87.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that there was no evidence that Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As for the applicants, the investigation had not established that they had been ill-treated by representatives of the State. They emphasised in this regard that the first applicant had not appeared for the medical examination. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State.


77.  The applicant complained that his conditions of detention from 23 to 27 September 2007 had been harsh in that he had been deprived of food and water, had not been provided with any bedding, had been forced to spend nights outside on a concrete walkway, and his hands had been handcuffed at all times. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:


20.  The applicant complains that the searches of her house on 10 April 2001 and 30 May 2002 and the related incidents, in particular that involving the spray-inhaler, amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and/or an infringement of her right to respect for her private life, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.


112.  The Government submitted that since the circumstances in which the applicants had been injured had not yet been established by the investigation, there were no grounds to consider that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s view, the investigation had been in compliance with Convention requirements.


28.  The Government contested the applicant’s allegation. They submitted that, during his interrogation on 10 February 1999, the applicant complained of irritation and itching on his arms, requesting that a doctor should see him for his dust allergy. He was taken to the hospital on the same day, where ‘surface erythema and scrapes on the proximal part of both arms’ were reported. They further maintained that there was a clear disproportionality between the described torture alleged by the applicant and the findings of the two medical reports, which described similar findings on the arms. Furthermore, these cannot be regarded as demonstrating the level of severity required for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


37.  The Government further submitted that an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been commenced on the day on which the relevant information had been received by the authorities. They pointed out that in the context of that inquiry a medical forensic examination of the applicant had been carried out without undue delay. Also, during that inquiry the authorities had interviewed police officers who had been involved in the applicant’s arrest, and had examined the medical register of the IVS of the Department of the Interior of the Kirov Region. The Government also argued that the inquiry had been carried out by a body independent of the officials against whom the applicant’s allegations were directed. They stated that no evidence had been obtained as a result of the inquiry to enable the authorities to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations. In their opinion, the domestic inquiry met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


145.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the doctors’ intentional failure to provide necessary medical treatment in the form of timely prenatal examinations that would have allowed her to take a decision as to whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy within the time-limit laid down by the 1993 Act. She also complained that the doctors had treated her in a dismissive and contemptuous manner, repeatedly criticising her for her efforts to have prenatal tests carried out and for the fact that she had envisaged an abortion as a possible solution to her predicament.


33.  The Government considered that the applicant had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of his detention in the remand prison had been in compliance with statutory standards as regards hygiene, heating and water supply. However, the Government conceded that the remand prison where the applicant had been detained had been overcrowded and the statutory requirement of 4 square metres per inmate had not always been complied with.


23.  The applicant complained that on 29 October 2000 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:


49.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the poor conditions of his detention in IZ-77/5, in the holding room at the Moscow City Court and during transfers to and from the prison. He also alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 6 May 2012 and that there had been no effective investigation following his complaint about it. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


221.  The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected by reason of the manner in which the authorities had handled the investigation had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. As already stated above (see paragraphs 88-89), the Court will examine this complaint under the substantive head of Article <mask> of the Convention. The provisions of this article are described above (see paragraph 91).


243.  The Government considered that the applicant’s argument that there was a duty to investigate allegations of torture was not relevant: Jordan was not a Convention Contracting State so there was no positive obligation on Jordan to investigate breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention. Similarly, although it was difficult for a Jordanian defendant to show that a confession made to the Public Prosecutor was not voluntary (because the burden of proof was on him and not the Prosecutor), SIAC had found it was acceptable for Jordanian law to proceed this way. It had also found that a Jordanian court’s decision which applied that burden of proof would not be manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary and thus no flagrant denial of justice would arise.


87.  The applicant further submitted in his request for referral that because he had never received psychiatric treatment he could not foster any hope of one day being released. At the same time he “accepted” the Chamber’s finding that, in view of the introduction of the periodic review mechanism in domestic law, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards his complaint that there was no possibility of a review of his life sentence.


106.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegation of politically motivated persecution had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the 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.


112.  The applicant claimed 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, EUR 5,000 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention, and EUR 5,000 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


66.  The applicant furthermore complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment after his arrest, during the pre‑trial investigation and following his admission to penal institution LIU-19; the alleged failure to provide him with medical assistance; his allegedly needless compulsory treatment for drug addiction; the conditions of his detention at the police station; and his detention in penal institution LIU-19 alongside detainees suffering from tuberculosis. Lastly, the applicant contested under Article 6 of the Convention the admissibility of evidence relied on by the domestic court in securing his conviction and complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the alleged violations.


114.  The applicant complained that the search of his person on 7 May 1998 amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 26 above). In particular, he was allegedly obliged to strip naked in the presence of a female prison officer, with the intention of humiliating him. He was then ordered to squat, and his sexual organs and the food he had received from his visitor were examined by guards who were not wearing gloves.


123.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that on 16 December 2001 Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev, as well as the first, eighth and ninth applicants, had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. They argued that this complaint had not been properly investigated. Finally, they alleged that as a result of their relatives' 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:


236.  The applicants, that is the first, second and third applicants (see, paragraphs 149-153 above), mainly complained under Articles 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the special forces and were injured and humiliated in the course of the special training exercises organised on 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002. They also claimed that the conditions of their detention and the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance were inhuman and amounted to degrading treatment. Article <mask> of the Convention provides:


38.  The Government raised a further preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the grounds that the applicants had been released or transferred to a prison prior to lodging their application with the Court. The Government submitted that the applicants should have lodged an action for damages with the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Code or Article <mask> of the Convention.


132.  The applicant complained of a violation of both the material and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to her husband. She submitted that the videotape showed her husband being kicked by the soldiers, who had used obscene and threatening language towards him. She submitted that persons detained in Chechnya were regularly subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3. The authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into these allegations.


46.  The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable to the present case, since it did not provide a detainee with an unconditional right to leave prison to attend the funeral of a family member. In the instant case, the applicant had accepted that the prison leave would entail certain restrictions (see paragraph 7 above). Considering that the transport conditions overall had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant could not claim that he had had to forego attending funeral owing to reasons attributable to the State. The Government also submitted that, in the domestic proceedings and before the Court, the applicant had provided contradictory arguments as to why he had decided not to attend the funeral (compare paragraphs 14 above and 47 below).


70.  The Government argued at the outset that the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required to engage Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he had never challenged any of the investigator’s decisions not to institute criminal proceedings in a court of general jurisdiction. The Government also argued that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment had been thorough and effective.


67.  The applicant maintained his complaints. In particular, he claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence of ill-treatment and that the ensuing investigation had fallen short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention under its procedural head. In particular, he referred to medical certificates showing that he had not been diagnosed with epilepsy before the first incident.


