that he had “committed murder”. He further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) to (c) of the Convention that (i) the classification of his actions and factual findings by the investigator and the courts had been wrong and that the courts had been biased; (ii) he had not been assisted by a lawyer during his hearing before the Supreme Court; (iii) the prosecutor who had taken part in the trial had unlawfully changed the charges against him, which had in turn hindered the preparation of his defence; and that (iv) the expert report concerning one of the main pieces of evidence (the bat) had been flawed and that the object itself had been switched.


50.  The Government acknowledged that during almost the entire period of the applicant’s detention in Łowicz Prison the space per person in his cells had been inferior to 3 square metres. They argued, however, that the applicant had not suffered inhuman or degrading treatment which attained the minimum level of severity within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


40.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Dnipropetrovsk SIZO no. 3, including physical, sanitary and health-care arrangements, had been inhuman and degrading, that he had been beaten by guards on 28 February 2006 and that there had been no effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of these complaints, which reads as follows:


15.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security.


49.  The applicant complained that on 9 June 2006 police officers had ill‑treated him in order to make him confess, and that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been ineffective. In particular, he complained that during his arrest and at the police station he had been punched and kicked in the head and body, and that a police officer had jumped on his chest and broken his ribs. In this respect he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


127.  The applicants complained that their son Rasul Tsakoyev had been subjected to severe ill-treatment by the State agents, as a result of which he had died, and that the domestic authorities had failed to effectively investigate the circumstances of his death. Under the same head, the applicants complained of mental suffering caused by their son’s death and the authorities inadequate response to their complaints. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:


38.  The applicant complained of a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred to his earlier description of conditions of detention (see paragraphs 25-27 above) and added that the Government had failed to rebut several of his assertions about the conditions, such as overcrowding, high humidity, the fact that he had to sleep on a small wooden platform instead of a bed, sharing it with three other persons, that he had been exposed to passive smoking, that there was no toilet or tap water in the cell, that he could visit the toilet only twice a day and could not take a shower throughout his detention, and that he had no daily walks. Neither was it in dispute that the applicant's wife and daughter had been denied the right to visit the applicant and that he had been prevented from attending a church service after his mother's death.


31.  The Government firstly submitted that the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention did not encompass an obligation on States to conduct compulsory screening for the presence of tuberculosis. They claimed in this connection that the first time the applicant had voiced his grievances concerning possible infection with TB was in January 2010, and by February 2010 he had been provided with all the required medical examinations and treatment. Hence, the examination for TB was not belated.


29.  The Government did not contest that the applicants had been beaten by police officers. However, they contended that the applicants' suffering had not attained the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, they considered that the applicants had themselves provoked the beating because, together with their friends, they had been spying on other people at a sports centre by the lake. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicants' ill-treatment had not been intended to cause them suffering and humiliation.


31.  The Government confirmed that injuries had been caused to the applicant. As a consequence, the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been reopened on 20 March 2006 in view of the necessity of performing a number of additional investigative actions significant for the legal evaluation of the police officers’ conduct. The Government further noted that although it was found that injuries had been inflicted on the applicant, it was impossible to conclude that the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as a result of the treatment sustained at the hands of the police officers, so long as all the circumstances surrounding the crime had not been investigated.


78.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to an act of police brutality which had caused her serious physical and mental suffering and that the domestic authorities, including the investigative authorities and courts, had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incident capable of identifying and punishing the police officer responsible, despite the fact that her allegations had been clearly corroborated by the testimony of several eyewitnesses. The substance of this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


109.  The Government noted in their written observations that, according to the most recent information provided by the Migration Agency, the intensity of violence in Baghdad still did not constitute a real risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred, inter alia, to the United Kingdom Home Office’s report from April 2015 and reports by the Norwegian Landinfo from 2014 and 2015. The applicants simply noted in their observations that the security situation in Iraq was deteriorating, without making reference to any supporting documents.


62.  The Government raised a preliminary objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning that complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant and his representative had failed to challenge the decision of the prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings within the seven days provided for by law and that, therefore, the applicant had not exhausted the remedies available to him under domestic law as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Government also submitted that the applicant’s first complaint had been too vague and that he had not given the names of the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him until June 2001, more than four months after the alleged events had taken place. Had the applicant given the names earlier, the relevant authorities would have been in a better position to investigate the allegations. The Government maintained that the investigation conducted following the applicant’s complaints had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.


39.  The Government were also of the view that the issue of reducibility had been found to be irrelevant in Vinter (cited above), due to a newly established condition concerning the justification of the continued imprisonment on legitimate penological grounds. In this regard, they submitted that the applicant had so far served less than ten years of his sentence, which was much less than the statutory minimum period to be served of a life sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Offences such as those committed by the applicant, if they did not attract a life sentence, would normally entail a substantial sentence of imprisonment, perhaps of several decades, in any legal system. Therefore, any defendant who was convicted of such an offence must expect to serve a significant number of years in prison before he could realistically have any hope of release. Accordingly, in the Government’s opinion, the irreducibility of a life sentence imposed after due consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, as in the present case, would raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention only when it is shown that the applicant’s continued imprisonment can no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds (such as punishment, deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation), which was not the case in the applicant’s situation.


63.  The Government submitted that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the pecuniary loss allegedly sustained, since such a link can be established only in case of finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, not of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further consider that the finding of a violation, if any, will constitute sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.


62.  The Government submitted that the respondent State had fully complied with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, as the relevant authorities had not spared any effort to provide the applicant with due care in prison. In support, they stated that the applicant had been provided with comprehensive in-patient medical treatment in the prison hospital, which included various relevant medical tests, repeated consultations with medical specialists, the necessary medication and so on, on three occasions, between 8 July and 4 November 2006, 11 August and 18 August 2007 and 29 January and 3 April 2008 (see paragraphs 14-16, 18-21, 25-26 and 28-31 above). As regards the periods the applicant spent, between those dates, in Rustavi prison, the Government, relying on excerpts from his medical file, submitted that he continued to receive the prescribed medication on an out-patient basis, under the supervision of a doctor, a general practitioner, attached to that prison. The Government also emphasised that the applicant was continuing to be treated in the prison hospital since his fourth admission there on 30 October 2008 and to date. They further underlined that all the necessary medication and other types of medical treatment were being provided to the applicant exclusively at the expense of the prison authority; the State duly ensured that the necessary drugs were always in sufficient quantity in its pharmaceutical stock.


80.  The Government submitted that, in the present case, all investigatory steps necessary for establishing the circumstances of the case had been performed. A number of such steps had been performed on the same day. There had been five forensic medical examinations, however, the questions regarding the timing of the injuries and the way in which they had been inflicted remained unanswered. The applicant had not complained of any particular shortcomings of the investigation, and had not appealed against the decision of 2 April 2009. The Government concluded that, in the present case, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its procedural limb.


35.  The Government contested that argument. They argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. On numerous occasions he had failed to comply with internal regulations. He had been involved in fights and altercations with other inmates and refused to follow lawful orders given by the personnel of the remand prison and correctional colony. As regards the incident of 30 July 2005, the applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the warden and the guards and the latter had responded accordingly to put an end to his attack. The altercation had taken place in the narrow doorway of the disciplinary cell. The guard who had used the truncheon against the applicant had had to react promptly since the others had been unable to help him because of the limited space. The guard duly warned the applicant and only after that used the rubber truncheon to restrain him. The use of the rubber truncheon against the applicant had lasted only a few seconds and could not be considered to be “inhuman or degrading treatment”. Furthermore, the guards had immediately taken the applicant to the doctor, who had examined him and documented the injuries inflicted. The injuries had not been serious and had not caused any health problems. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been verified by the prosecutor and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The prosecutor had questioned the applicant, the guards and the medical personnel. He had not considered it necessary to inspect the alleged crime scene. The prosecutor's findings had been confirmed by the courts. The investigation carried out by the authorities in response to the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been effective as required by the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their son had been ill-treated in the course of his arrest. They alleged that the arresting police officers had caused their son's injuries by using disproportionate force and had violated his dignity. They submitted that their son had not resisted the arrest and stressed that hitting and kicking a person could never be justified, regardless of the behaviour of that person.