87.  The Government submitted that the notion of theoretical punishment and actual punishment implied that there was a clear distinction between what is traditionally called “poena in abstracto” and “poena in concreto”, and that the possibility of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention should be dealt with by considering what the “poena in concreto” was. The US Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sections 3553(a) and 3742 of Title 18 of the US Code were pertinent to the instant case since they were the rules that would be of most importance when determining the “poena in concreto”.


20.  The Government considered that the applicant had introduced his complaint out of time. He had started serving his prison sentence in 2007, and if he considered that his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated at that time, he should not have waited until 2016 to lodge his complaint before the Court. In their opinion, he had already realised in 2007 that his conditions of detention gainsaid that argument. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant’s periods of detention at Correctional Colony No. IK-55 (from 21 October to 11 November 2009, from 14 to 18 December 2013 and from 5 October to 26 December 2016) should be excluded from the assessment.


122.  The applicants submitted that after 7 May 2004 their conditions of detention did not change. They alleged that the purpose of the first two applicants’ detention was intentionally and deliberately to humiliate and debase them and to destroy their personality and health. For these reasons, the particularly serious and cruel treatment to which they were subjected, coupled with the non-execution of the Court’s judgment for more than two years and the suffering of the applicants for more than 14 years, must be considered as acts of torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


43.  The Government contested the applicant's allegations. They claimed at the outset that the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been exposed had not attained a level of severity which would justify the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The incident had been caused by unknown individuals and not by representatives of the authorities and the Government could not assess to what extent the applicant's mental suffering following the incident had been caused by the attack itself or whether it had existed before.


80.  The applicants submitted that they had been the victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the destruction of the bodies of their relatives with high velocity machine guns and hand grenades. Under the same Article, the applicants also complained that the bodies of their relatives had been left in the open until the following morning.


66.  The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to horrendous treatment in detention, which had been meted out deliberately and had been aimed at breaking his moral resistance and forcing him to testify against third persons, and to confess to crimes he had not committed. He also maintained that the atrocious manner, in which certain investigative procedures had been applied to him, and the cumulative effects of the ill-treatment on his physical and moral integrity, supported a finding that there had been an extremely serious violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant claimed that his being taken into custody on 30 November 1998 had contravened the principles enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, as his state of health and the diseases from which he was suffering showed that the prosecution had deliberately acted in violation of the Convention.


46.  The Government submitted that it was undisputed that, on 21 November 2006, the applicant had attempted to escape from a police vehicle. They considered that the use of force had been made necessary by the applicant’s own conduct; the applicant must have been aware that his attempt to escape would have led the police to react. According to the Government, the injuries sustained by the applicant might have occurred when the applicant forcibly opened the door of the police van and when the applicant fell to the ground after one of the police officers had fired a warning shot. They considered that the measures undertaken by the police officers following the applicant’s attempt to escape had been lawful, proportionate and had not exceeded the minimum level of severity required to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention.


20.  The Government submitted that by not claiming compensation for the damage allegedly caused by her detention in inhuman conditions and by the alleged lack of medical care, 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. In addition, they submitted that the complaints concerning the conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance prior to 5 June 2013 should be dismissed for being lodged outside the six-month time-limit, arguing that the applicant had been released from prison on 19 September 2012.


104.  The applicant submitted that there was a danger that he would be subjected to ill-treatment on account of the possible application of the death penalty and the time spent awaiting its execution, the poor conditions of detention in Kazakhstan, the lack of proper medical treatment and assistance in detention facilities and the widespread practice of torture of detainees. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides in so far as relevant:


18.  The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect, they maintained that the ward in which the applicant was kept could not be considered to have been a cell. They stated that the living unit was designed to accommodate three persons and it had two floors; the lower floor contained a toilet, shower, and small kitchen and the second floor was used as a sleeping area and had beds and drawers. In addition, each living unit had a small yard for ventilation purposes. The Government further pointed out that the Court had already examined F-type prison conditions in the past and found no breach of Article 3 in this respect.


111.  The Government concluded from all these factors that the applicant’s health did not appear to have been affected by solitary confinement and that the conditions in which the applicant was being held had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall foul of Article <mask> of the Convention, despite the CPT’s finding that the general conditions in which prisoners in solitary confinement were held in France were not entirely satisfactory.


78.  The applicant argued that following his arrest the medical care he had received in detention had been extremely scarce and ineffective and had led to a steady deterioration in his health. The applicant stressed that he was seriously ill and unable to care for himself. He required permanent assistance even with his most basic needs. The medical specialists who had treated him prior to his arrest had always acknowledged the necessity of various medical procedures, including simple ones such as physiotherapy, as he was unable to move on his own. The administration of the detention facility was unable to provide that level of care. They merely continued to register the increasing number of the applicant’s complaints, including those of serious pain in the back, atrophy of the limbs, headaches, pain in the legs, dizziness, insomnia, spasms, and so on. He was unable to urinate and defecate and had to undergo medical procedures to relieve himself, which he had to do in extremely degrading and unsanitary conditions that posed a constant risk to his life. While the authorities, in their replies to the applicant’s complaints, had acknowledged that the conditions in the detention facility did not satisfy the simple requirements of hygiene and sterility, they had taken no steps to change that situation. The medical recommendations issued by specialists prior to his arrest were costly and complex, as could be seen from various medical reports submitted by him to the Court, and could not be complied with by the untrained and poorly qualified medical personnel of the detention facility. The applicant insisted that the Russian authorities had violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as they were unable to provide him with the requisite level of medical services and were subjecting him to severe suffering and a significant risk of a fatal outcome.


111.  The applicants contended that their sons had been tortured during their detention by State agents and that the investigation in this respect had not been adequate. They referred to NGO reports concerning mass torture in Chechnya during that period to support this assertion. The applicants further submitted that they themselves had been suffering from fear, anguish and emotional distress caused by the detention and disappearance of their minor sons and the authorities’ indifference in this respect, which amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


37.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider his claims that he risked ill‑treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan, and that if extradition was to take place it would expose him to that risk. Further to information about the applicant’s disappearance and the Government’s reply to the Court’s request for factual information (see paragraphs 23-26 above), the Court decided to consider, from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention, whether the Government had complied with their obligation to take measures both before and after his disappearance to prevent him from being transferred to Uzbekistan and whether there had been a thorough and effective investigation capable of elucidating the crucial aspects of the incident and of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


14.  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.


271.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ arrest by State agents. Lastly, they averred that the relevant domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints.