56.  The applicant complained that his detention in a regular detention facility, in view of his state of health, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that the authorities’ refusal to transfer him to an outside hospital had stripped him of the opportunity to receive effective medical care. Article 3 reads as follows:


96.  The applicant also insisted that after the parliamentary elections were over, the Lithuanian authorities loosened their grip on him. However, this does not appear to be based on the facts of his criminal case. It is true that between November 2007 and January 2008 the prosecutor granted several requests by the applicant to visit medical establishments in Kaunas and Vilnius, which were outside the area designated in the court order of 8 October 2007 setting out the conditions for the applicant’s house arrest (see paragraph 34 above and paragraphs 45 and 49 above). That being so, the Court does not consider that the State should be blamed for granting those requests, for it is clear that it would not have been in the applicant’s best interests to have refused them. Furthermore, refusing to allow the applicant to see doctors could alternatively have led to his lodging complaints that the authorities had prevented him from obtaining medical care, which, in turn, could have raised an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. It is also pertinent to stress that some of the other requests granted by the prosecutor concerned the applicant visiting places such as the Kėdainiai sports school to take part in the Labour Party congress, that school being on the border of Kėdainiai town and thus within the area specified in the court ruling for his house arrest (see paragraph 44 above). On the other hand, the prosecutor did not allow the applicant to leave Lithuania for Belgium, or to take part in the television show “Dancing with the Stars”, because the first event was to take place outside Lithuania, and the second was to take place outside the hours set by the court for him to be in his home (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above). Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant was released from house arrest once the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the applicant had been able to acquaint himself with the criminal case file (see paragraphs 49, 20, 52 and 53 above). In conclusion, no inconsistency can be established in the manner in which the prosecutor examined the applicant’s requests to travel within Lithuania after the parliamentary elections of 2007.


79.  The applicant complained that she had serious grounds to believe that her son had been ill-treated while in the hands of the authorities. She further complained that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son’s disappearance and the lack of an adequate response on behalf of the authorities. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


373.  The applicants' representatives alleged that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants, who were distressed and ill-informed, were subjected to acts of violence by the Georgian special forces. In particular, they drew the Court's attention to the case of Mr Aziev, who, when he refused to be extradited, was ruthlessly beaten with truncheons and received electric shocks. Covered in blood and with a serious eye injury, he was allegedly dragged along the corridor “like a corpse” and transferred in this state to the airport (see paragraphs 125 and 135 above). Mr Baymurzayev's jawbone had allegedly been broken by truncheon blows. The lawyers complained that the applicants had subsequently been prosecuted for events in which they themselves had been the victims (see paragraphs 97 et seq. above). Apart from the injuries inflicted on the applicants, the denial of due process in itself entailed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


46.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been ill-treated during the preliminary stage of the investigation. They relied on Article 5, complaining that their detention was unlawful. They relied on Article 6, stressing that the criminal proceedings in their case had been excessively long. They also raised a number of complaints under Article 6 of unfairness of the proceedings. The first applicant complained that he had not been tried by jury and that in several other regions of Russia persons accused of the same crimes were tried by jury. Lastly, he complained under Article 34 of the Convention that he had had difficulties in sending documents to the Court in support of his application.


86.  The applicant also noted that the indictment issued by the Federal Grand Jury showed that he could face two sentences of life imprisonment. He also contended that his case was comparable to that of the applicant in Trabelsi (cited above), where the Court had declared that the life sentence liable to be imposed on the applicant in that case could not be described as reducible for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention and that by exposing the applicant to the risk of treatment contrary to that provision the Government had engaged the respondent State’s responsibility under the Convention.


13.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security.


113.  The Government claimed that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the confinement in glass cabins was lodged out of time. They pointed out, in particular, that the six-month time‑limit should have been calculated from the day when the alleged ill‑treatment ceased, and not from the end of the criminal proceedings, because the court of appeal was not capable of providing a remedy against courtroom arrangements during the first-instance trial. Thus, they contended that in relation to the confinement in glass cabins the six‑month period began to run on an unidentified date in September 2013 when the proceedings moved to different court premises, where the defendants were confined in metal cages and therefore the conditions were different. In relation to the latter the six-month time-limit should have run from the day following the end of the first-instance trial.