170.  The applicant asked the Court to indicate to the respondent State that it should take general measures to prevent breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention by the police in connection with arrest operations. Those measures should consist of changes in the law, in particular the putting in place of detailed regulations on the use of force and auxiliary means on the part of law enforcement personnel, so that such force be proportionate and resorted to only when absolutely necessary.


28.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. The food met the applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance. 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 because those documents had been destroyed. However, they considered that the fact that the applicant might have been detained in overcrowded cells could not by itself serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the remaining aspects of the applicant's detention had been satisfactory. The Government pointed out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the Council of Europe.


42.  The applicants submitted that the detention of the second applicant, who was then five years old, for nearly two months in a closed centre for adults constituted inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They explained that Transit Centre no. 127 was a closed centre near Brussels Airport used to detain illegal immigrants pending their removal from the country. As had been noted in the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s second report on Belgium dated 7 July 2002, no facilities for children of the second applicant’s age existed in 2002. Accordingly, no arrangements were in place to attend to the second applicant’s needs and the only assistance she received was from another Congolese minor. Despite all the assistance given by individual members of staff, the fact remained that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as, at a crucial stage in her development, the second applicant had been denied freedom of movement, had been unable to play or express her feelings, and had been held in precarious conditions in an adult world where liberty was restricted. The Government had had other, more appropriate, options at their disposal. They could, for instance, have placed the second applicant with the Aid to Young People Department. The applicants noted, lastly, that the second applicant had suffered from sleeping disorders after her release from detention.


98.  The Government also submitted that the alleged injuries had not caused serious suffering to the applicant as he had been discharged from the specialist hospital for outpatient treatment the following day. The Government concluded that it had not been proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant had been ill-treated and that the police officers’ conduct had attained a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his pre-trial detention, the obligation to remain in town and unlawful conviction had amounted to inhuman treatment; under Article 6 § 3 (b) that he had not had access to the victim’s medical records used in the trial; under Articles 7, 17 and 53 that the witnesses’ testimonies had been forced by the police and that his conviction had not had a solid evidentiary basis.


98.  The applicant stated that she was the wife of the missing Mr Ali Dudayev and that she had actively sought the authorities’ assistance in establishing his whereabouts and prosecuting the people who had abducted him. The applicant had not received any proper explanation or information as to what had happened to her missing husband after his detention by State agents. The way in which the authorities had responded to her requests constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


99.  The Government submitted their account of the general conditions of detention in prison ZhH-385/5 (see paragraphs 22-31 above) and claimed that they had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They asserted that the applicant had been provided with an individual bed at all times and that the sanitary facilities had been satisfactory. They provided detailed information about the space and equipment in the living premises, the provision of food and clothes and the availability of sanitary facilities. In respect of conditions in the disciplinary cell they submitted that the prison regulations required the applicant, for safety reasons, to stand up holding his hands behind his back when a prison official entered the cell. They denied that the applicant’s head had ever been shaved.


68.  The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had sustained any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation, that in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, should the Court decide to make an award for finding a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government invited the Court to conclude that the applicant’s claim was excessive and that any compensation had to be awarded on an equitable basis, taking into account, inter alia, the existing case-law and socio‑economic circumstances in Latvia


94.  The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States of America exposed him to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that offences A and B, on the basis of which his extradition had been granted, carried a maximum life prison sentence which was irreducible de facto, and that if he were convicted he would have no prospect of ever being released.


53.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the ensuing investigation in response to his complaint about ill-treatment in police custody had been ineffective. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:


109.  The applicant asserted that if extradited to the United States he would be subjected to torture and a disproportionate prison sentence, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The national authorities had not examined the probability of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited to the United States and had not obtained adequate assurances in that regard.


47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated by the police during her arrest and while she was in custody at the police station. She also complained that her allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated effectively, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by the same Article. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:


42.  The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected because he had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he had not exhausted domestic remedies before lodging his application with the Court. In particular, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to bring his grievances to the attention of the prosecutor. They cited the following examples from the domestic practice in support of their position: in response to a complaint by a Mr N, the Novosibirsk prosecutor's office had conducted an inquiry which confirmed his allegations that the food ration was insufficient and the water supply was irregular. As a result, the prison administration had renovated the prison and purchased medical supplies; in the Vladimir Region, a special section for the detention of inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis had been set up following an NGO's complaint in respect of a Mr B; in the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where a Mr Sh. and a Mr Z. were detained had renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited two cases: a Mr S. had been awarded 250,000 roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of his rights set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison in the Mariy El Republic; a Mr D. had been awarded RUB 25,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention.


136.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:


20.  The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant's detention at the temporary detention facility had not been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The premises had not been suitable for long-term detention. Nor had there been any funds allocated from the federal budget for their reconstruction until 2006. In 2006, as part of ongoing reconstruction work, the temporary detention facility had been equipped with an outdoor exercise area. Meanwhile, a ventilation system, a water supply system and toilets had started to be installed before the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Court.


24.  The applicant claimed that his detention at the Yalova police headquarters had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that the detention facility was not designed to hold foreign nationals in an immigration context for long periods of time. In particular, there had been no bed in the detention room and he had not had access to the open air at all. He added that he had been kept in the small detention room which did not have a window and that the air conditioner had not functioned during the period of his detention. The applicant claimed that he had generally been detained along with two other detainees but that at times he had had to share the cell with more than ten people, among whom there had been Turkish nationals. The applicant also asserted that in general he had been confined to the detention room and that he had only exceptionally had access to the other parts of the facility.


62.  The Government may be understood to be maintaining that the applicant would be safe and would not be exposed to a risk of ill‑treatment upon arriving in Damascus, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown or settling in another part of Syria (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that Article <mask> of the Convention does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of the alternative of internal flight in their assessment of an individual’s claim that a return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, §§ 265-66, with further references). In the present case the Court has not been provided with any material which would confirm that the situation in Damascus is sufficiently safe for the applicant, who alleges that he would be drafted into active military service, or that the applicant could travel from Damascus to a safe area in Syria.


5.  The applicant’s complaint alleging a violation of his right of access to a court, inherent in Article 6 § 1, was intrinsically linked with the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, a prohibition which, as held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81 and 89‑90, ECHR 2015), is an absolute prohibition with no derogations and which “is also a value of civilisation closely bound up with respect for human dignity, part of the very essence of the Convention”.


25.  The applicant contended that the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to circular no. A.P.86-12 G1 of 14 March 1986 on prisoner searches was inhuman and degrading. He submitted that he had been systematically disciplined for refusing to undergo searches in accordance with this procedure. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


69.  The Government submitted that the applicant had received the medical assistance he needed for all his health problems throughout the period of his deprivation of liberty. In the SIZO the applicant received ART daily and he recovered from his tuberculosis episode. He was systematically examined and all of his complaints were adequately addressed by the SIZO medical ward staff. Therefore, the Government stated that the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached.