76.  The applicant disagreed. He maintained that the treatment to which he had been subjected in the Odessa SIZO, during his transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival there had been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that he had had no effective remedies for his complaints within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. He referred to numerous internet and other public sources describing conditions of detention and transport of prisoners in Ukraine and argued that this information was sufficient to draw the conclusion that those conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and were indicative of a structural problem. He also noted that while he himself could no longer recall the details of his stay in the Odessa SIZO, the cells had been overcrowded, the sanitary arrangements and medical assistance had been poor. Relevant descriptions should have been provided by some of his co-defendants in the criminal proceedings, who had also complained to the Court about the conditions of their detention in that facility.


63.  The Government contended that the domestic authorities had taken all reasonable steps in order to discharge their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that the examination of the applicant’s complaint had been carried out with the requisite expediency and thoroughness. At the same time the effectiveness of the domestic investigation was significantly undermined by the fact that the applicant complained of ill-treatment belatedly.


65.  The Government further submitted that the investigation had been opened immediately after the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, that numerous investigative actions had been carried out, such as interviews and confrontations between different witnesses, that all the essential circumstances of the applicant’s arrest had been established, that the applicant and his mother had been involved in all the stages of the proceedings, and that there had not been any unreasonable delays. Accordingly, the Government contended that the pre-trial investigation had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


44.  The Government contested that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed to alleged discrepancies between the applicant’s submissions to the domestic authorities and his submissions to the Court. The Government, firstly, noted that he had lodged his complaint with the domestic authorities almost one month after the events and that he had not produced any evidence or described the alleged perpetrators. Secondly, he had only belatedly informed the domestic authorities about possible witnesses and had not properly identified them. Moreover, the statements of V.S. had varied, whereas the testimony of the police officers concerning the place and time of the detention had remained consistent. Thirdly, the applicant had not raised any complaints when leaving the police station or in the hospital. The Government relied on the applicant’s statement as noted by the attending doctor, that he had fallen on the street. They further considered that the applicant’s allegations regarding facial injuries, raised at a later date before the domestic authorities, were unfounded as the administrative detention report had noted that they had been sustained previously. These discrepancies, in the Government’s view, significantly undermined the credibility of the applicant’s statements.


52.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated by the actions of the national authorities. The use of force against the applicant was strictly necessary and was called for by the applicant’s unruly and threatening behaviour. The injuries he had sustained had not been serious. His allegations of ill-treatment had been subjected to prompt, thorough and comprehensive investigation.


69.  The Government submitted that the conditions in which the applicant had been transported were in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. Neither the prison vans nor the railway carriage were filled beyond the capacity for which they had been designed. The ventilation, heating and lighting were in good working order and in compliance with applicable technical standards. The Government also submitted copies of travel logs concerning the duration of the transfer between the remand prison and the courthouse and from the remand prison to the correctional facility. In the Government’s opinion, the applicant had effective remedies in respect of his grievances about the conditions in which he had been transported. In particular, it was open to him to draw his grievances to the attention of the Russian Parliament, the President or the Government of the Russian Federation or its constituencies. Alternatively, he could complain to the prosecutor’s office, federal prison service, an ombudsman or a public supervision commission. In fact, the applicant had submitted three complaints to the prosecutor’s office. In response, the latter had asked the authorities in charge of detainees’ transport to conduct an inquiry. No violations had been disclosed.


42.  The applicants complained that during their arrest and subsequent detention they were subjected to acts of police brutality which inflicted on them great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. They also complained that the Greek investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to carry out a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident. They argued that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


88.  The applicants stated that in the proceedings before the Appeals Board Mr Lorsé had not asked for a decision on the compatibility with Article <mask> of the Convention of the EBI regime as such, but that he had confined the appeal to the extension of his detention in the EBI. The arguments presented on behalf of Mr Lorsé in those proceedings had centred rather on the psychological condition of the applicants, and the restrictions, which had been in place for many years, on Mr Lorsé’s private life as well as the restrictions on contact between him and the other applicants. Mr Lorsé had thus claimed that his rights under the Convention and those of his family would be violated if his detention in the EBI was extended.