93.  The applicant’s assertion that he did not receive appropriate medical care is a general one and is not supported by any factual information. At the same time, the materials submitted by the Government suggest that the applicant was medically examined on a regular basis and was provided with appropriate medical treatment. There is no indication of any failing on the part of the medical staff of the detention facilities which would give rise to an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see also Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, §§ 89-91, 12 March 2009, and Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 41, 7 October 2010).


45.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Craiova and Giurgiu Prisons. In particular, he complained of a lack of living space and light in his solitary cell, a lack of hot and cold running water, the poor quality of food, a lack of adequate activities and out-of-cell time, his isolation from the other prisoners, his systematic handcuffing whenever he left his cell and the brutal interventions of masked special forces members.


33.  The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, sufficient nutrition and medical assistance and that the sanitary, hygiene and temperature norms had been duly met.


169.  The applicant stated that his unlawful solitary incommunicado detention and interrogation for twenty-three days in the hotel, combined with repeated threats and prolonged uncertainty as to his fate, violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Even without direct physical assaults, the cumulative and acute psychological effects of anguish and stress had been intentionally used for the express purpose of breaking his psychological integrity for the purpose of interrogation, and had been sufficient to drive him to protest by way of a hunger strike for ten days.


155.  The applicant alleged that the injuries and anguish she had suffered as a result of the violence inflicted upon her by her husband had amounted to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the ongoing violence and her repeated requests for help, however, the authorities had failed to protect her from her husband. It was as though the violence had been inflicted under State supervision. The insensitivity and tolerance shown by the authorities in the face of domestic violence had made her feel debased, hopeless and vulnerable.


102.  The Government sought to distinguish the present case from the Popov judgment, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention “in view of the children’s young age, the length of their detention and the conditions of their confinement in [the] detention centre”. In the present case, while similar to the Popov case in terms of the child’s age and the length of the detention, the conditions of accommodation for families in the Toulouse‑Cornebarrieu centre were, in the Government’s view, far superior to those examined by the Court in Popov. Relying on reports by the CPT and of the Inspector-General of Custodial Premises, they submitted that the Toulouse‑Cornebarrieu detention centre, a recent construction (2006) designed from the outset to cater for families, contained functional and modern facilities providing all detainees in general, and families in particular, with accommodation to the highest standard. They went on to say that the reception area for families was equipped with separate and tailored outdoor courtyards, that games were made available to children, and that appropriate toiletries and food were provided.


54.  The applicant argued that, if the risks were weighed cumulatively, it was clear that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, relying on the most recent amendment of 6 February 2014 to the Netherlands policy position in respect of Afghan asylum seekers, the applicant submitted that protection against persecution can only be obtained in Kabul and by Afghans who are from Kabul, which he was not. Furthermore, the former mujahideen leaders whom he feared were now holding positions of power, particularly in the Afghan Government based in Kabul.


37.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of her detention at the police station for a period of approximately five months constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. As found by the CPT in its 2012 report and the Ombudsman in her report of 31 July 2012, police detention facilities in Cyprus were inadequate for holding people for prolonged periods. The detention facilities at Limassol Police Station had been unsuitable for detaining people for long periods: there had been overcrowding, the sanitary facilities had been inadequate and the applicant had been deprived of fresh air, natural light and exercise during most of her detention.


83.  The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had omitted to raise in substance his grievance under Article 3 before the district judge on 17 October 2006. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible.


19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for the treatment. In respect of his complaints, the applicant relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.


191.  The applicants also complained that the emotional trauma they had suffered in connection with the accident and the indifference of the State authorities to their loss and grief, manifested, in particular, in their refusal to negotiate a friendly settlement with the injured parties, was indicative of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the amount of compensation awarded for the deaths of their relatives was one tenth of the compensation paid by the State per victim of the crash of the TU-154M airliner on 4 October 2001.


230.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation afforded the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints. Furthermore, in Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 6636/09) the Government submitted that the children of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev could not claim to be the victims of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention. There were no special factors such as those cited in, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia (no. 69480/01, § 111, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)) justifying the victim status of the third and fourth applicants in this case.


52.  The Government challenged the applicants’ version of events and submitted that they had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment on 30 March 2009. They admitted that the applicants had been injured on that day but, referring to the findings of the relevant criminal investigation, maintained that the applicants had sustained their injuries either as a result of falling from a two-metre high wall and/or because the prison officers had had recourse to necessary and proportionate physical force in order to effect the applicants’ arrest. As regards the State’s positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government maintained that the applicants’ allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities.


52.  The applicant, referring to his account of facts, maintained that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that such ill-treatment amounted to torture. As to the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, he insisted that the investigation of his ill-treatment had not been effective. In particular, he emphasised that the criminal proceedings had been instituted only on 3 November 2003, that is more than five months after the events complained of. This delay brought to the loss of evidence and seriously reduced the chances of establishing all the relevant facts and charging all the policemen involved. He further pointed out that the bill of indictment, referred to the trial court on 28 December 2007, clearly indicated that the other officers had participated in the applicant's ill-treatment, but those were never charged.


52.  The Government said that since the Federal Office for Refugees had set aside its decision of 31 August 1998 and ruled that there were bars to the applicant’s expulsion under section 53(4) of the Aliens Act, the applicant was now fully protected against an expulsion to Iran in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The new decision could only be set aside by the Federal Office for Refugees itself and, in such event, an appeal would lie to the administrative courts. Furthermore, the federal government as such could not give assurances concerning the grant of a residence permit (in this instance, an authority to remain – Aufenthaltsbefugnis), as the issue of such permits was the responsibility of the relevant Länder authorities.


38.  The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for two years and eleven months and did not have an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. He did not challenge the data contained in the excerpts from the remand prison population registers concerning the number of inmates per cell. However, he asserted that at all times the cells where he had been detained had been severely overcrowded. He noted that, apart from the excerpts from the official records for the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005, the Government had failed to substantiate their statements concerning the population of the cells at the remand prison. He further noted that, apart from an hour's daily exercise and brief meetings with his lawyer and relatives, he had been confined to his cell for twenty-four hours a day. In his view, the living conditions in the cells, including the hygiene, had been unsatisfactory. With reference to the Court's case-law (the cases of Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May 2007, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, 6 December 2007) the applicant pointed out that the Court had previously examined the issue of the conditions of detention at remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow and found them in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention.