72.  The applicants complained that they and their deceased relatives had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that there had been no effective investigation of their complaints, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further cited Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants further alleged that the violations they had suffered as a result of the brutal incident at issue had been predominately due to their Romani ethnicity. They therefore considered that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the above Articles and with Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb.


43.  The applicant complained that, if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because he belonged to the Uzbek ethnic minority. He referred to various sources, including publications by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


58.  The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security.


64.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any nonpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the satisfactory sanitary conditions. He had been given bedding and at all times had enjoyed at least eight hours' sleep. The food met the applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance and his health had improved in detention. The Government annexed to their submissions copies of certificates showing the results of a sanitary inspection of detention facility no. IZ-47/1 carried out in November 2004. The certificates indicated that when the inspection was performed, the temperature, lighting and humidity levels were satisfactory, although below the norms established for detention facilities. The Government further submitted that they were not in possession of any documents showing the number of inmates in the cells in which the applicant had been detained. However, they considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells could not by itself serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the applicant's detention were satisfactory. The Government pointed out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the Council of Europe.


94.  The Government considered that the award claimed by the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damages was grossly exaggerated. They cited the Sarban case on which the applicant had relied earlier and in which the Court had awarded EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages. In this respect, they pointed out that, unlike the Sarban case in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the present case only concerned Article 5 of the Convention. The award for non-pecuniary damages should accordingly be reduced.


34.  The applicant alleged that his political activities as a member of the SLM-Unity and the DFEZ in Switzerland would put him at a real risk of persecution contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if returned to Sudan. Relying on the case of S.F. and Others v. Sweden (no. 52077/10, § 68, 15 May 2012) he pointed out that the Court had recognised that political and human rights activities in the state of residence – the so-called sur place activities – were of relevance for the determination of the risk on return to the country of origin. Depending on the situation of the country of origin, even people with a rather low political profile in their home country could be at risk of persecution if their activities abroad had been publicly exposed and visible. The applicant reiterated that he had participated in many public activities and demonstrations with the SLM-Unity in Switzerland and that his appointment as human rights officer for that organisation had been published online in 2009. He submitted that he had taken part in, amongst other meetings, the 11th and 13th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, and in the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in March 2010, at which he had met the current Sudanese President’s brother, who had reproached him by saying that people like him had brought Sudan before the International Criminal Court. He had also attended a seminar with judges of the International Criminal Court in Zurich in August 2010, at which representatives of the Sudanese embassy had been present. He claimed that his political activities had even had repercussions in the media at international level, which certainly had not gone unnoticed by the Sudanese authorities, who were monitoring the political activities of their citizens abroad. Relying on a report of the Swiss Refugee Council entitled Sudan: Persecution of returning nationals on the ground of their political activities in exile of 28 September 2005, he pointed out that the Sudanese government had infiltrated the JEM and the SLM domestically as well as abroad. Therefore, if people had stayed in contact with those organisations in Switzerland, they had certainly attracted the attention of the Sudanese authorities and were at risk of being detained. He concluded that if returned to Sudan, he would be detained, interrogated and tortured as soon as he got to the airport in Khartoum. Because of this, even relocation within Sudan was not possible.


86.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that they and Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been ill-treated by the State agents during his abduction. They also claimed that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of his disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


52.  The applicants complained that if they were deported from Sweden to Uzbekistan they would be persecuted, arrested, ill-treated and maybe even killed, primarily because the first applicant had participated in the demonstration in Andijan in May 2005 and was still sought by the Uzbek authorities. They also claimed that the third applicant was in very poor health and would not receive proper medical treatment in Uzbekistan. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


20.  The Government submitted that there was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected in remand prison IZ-77/1 had not attained the minimum threshold of severity required for that provision to apply. The conditions of detention in the remand prison were compatible with the domestic legal requirements and also with the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The number of detainees in Cell 243 had not exceeded two persons, the applicant included.