36.  The Government submitted that, following the publication of the CPT report on its visit in May 2014, improvements had been made to the detention facilities of Philipsburg Police Station, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the CPT. As regards the applicant’s situation, the Government submitted that the he had been individually detained in a cell of almost 12 square meters, that he had been provided with sheet, towel and that he had purchased a pillow via the inmate canteen programme, that he had been provided with hygiene products and that there were no leakages. According to the Government, this meant that of the CPT’s recommendations only the requirement of a call bell had not been fulfilled. As regards the conditions prior to this situation, when the applicant had been detained in the multi-occupancy cell, the Government submitted that it was unable to comment for lack of detailed information. The Government admitted that the circumstances under which the applicant had been detained in Sint Maarten had not been ideal, but submitted that the conditions in which he had been held pending his extradition to Italy had not been of such a nature that he should be regarded as having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention.


144.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police following his arrest. He also complained under the same provision that the prison guards had ill-treated and humiliated him on various occasions. The applicant next complained that his arrest and pre-trial detention had been contrary to Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 (a) that his post-conviction detention was unlawful. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against had been unfair, that he had not committed the criminal offences in question, that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and had wrongly applied the law, that they had failed to ensure his right to legal assistance, as well as his rights to examine the case file and to call witnesses. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the police had apparently tapped his phone before his arrest. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the applicant complained that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the authorities on the ground of his illnesses. He further complained of a violation of Article 17 of the Convention arguing that the law-enforcement authorities had abused their powers. The applicant next complained that the Supreme Court had failed to duly ensure his right of appeal as guaranteed by Article 2 Protocol No. 7.


88.  The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


73.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 16 August 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing the medical expert opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation. Yet, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case (see paragraphs 32-35 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of a relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013.


41.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained as from August 2010. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bedbugs and other parasites, inadequate heating, poor quality of food, defective sanitary installations and a lack of hot or cold running water, lack of appropriate furniture and improper conditions for eating his meals, and dirty and worn out mattresses and sheets. He further complained of inadequate health care.


137.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the continued imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision. He referred, in particular, to such aspects of the regime as his mostly solitary confinement and prolonged and excessive isolation from his family, the outside world and other detainees and such restrictions as wearing “joined shackles” on his hands and feet all the time whenever he was outside his cell, the routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected daily and the constant monitoring of his cell – including sanitary facilities – via close-circuit television.


62.  The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that on 27 May 2008 he had been tortured at the Volnovakha police station and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter. The Court considers that it is appropriate to examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention only (see, for instance, Voykin and Others v. Ukraine, no. 47889/08, § 84, 27 March 2018), which reads as follows:


168.  The applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while he was detained in the hotel and for the failure to prevent him from being subjected to “capture shock” treatment when transferred to the CIA rendition team at Skopje Airport. He further complained that the respondent State had been responsible for his ill-treatment during his detention in the “Salt Pit” in Afghanistan by having knowingly transferred him into the custody of US agents even though there had been substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of such ill-treatment. In this latter context, he complained that the conditions of detention, physical assaults, inadequate food and water, sleep deprivation, forced feeding and lack of any medical assistance during his detention in the “Salt Pit” amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he complained that the investigation before the Macedonian authorities had not been effective within the meaning of this Article.


25.  The applicant argued that the measures, omissions and incidents complained of amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, and this in respect of the whole period he had spent in Szeged Prison. The matter complained of constituted a continuous violation of his Convention rights; therefore, the Government's reference to the six-month rule was a misconception. In particular, the fact that he had been at the mercy of his cellmates for a prolonged period of time in terms of satisfying his basic needs, such as relieving himself, bathing or getting dressed/undressed, was unacceptable. Likewise, the practice of transporting him in a van without a seatbelt to hold his wheelchair in place, together with the rough methods of getting him in and out of the vehicle was inhuman. This situation was aggravated by his classification as a 'Grade 4' security-level prisoner – impossible to challenge before the prison authorities and completely unjustified in the face of his paraplegia – as a consequence of which he had been kept handcuffed during transport and thereby prevented from securing his position whilst the vehicle was in motion.


78.  The applicant essentially claimed that he is considered a suspect of terrorism by the Moroccan authorities on two grounds: firstly because these authorities are aware of his conviction in the Netherlands for terrorism-related offences and fail to respect the ne bis in idem principle and, secondly, because these authorities are aware of his link to a dismantled terrorist cell in Morocco. On the basis thereof, and referring to case-law of the Court concerning terrorist suspects, the applicant claimed that he had adduced sufficient evidence of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that if he were to be deported to Morocco, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, as the doctors had acted with the intention of protecting her life and health, as well as the life of her child. Had the doctors deliberately wished to deprive the applicant of her reproductive capacity, they would have carried out a hysterectomy which, as an expert had confirmed, would have been considered as a life-saving intervention given the state of the applicant’s reproductive organs. While it was true that the applicant’s mother had not formally agreed to the procedure, it was to be noted that the applicant had previously given birth to a child and that she had reached the age of majority only ten days after her sterilisation.


52. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he and his lawyer had not had access to any of the evidence on which the domestic courts had based their decisions. He also complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 that the courts had not given “relevant and sufficient reasons” for dismissing his habeas corpus requests based in particular on his state of health and that the appellate court had refused to rehear his doctor. In light of the above findings under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 42 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to determine whether the applicant’s arguments about his state of health were pertinent to the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5, or whether the courts gave adequate reasons for the decision. Therefore the Court will only examine the complaint about the applicant’s access to the case file. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows:


10.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of her ill-treatment by the police and the insufficient investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. She also complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of her abusive detention on 22 February 2002. The relevant parts of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 read as follows:


15.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of 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 and high temperatures in the cells. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


83.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints had been examined in detail at the domestic level by the competent sentence-execution judge, who had heard the applicant and who had regularly visited Bjelovar Prison in the period at issue, namely twelve times during the applicant’s stay there. The sentence-execution judge had not found a violation of his right to adequate conditions of detention. These findings had been reviewed and upheld by a three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court and the Constitutional Court. Likewise, the Ombudsperson had examined the applicant’s complaints and noted that they principally concerned matters related to his transfer to a prison closer to his family. The Ombudsperson also noted that Bjelovar Prison had been recently renovated. Moreover, in the case of Pozaić v. Croatia (no. 5901/13, 4 December 2014), raising an issue of conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison dating from the same period in which the applicant had been detained there, the Court had also found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection the Government pointed out that, given that the CPT had never visited Bjelovar Prison, the Court’s finding in Pozaić was the only determination of conditions of detention in that prison by an international institution.


49.  The Government did not present any plausible justification for the delay in transferring the applicant to a hospital after the first prescription for hospitalisation had been issued by the doctors in the evening of 9 April 2015. In the Court’s view, the refusal of the prison administration to follow the doctors’ prescriptions for such a long time subjected the applicant to severe pain and suffering, a treatment which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


43.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. The Government stressed that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.


83.  The applicants complained that after the abduction their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been ill-treated by State agents and that the investigation thereof had not been effective. They further complained that because of the abduction and subsequent killing of their relative and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


48.  The Government noted the relatively short period of the applicant's detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility and that he had not complained or claimed that his physical or mental health had deteriorated as a result. They also argued that measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an element of suffering or humiliation, that the conditions of detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility were not intended to degrade or humiliate the applicant and, in conclusion, that the ill-treatment complained did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Government considered that the said article had not been violated.


37. The Government firstly submitted that they had not been under any obligation to conduct compulsory screening of the applicant for the presence of HCV. Secondly, in connection with the adequacy of the medical treatment available to the applicant in the post-diagnosis period, they claimed, without providing any relevant medical evidence in support, that the applicant’s state of health at the initial phase of his diagnosis had been stable; he had been examined on several occasions; no deterioration of his condition had been noted and he had been given vitamins and hepatoprotectors. In the Government’s view, the fact that the applicant had not been provided with antiviral treatment immediately after his infection was revealed did not in itself amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


26.  The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings against her assailants had lacked the effectiveness required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She alleged that the authorities had not prosecuted some of the people involved, including two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., and two other individuals, Y.Y.G. and K.M., whom she had identified at the start of the investigation. She complained that the authorities had not made the necessary efforts to investigate the link between the two police officers and the prostitution ring into which attempts had been made to coerce her or to search for the other two individuals. The applicant maintained that the authorities had not displayed diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, which had been unduly prolonged; the dual effect of this was that she had endured further psychological suffering and the proceedings in respect of some of the perpetrators had become time-barred.


175.  The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from alleged breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, the alleged breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention and the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. He pointed out that he had been arrested at night, without being told for what reason, had been hooded, had been subjected to serious deliberate violence causing him intense pain in the police minivan on the way to Koprivshtitsa, and had been taken not to a regular place of detention but to a house where he had been tortured, and then again hooded on the way back to Sofia, which had caused to feel terror and apprehension as to what awaited him next. After that he had not been given timely medical attention, had been refused contact with a lawyer of his own choosing, and only allowed to contact his wife to tell her that he was in custody but not where. He had suffered additional frustration and feelings of injustice from the slow and ineffective investigation of his ill‑treatment and from the lack of any redress in respect of it. He had also, in breach of the presumption of innocence, been stigmatised by high‑ranking officials as a participant in Mr Lukanov’s assassination, although he had been cleared of that charge in the criminal proceedings against him. That stigma, taken up by the media, would continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. Lastly, he had suffered damage as a result of the lack of sufficient safeguards against and effective remedies in respect of unlawful secret surveillance, which was particularly damaging in his situation.


27.  The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicants’ favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to them in compensation for non-pecuniary damage were adequate and sufficient, and had been calculated by taking the entirety of the criteria into account, including each person’s specific circumstances.


13.  The Government claimed that the alleged ill-treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity necessary to trigger the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention because the expert had only found two abrasions on his head. The applicant had engaged in a fight shortly before his arrest in which he had received blows to his head. The recorded injuries did not correspond to the applicant’s description of ill-treatment. The mere fact that a criminal case had not been opened did not warrant the conclusion that the investigation was inefficient because, in the particular circumstances of the case, a pre-investigation inquiry had been sufficient to establish the relevant circumstances.


45.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate that if expelled, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment (see Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 31, 7 June 2016). The Austrian courts and the Federal Minister of Justice had comprehensively examined in proceedings before several instances adhering to the rule of law whether, if extradited to Kosovo, the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Taking into account specific information and the applicant’s submissions, they answered this question in the negative. The applicant referred to former attacks by the Lu. clan to corroborate the alleged danger to his life if extradited. However, at the same time it was evident that the Kosovo authorities had been able to react to these threats appropriately themselves, for example, by the criminal conviction of S.Lu. for issuing a threat against the applicant. Repeated convictions of members of the Lu. clan in Kosovo demonstrate that the authorities were indeed capable of removing risks for the applicant’s life by taking measures in accordance with the rule of law.


99.  The Government considered that the prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed in the daytime had been implied from a normative act – Regulation no. 423. By the same token, they argued that the applicant’s isolation had resulted from a normative act – section 504 of the Sentence Enforcement Code. It was their view that that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the compliance of these legal provisions with provisions of superior legal force, had he considered that they breached Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied on the Court’s decision in the case of Grišankova and Grišankovs (cited above), where the Court had accepted that recourse to the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy. The Government stressed that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of a legal provision was binding on the domestic authorities.


48.  The applicant alleged, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been beaten by unidentified prison officers on an unspecified date in Gldani no. 8 prison. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he also challenged the outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He maintained, inter alia, that the domestic courts had improperly assessed the circumstances of his case and that, instead of endorsing the incriminating evidence, the courts should have subscribed to his arguments in defence. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above-mentioned provision, the applicant also complained that an application to the Supreme Court was not an effective judicial remedy, as that court had rejected his cassation appeal as inadmissible.


166.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation in case no. 23116 had not established that Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State.


67.  The Government reiterated the Immigration Judge’s findings (see paragraphs 19-20 above) that there was no reason why the applicant would not continue to receive the assistance in Afghanistan that he had apparently received for three to four years there after he had incurred his injuries and before he had travelled to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, in view of the numbers of disabled people in Afghanistan and the lack of supporting evidence demonstrating that those people were living in a state of extreme degrading or inhuman conditions by virtue of government inaction, they argued that there remained no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would be at real risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant had family in Afghanistan.


71.  The applicant also started his reply with listing principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to inmates’ access to medical assistance. He further relied on a number of expert reports, including the report issued on 16 May 2013 upon an investigators’ order and cited by the Russian courts in their decision to release the applicant from detention on health grounds (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above). While having acknowledged that the reports commissioned by his counsel from civil experts had not been performed on the basis of his personal examination, he insisted that they had been issued by very respected civil medical specialists, including a doctor who had later participated in the preparation of the report of 16 May 2013. The reports were also prepared on the basis of his entire medical file. Furthermore, the reports prepared by the experts both in response to the request from the defence and those from the prosecution confirmed that the applicant did not have adequate access to necessary medical specialists, such as an infectious diseases doctor or herpetologist, he was not subjected to necessary testing, including fibroscopy, and he was not seen by medical personnel frequently enough as was required by his condition, including in the cases of medical emergencies. He also stressed that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the recommendations of the medical experts. The applicant argued that the expert reports submitted by him disclosed serious failings in his medical care in detention. In his opinion, the Government did not submit any evidence which could have rebutted that conclusion. The applicant concluded that the Russian authorities violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as they were unable to provide him with the requisite level of medical services and were subjecting him to severe suffering and a significant risk of a fatal outcome.


124.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had suffered ill-treatment by other detainees in the Kryvyy Rig SIZO and that his complaints in that regard had not been duly examined. He further raised the following complaints: under Article 7 about his allegedly unfair criminal prosecution; under Article 8 about the alleged secret surveillance of him and his family by the security services for many years; under Article 9 about the fact that the investigator in charge of his case was a Muslim, which he considered to be unacceptable given his orthodox Christian faith; under Article 10 about the criminal cases against him having allegedly been related to his activities as a journalist; under Article 11 about the negative impact of his detention and psychiatric confinement on the NGO he headed; with reference to Article 12, about his complaints to various authorities having been without success; and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about being limited in his ability to lodge appeals.


143.  The applicants pointed out that the CSPA was theoretically intended to function as a facility for assistance and initial reception. In their view, that type of centre, which did not comply with the European Prison Rules of 11 January 2006, was unsuitable for extended stays in a situation of deprivation of liberty. In their submission, a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be excluded either on account of the nature of the CSPA or in view of the short duration of their detention. The duration in question was only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in assessing whether treatment exceeded the threshold of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article 3. The Court had previously found violations of Article 3 of the Convention even in the case of very short periods of detention where there were other aggravating factors such as particularly appalling conditions or the vulnerability of the victims (the applicants referred to Brega v. Moldova, no. 52100/08, 20 April 2010; T. and A. v. Turkey, no. 47146/11, 21 October 2014; and Gavrilovici v. Moldova, no. 25464/05, 15 December 2009, concerning periods of forty-eight hours, three days and five days respectively). The applicants argued that the same factors were present in their cases and pointed out that at the material time they had just survived a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean by night in a rubber dinghy, and that this had weakened them physically and psychologically. They had thus been in a situation of vulnerability, accentuated by the fact that their deprivation of liberty had no legal basis, and their mental distress had increased as a result.


20.  The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment in police custody, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant also complained about the treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest. They contended under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They further complained under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention about the length of their detention in police custody and their inability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and to claim compensation in the domestic courts in this respect.


56.  The Government submitted that in the applicant’s letters of 12 June 2006 (received by the Court on 14 June 2006) he had briefly mentioned his poor state of health and given further details only in his letter of 18 September 2006 (received by the Court on 22 September 2006). On both occasions, however, he had failed to complain of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and had not informed the Court that he wanted to raise such a complaint. In any event, the Government contended that if the Court considered that the applicant had lodged a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the date that complaint had been lodged before the Court was 12 June 2006 and not 29 April 2005.


104.  The Government argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. The applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the guard and the latter had responded accordingly. The guard had duly warned the applicant and only after that had he used a rubber truncheon to restrain him. 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.


76.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1) had been inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of detention. The relevant Articles provide:


216.  The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture while in custody from 19 to 23 April 2004 and that there had been no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The first applicant also complained that he had not been provided with requisite medical assistance and allowed to meet his family during his hunger strike. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


42.  The applicant’s allegations of his injuries being the result of ill‑treatment by the police officers from the Sverdlovskiy district police department were dismissed by the investigation authorities based on the pre‑investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 129, 24 July 2014). The mere carrying out of a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article <mask> of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (ibid., §§ 129 and 132‑36).


225.  The Government stated, with reference to information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, that “the investigation had established the fact that bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant”, but argued that before all the circumstances of the offence had been established there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. The Government also insisted that the investigation in the present case had not breached the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the applicant had been granted victim status and could have participated in the criminal proceedings.


66.  The applicant submitted that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of his allegations of ill-treatment which warranted an investigation by the authorities in conformity with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection he referred to his injuries, whose nature and number had been specified in the expert report. The possible origin of the injuries specified in the report (blunt dynamic force) corresponded to the applicant’s allegations that he had been beaten, while being held incommunicado, with a plastic bottle and a rubber tube (see paragraph 23 above). The number and location of the injuries on his body suggested that they had been inflicted when he had been in a position of restricted freedom to move (restrained) by people who had full control over him. If the authorities had carried out a medical check-up after he had been arrested and before he had been detained, his injuries would have been brought to light in good time. The medical examination of 19 August 2005 was not followed up by an effective investigation by the relevant authorities. The public prosecutor did nothing to investigate his allegations. Likewise, the trial judge had been focused on examining the criminal case against the applicant. The courts had summarily concluded that the applicant’s statement of 8 November 2005 was self-serving and was aimed at avoiding criminal responsibility. Lastly, his criminal complaint submitted to the public prosecutor was to no avail.


33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility and that he was awarded inadequate compensation for the aforesaid violation by the domestic courts. In particular, he contended that the compensation awarded was very low and was rendered meaningless by the fact that he had to pay high court fees on the dismissed part of his claim.


15.  The Government submitted that the case had been adequately and thoroughly examined in two different court proceedings. In consequence of comprehensive taking of evidence, the Székesfehérvár District Court had acquitted the applicant of drunken driving and violence against an official, while the Budapest Regional Court had also acquitted the police officers involved of the applicant’s charges. For the Government, it followed from this that the applicant’s version of events was not supported by evidence beyond any doubt. The Government noted that the applicant had admitted to having had a quarrel with the police officers, been drunk and refused to identify himself. This had served as a legitimate ground for the police action. Moreover, it had not been contested that the applicant had, in a heated situation, showed resistance which could be subdued only with physical force. However, the injuries outlined in the medical report drawn up right after the impugned police action did not support the applicant’s allegations of lasting and serious ill-treatment. Maintaining that the police action had been necessary and proportionate, the Government concluded that the injuries caused by the coercion used against the applicant could not have attained the level necessary for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The applicant finally argued that it was true that Article <mask> of the Convention permitted the respondent State to implement legal provisions aimed at protecting its citizens. However, that provision did not authorise that State to act in breach of other Convention Articles. Moreover, it had been possible to place him in preventive detention at the time of his conviction, but the sentencing court decided not to do so.


67.  The applicant submitted that Article 13 had been violated in his case since Armenian law had not provided a possibility to seek compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of ill-treatment. He argued that for Article 13 to apply, it was sufficient to have an arguable claim in terms of the Convention. Thus, even if the investigator had decided not to prosecute the police officers by his decision of 21 June 2005, the fact of his ill-treatment and the unlawfulness of the police actions had been unequivocally established by the judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 16 February 2006 and the higher courts. He therefore had had an arguable claim before the civil courts of having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, his civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage had been dismissed because that type of compensation had not provided for in domestic law.


158.  The applicants made two complaints in relation to their proposed extradition. First, they complained that, if convicted in the United States, they would be detained at ADX Florence and, furthermore, would be subjected to special administrative measures (SAMS). They submitted that conditions of detention at ADX Florence (whether alone or in conjunction with SAMS) would violate Article <mask> of the Convention. Second, the applicants complained that, if convicted, they would face sentences of life imprisonment without parole and/or extremely long sentences of determinate length in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.


32.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant neither claimed that he had ever been involved in any political activities, nor submitted any evidence confirming that the criminal proceedings against the owner and officials of the BTA bank had been politically motivated. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Kazakhstan was insufficient and that evidence was needed that the applicant himself ran a personal risk of facing ill-treatment in Kazakhstan. The Government considered that the applicant's allegations were not corroborated by any other evidence. They referred to the Court's case-law in which such personal circumstances had been successfully advanced by the applicants in support of their allegations (Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 64, 10 December 2009, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 81, ECHR 2007‑VII (extracts)), as well as to the Court's case-law in which a lack of substantiation led to the rejection of similar complaints (Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, § 34, 18 February 2010, and Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004). They also noted that the Ukrainian authorities had received sufficient assurances from their Kazakh counterparts that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3.


43.  The Government submitted that a review of the Court’s case-law considering the issue of life imprisonment from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention demonstrated the compatibility of Russian law – which provided for the right to release on parole also in cases where life imprisonment had been imposed – with the Convention. Life imprisonment could be imposed in a majority of States worldwide and, according to the Government, only six member States of the Council of Europe had abolished it. In Russia life imprisonment was a penalty for the most serious crimes but was always accompanied by alternative penalties and never applied automatically. The Government emphasised that the Contracting States should be allowed a margin of appreciation in deciding on the appropriate length of prison sentences for particular crimes (they referred to László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, § 46, 20 May 2014).


47.  The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that in the present case a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was difficult to prove because there had been no effective investigation. He disagreed with the Government’s contention that his complaint was belated – he had submitted the complaint one week after his discharge from the hospital, on 8 September 2003, and one week later it had been forwarded to the police. He argued that he was not obliged to provide conclusive evidence in support of his allegations as the obligation to investigate and gather evidence was incumbent on the domestic authorities.


114.  The Government argued that the sterilisation procedures had been performed in a medical institution in accordance with the law and with the aim of protecting the applicants’ health and lives. The applicants themselves had requested their sterilisation and had signed the relevant documents. The fact that the formal approval of their legal guardians had not been obtained as requested by the law was not relevant from the viewpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in view of their age and the fact that they lived with partners and children, they could be considered mature enough to decide on their own health. They had therefore not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.


22.  The Government argued that the second applicant, Zinnet Onay, who is the mother of the first, was not a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that it was clear from the documents of apprehension and detention that the young man's parents had not made any attempt to visit him or challenge his detention, although they had been promptly informed of his arrest.


63.  The Government argued that in a situation such as the present one, where the applicant claimed, on the basis of the same circumstances, a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time before the domestic authorities and a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, it was necessary to examine whether the complaint had already been appropriately addressed by the competent domestic authorities and whether the applicant had already been granted just satisfaction. Recalling that the applicant had been awarded and paid compensation for non-pecuniary damage before the domestic courts, the Government emphasised that in deciding the applicant’s claim, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant, then a minor, had been a victim of a series of offences over a long period of time, and that during the criminal proceedings she had been required to repeatedly testify and relive the abuse she had suffered. In its judgment, the competent local court had considered the whole duration of the proceedings and the way in which their particular circumstances had affected the applicant. The court had evaluated all these circumstances in relation to the activity expected of the competent authorities.


31.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had used excessive force against him at the time of his arrest and had insulted and beaten him. He also alleged a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention maintaining that the lawfulness of his detention had not been decided speedily by the courts, due to the fact that his correspondence had been delayed by the authorities. He further alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention given the unfairness of the criminal proceedings and the unlawful publicity about the proceedings in the media, which had negatively affected their fairness. Under the same provision the applicant also complained about the poor quality of his defence conducted by a legal-aid lawyer. In addition, under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that visits from his family in prison were rarely granted and his letters to his family were open and read. Finally, the applicant alleged that in view of his overall treatment in the course of the proceedings, he had been discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.


50.  The Government denied the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and considered them unsubstantiated, referring to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor in response to the applicants’ complaints and to the conclusions reached in this regard by the trial and appellate courts. The Government further submitted that the investigation conducted by the Russian authorities had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


64.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus, he risked being sentenced to the death penalty; he would be ill-treated in Belarusian detention facilities, in particular, with a view to extracting a confession from him in relation to the criminal offences he was accused of; and that he would have to suffer from appalling conditions of detention in such facilities. The applicant also alleged that the above matters, in particular concerning the risk of ill-treatment, had not been properly examined by the Russian authorities.


132.  The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had been forcibly handed over to Uzbek State agents by the FSB agents “Timur” and “Zakhar”. The applicant had been subjected to torture while in detention in Uzbekistan. The Russian authorities had belatedly opened an investigation into the applicant’s abduction and had failed to take all the requisite measures to elucidate its circumstances, in breach of their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


105.  The Government argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's view, the investigation had not breached the requirements of that provision. They also claimed that “the perception of events is a very personal matter depending on emotional and other specific features of an individual's personality and relates in fact to the field of psychology”, and that therefore “it is impossible to assess the degree of the applicant's mental suffering from the views of the investigating officers”, the latter being responsible only for investigating criminal offences.


99.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relative had been ill-treated during his apprehension and most likely tortured during his detention. The first, second and third applicants also claimed that as a result of their family member’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


53.  The applicant referred to the Court’s decision on the admissibility of his application and replied that he had provided the German courts with documents showing that he faced persecution if expelled to Iran right from the start of the proceedings. Accordingly, he requested the authorities to grant him refugee status and a work permit. He also sought an award of 22,060 German marks (DEM) and DEM 600 monthly for the period from December 2000 until the Court’s judgment on the merits for pecuniary damage. His current immigration status was neither valid nor satisfactory. Referring to Ahmed v. Austria (judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), he asked the Court to rule on the merits, as, in his submission, he remained a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly he alleged that, owing to his unstable situation, one that prevented him from getting married or starting a home, he was also a victim of a violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.