46.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by police officers on 27 November 2006 and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation of that incident. In his written submission of 5 January 2012, namely after the communication of the present application to the respondent Government, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 in connection with his grievances under Article 3. However, as it has decided in previous cases, the Court need not to rule on complaints raised after the communication of an application to the Government (see Vigovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 42318/02, § 14, 20 December 2005). Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings initiated by him have lasted too long, without any result. The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the above complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


25.  The applicant complained that, while he was detained in police custody between 14 and 17 July 1994, he had been subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of this allegation the applicant referred to the above-mentioned medical report of 17 July 1994. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:


77.  The Government, referring to their arguments under Article <mask> of the Convention that that complaint was manifestly ill-founded because the applicant had lost his victim status under Article 34 of the Convention, maintained that Article 13 of the Convention was inapplicable. In their view, a manifestly ill-founded claim of a violation of the Convention could not be considered arguable for the purposes of Article 13.


49.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Tver remand centre no. 69/1 from 24 November 2003 to 8 December 2004 had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his submissions in August 2006 he also complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand centre from October 2001 to April 2003 were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:


101.  The Government indicated one non-judicial and two judicial remedies open to the applicants to challenge the effectiveness of the investigation, as protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. Upon the applicants’ complaint about the decision of the public prosecutor to discontinue the investigation under Article 172 § 1 of the CCP (see paragraph 36 above) the Munich general public prosecutor, in its decision of 3 February 2011, reviewed the decision of the public prosecutor and the underlying investigation in detail and responded to the specific complaints submitted by the applicants. However, the Court notes that the Munich general public prosecutor was the superior of the Munich public prosecutor’s office.


28.  The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to conduct a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective domestic remedy for the harm suffered while in police custody.


63.  The Government submitted that the Court should refrain from examining the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, as it has already, in its judgment on the inter-State application Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above), found a violation of the right protected by Article 3 of particular nationals of the Republic of Georgia. One of the nationals named by the Georgian Government in these proceedings was Mr Togonidze. The Government argued that finding a violation of Article 3 regarding the same person under the same circumstances under proceedings instituted on an individual application would result in “double jeopardy of the state”, which would not be acceptable under international law.


68.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had contracted several diseases and had been ill-treated in the colony in 2000. He also complained under Article 6 § 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention that he had been denied a “fair hearing” in the proceedings concerning his transfer to a different detention facility as he had not been given time and opportunity to prepare his defence, had not been present at the hearings or provided with legal assistance and witnesses on his behalf had not been called to testify before the court. He further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of his right to education.


43.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that on 29 December 2006 the witnesses at the police department who had attested to the seizure of the drugs had not seen any injuries on the applicant. On 2 January 2007 he had been given a medical examination and his health had been found to be satisfactory. In that regard, they provided an extract from the medical records logbook kept at the police department. They further contended that the applicant had failed to request a medical examination to document the injuries after the alleged beatings. As to the illnesses diagnosed after his release, they submitted that there was no medical evidence to suggest that he had acquired them during his detention.


67.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that during his arrest he had been subjected to degrading treatment, in particular that the manner of his handcuffing had been entirely unnecessary in the circumstances. The applicant underlined that his exposure in handcuffs to the hospital staff, patients and third persons during his arrest and the search of his car had been totally unjustified. Similarly, the applicant’s arrest had been filmed with the aim of degrading him. In this connection, he also complained that the pictures of him handcuffed taken by the CAB during his arrest had been made available to the press and had been published on 13 February 2007 in all newspapers. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


115.  The Government observed that on the basis of the medical evidence available it could not be said that the applicant’s treatment had attained the level of severity required for a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they also pointed out that the applicant, after having been examined in the hospital at 5 p.m., had been discharged a few hours later, at 11.20 p.m. Special Constable G.S. had also gone to hospital and had been given sick leave for nine days.


20.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten in police custody and that the police had refused to send him for medical examination. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his arrest on 2 June 1998. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in application of law and assessment of facts, that the judges had been biased and that some of the hearings had not been tape‑recorded. Finally, in his submissions of 26 March 2011 the applicant complained, without invoking any provision of the Convention, about unsatisfactory conditions of his detention in the SIZO and the colony.


120.  The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicants' relatives must have caused considerable emotional distress to the applicants, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities' actions and this distress, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offences. According to them, the investigation obtained no evidence that the applicants had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention.


55.  The applicant further complained, in relation to his proceedings concerning his preventive detention, that his detention amounted to torture contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in that it was aimed at extracting a confession from him. Invoking Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, he claimed compensation for his remand in preventive detention. Moreover, he argued that the domestic courts' failure to examine the circumstances leading to his arrest and their refusal to review the lawfulness of his criminal convictions violated Article 13 of the Convention as the court proceedings at issue were ineffective without doing so.


33.  The applicant complained that the police had beaten him during and after his arrest and left him overnight in a squatting position chained to a radiator in the corridor of a police station with no rest facilities. He also complained that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


119.  The applicant maintained his claims. He stated that by 15 April 2005 there had been substantial grounds for fearing that he would be subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on his return to Tajikistan. Furthermore, he stated that he had in fact been ill-treated while detained in Tajikistan. The applicant further alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his unlawful transfer to Tajikistan and to ensure his return to Russia. He also asserted that he had exhausted all available domestic remedies in relation to his complaint.


36.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that on 27 April 1998 at Rīga Main police station he had been ill-treated by police officers who had put a gas mask and a plastic bag on his head and beaten him with the aim of extorting a confession. He alleged, in particular, that the manner in which the authorities had conducted the investigation and the excessive delays encountered showed a lack of intention on their part to establish the truth and punish the perpetrators. The Court considers it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention alone, which reads as follows:


58.  The applicant asserted that he had been detained in appalling conditions in remand prison no. IZ-44/1 in Kostroma. All the cells had been overcrowded. The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government as regards the population and the size of the cells in which he had been detained. In that connection he referred to the findings made by the Kostroma Sverdlovskiy District Court, which on 10 September 2009 had held that the cells in which the applicant had been detained had been overcrowded. He further relied on statements made by Kh. and V., who had been detained together with him at the remand prison and who had provided a description of the conditions of detention in the remand prison similar to that of the applicant. As regards his application to the domestic courts in connection with the poor conditions of detention in the remand prison, the applicant considered that it could not have been considered an effective remedy for his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the structural nature of the problem of overcrowding of remand detention facilities in Russia.


134.  The Government argued that the application was unfounded on the merits. They submitted that the “minimum threshold of severity” beyond which there was a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been reached. They compared the present case to that of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) ((dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V), in which a regime keeping a particular prisoner separate from his fellow inmates, which had been instituted for security reasons and had lasted longer than the detention complained of by the applicant in the instant case, had been held by the Court to be within acceptable limits. The present applicant was of a very dangerous and violent disposition, which made the special regime applied to him necessary. As the island of Aruba possessed no facilities suitable for long-term detention other than the KIA, his detention in the conditions he now complained about had been unavoidable.


57.  The Government acknowledged the overcrowding in all of the detention facilities in which the applicant had been held. More specifically, the statistics provided by the Government in reply to the applicant’s allegations of overcrowding show that most of the time the applicant’s personal space was significantly less than three square metres. The Court points out that those figures were even lower in reality, given that the cells also contained beds and other items of furniture. This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Flămînzeanu v  Romania, no. 56664/08, §§ 92 and 98, 12 April 2011; Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 173; and Cotleţ v. Romania (No. 2), no. 49549/11, § 34, 1 October 2013).


21.  The applicant complained that that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality which inflicted on him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that the Greek authorities had failed to secure his rights as required by the procedural obligation imposed by Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention.


25.  The Government submitted that the detention conditions at the Yalova police headquarters did not attain the level of severity required to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided photos of the detention facility, and copies of the logs recording the number of detainees held at the police headquarters throughout the applicant’s detention. The Government also stated that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 in the light of the principles enshrined by the Court. Bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, they claimed that there was no reason for the Court to depart from the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court.


92.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the attack on their houses and their destruction had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, for which the State was responsible on the grounds that the authorities had been complicit in the attack and had failed to protect them from it and to investigate it effectively. They furthermore argued that the State was responsible for the degrading living conditions that they had experienced following their displacement. In addition, they complained that on account of the above they had suffered discrimination owing to their Roma ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 3.


108.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Said-Rakhman Musayev, Odes Mitayev and Magomed Magomadov had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the investigation had been deprived of any exact information as to the state of the remains because of the hasty burial organised in February 2001. Later, in 2006 the applicants had objected to the carrying out of forensic expert examinations, which was the only way to establish the cause of the deaths and the nature of the injuries. Moreover, in the absence of evidence suggesting that the applicants’ relatives had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ mental suffering.


69.  The applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully arrested. He complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that police officers had ill-treated him after his arrest. He also complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with a lawyer and had been forced to sign a waiver of the right to a lawyer; he had not had enough time to prepare his defence; and the courts had failed to examine the evidence properly and to question all the witnesses. The applicant also alleged that, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds that he was Russian-speaking and had been a prisoner.


68.  The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative’s disappearance and on account of the State’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


127.  The applicant’s representative submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the applicant’s secret transfer to Uzbekistan, which could only have been carried out with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the Russian authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


44.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, they argued that the applicant had failed to challenge the prosecutor’s decision of 11 June 2008 before the higher‑ranking prosecutor, as required by the law, but had challenged it instead before the investigating judge. The applicant disagreed with the Government.


58.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63‑64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already been released on 26 June 2008. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.


39.  The Government maintained that the findings of the reports drawn up following the applicant’s medical examinations, which noted only minor injuries, had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to any physical violence by police officers while in police custody. They argued that the injuries caused to the applicant had resulted from his own conduct, in that the police officers had had to exercise their statutory power of arrest when he tried to escape. They concluded therefore that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


31.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been ill-treated by police officers at the Tskaltubo Police Department with the aim of extracting a confession from him. He further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:


32.  The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the police officers did not use physical force to cause suffering to the applicant or to humiliate him; they merely fulfilled their duties, whereas the applicant resisted them. The use of force did not pursue any other goals, such as, for instance, obtaining a confession. The Government emphasised that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful demands of the police officers and that they had used lawful and reasonable measures for putting an end to his unlawful conduct. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and medical evidence had been carefully reviewed by the prosecuting authorities and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicant contended that he had been ill-treated by the police and had endured psychological trauma as a result of that ill-treatment. He therefore considered that the Government’s arguments that the injuries he had sustained did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention were completely inappropriate and misplaced.


48.  The Government further considered that neither the short duration of the applicant’s confinement, nor the concrete circumstances, nor the aims pursued brought the applicant’s detention within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The purpose of placing the applicant in the security cell had not been to punish him for his refusal to move into a multi-occupancy cell; rather, the placement had been due to the fact that a significant disruption in the prison order was to be feared because of his attack on the prison guards and his subsequent conduct.


76.  The Government considered that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant on various occasions had not constituted victimisation and did not amount to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been able to challenge such sanctions before the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice, although he had not done so on every occasion in due and proper form (paragraphs 46 and 54 above). Hence his complaints in this connection were inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.


35.  The Government submitted that R.D. had not intended to kill the applicant. That had been established in the course of the criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 7 above). However, they conceded that, in view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained, the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment capable of falling within Article <mask> of the Convention, but argued that the State bore no responsibility under the substantive limb of that Article. Its responsibility ended with the criminal proceedings in the course of which R.D. had been convicted and punished. The civil courts, at three levels, had dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the State could not be held responsible given the absence of a causal link between R.D.’s action and his official duties. In that connection they reiterated that at the critical time R.D. had left his post during his working hours, without the consent of his superiors. The incident had happened after he had carried out his official duty, namely, to stand guard. In the bar he had not performed any official duty in the course of or in connection with his work. He had acted rather as a private person, as had been established by the domestic courts.


69.  The applicant complained that, since the wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal the face was prohibited by law on pain of a criminal sanction, if she wore the full-face veil in a public place she would expose herself to a risk not only of sanctions but also of harassment and discrimination, which would constitute degrading treatment. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads: