47.  The Government argued that an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been conducted by the domestic authorities in that the medical reports, witness statements and statements of the accused had been evaluated during the course of the proceedings against the two police officers. They further contended that the discontinuation of those proceedings for being time-barred had not run contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


87.  The applicant substantiated his complaint with medical documents dated 19 March 2006 which attested to fractures to his eighth and ninth ribs on the left side and abrasions and haematomas on his face, head, chest, back and hips (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The applicant’s claim was therefore shown to be “arguable” and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the above requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


50.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected was so grave as to fall under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that for the treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is, by nature, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst many other authorities, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).


168.  The applicants alleged that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances in which their relatives had died disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the witnesses' testimonies that the bodies were mutilated and bore numerous stab and firearm wounds. They also submitted that there existed overwhelming and compelling evidence that acts of torture and extra-judicial killings by soldiers were widespread in Grozny at the beginning of 2000.


54. The applicant submitted that the respondent State had not provided an effective remedy in relation to his arguable claim of having been subjected to acts of police brutality. He further argued that Macedonian legislation did not provide a time-limit within which the public prosecutor should consider a criminal complaint. He stated that the public prosecutor’s “letter” of 10 October 2006 did not constitute a formal decision which would enable him to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary complainant. He was therefore prevented from having access to court proceedings in order to obtain redress for the violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention.


60.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not substantiated their claims and, thus, the application did not reveal a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Swedish authorities applied the same kind of test when considering applications for asylum as the Court does when it examines complaints under Article 3. Moreover, the national authorities had made a thorough examination of the applicants’ case and great weight should therefore be attached to their findings. This was in particular so since they were specialised bodies with expertise in the field of asylum law and practice.


25.  The Government further invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They contended, in particular, that an action for damages in the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Code, Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 7 of the Constitution, would have constituted an effective remedy in the instant case and listed, in this connection, a series of domestic decisions which, in their view, proved their point.


35.  The Government further stated that the application to the Court was belated, as it had not been filed within six months after the Supreme Court delivered, on 16 April 2002, the final judgment in the rape case. Referring to the fact that the applicant had never complained of ill-treatment before either the prosecution or the judicial authorities in the course of the rape case, the Government claimed that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.


25.  The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention in that it had not attained the minimum level of severity. They submitted that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as three medical reports, drawn up by different doctors and obtained before and after the applicant’s custody, indicated the same findings and as the applicant had failed to describe the alleged acts in detail. In this respect, the Government also contended that the case differed from other cases concerning ill-treatment in police custody, since in the applicant’s case there had already been adequate evidence to charge him with an offence prior to his arrest.


46.  The applicants argued that based on their statements to the Court and to the national authorities, which had been corroborated by the provided medical certificates, it had been established that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers. Moreover, the investigation had not shown that the applicants had been behaving aggressively or had provoked the use of force in any way. Consequently, the attack they had endured had been unjustified and constituted ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


48.  The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had fallen short of the requirements of national standards and the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The local authorities had been actively taking measures aimed at rectifying the situation. At the same time, the Government considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in such conditions did not show that there had been a positive intention to humiliate or debase him. The conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre had been improved following its refurbishment in June-August 2007. Lastly, they argued that the treatment the applicant had been subjected to as a result of his detention in the temporary detention centre had not gone beyond the threshold of severity set out in Article <mask> of the Convention.


35.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had had the right to participate in educational and cultural activities, and to take part in sport. He had been allowed to listen to a radio and had had access to a library. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision.


67.  The Government contested the applicant’s allegations, and argued that he was not arrested by the police at the time of the events and that an ambulance was called soon after he started feeling unwell. Moreover, they submitted that there was no evidence in the file to support the applicant’s allegations and to show that he was hit by police officer G.B. Relying on the medical and witness evidence available in the file, they argued that the cause of the change in the applicant’s state of health was not the alleged physical attack he had been subjected to by police officer G.B. but the pre‑existent pathology, taken in conjunction with a stressful situation. In addition, they underlined that in this case it was established without a doubt that the applicant did not present any signs of violence and that the medical documents contained only his allegations in respect of a craniocerebral trauma. Consequently, it was impossible to determine on the basis of the evidence adduced whether or not the applicant had suffered treatment at the hands of the authorities in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


33.  The Government, referring to their description of the detention conditions submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 14-25 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all the measures necessary to ensure adequate conditions of detention, and that the applicant was afforded living space in excess of 4 sq. m for the most part of his detention. Consequently, his conditions of detention did not meet the level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


32.  The applicant submitted that the verbal abuse and threats to which she had been subjected from a member of a right-wing group had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. She complained that the authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


22.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and behind a metal partition during the examination of the case on appeal had been in compliance with the domestic law and regulations in force at the material time (see paragraphs 12-14 above). The practice of placing defendants in metal cages in the courtroom was an ordinary security measure applied to all defendants detained on remand. Introduced over twenty years ago, it was perceived as customary by the parties to the criminal proceedings and third parties alike and a priori was not aimed at humiliating those to whom it was applied. The “feelings of humiliation, inferiority, shame and helplessness” allegedly suffered by the applicant resulted not from his placement in a metal cage, but rather from a natural reaction to the negative consequences of his unlawful actions. There were no grounds for believing that the parties to the proceedings and third parties had had a biased or hostile attitude towards the applicant on account of his confinement in a metal cage. In any event, the case had not been of any heightened public or media interest. Furthermore, placement in a metal cage served the purpose of protecting a person from any possible attack by victims while at the same time allowing him or her to choose a comfortable posture and move behind the barriers freely. The Government further argued that the applicant’s confinement behind a metal partition in the remand prison during his participation in the hearing of his case on appeal via a video link could not have caused him any negative feelings since, in any event, the remand prison was a place of social isolation where detainees spent most of their time on premises equipped with various safety facilities. The Government concluded, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They made no submissions on the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.


57.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to properly use a constitutional remedy. In particular, they maintained that although he had complained to the Constitutional Court and invoked Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia that corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had failed to substantiate his complaints, and accordingly had failed to complain properly.


105.  The Government contested that argument. They stated that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant himself would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, if extradited to Kazakhstan. They further stated that on 18 September and 2 December 2004 the Government of Kazakhstan provided sufficient guarantees that the applicant would not be ill-treated and that his rights and interests during the investigation would be respected. The Government stated that there was no reason to believe that the applicant would be detained with the purpose of causing him physical or moral suffering. They stated that the authorities had to act in accordance with their international law obligations arising from the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government further maintained that relevant and necessary medical treatment was provided to detainees in Kazakhstan and that the Kazakh government was undertaking measures to improve prison and medical conditions in detention facilities.


113.  The Government did not dispute that the applicant suffered from a disease which in itself entailed a risk to her life and her physical well-being. However, returning to Nigeria would not place her at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. That risk had been assessed by the Aliens Office’s medical adviser, taking into account the applicant’s individual situation, the way her condition was developing, the medication she required and the existence of appropriate and sufficiently accessible treatment in Nigeria. In connection with the last point the Government referred to several reports, published by the NACA among others, which showed that Nigeria was implementing a policy of prevention among the most vulnerable sections of the population and had put in place a strategy of universal access to medication in public hospitals, subject to availability. The Government added that a kind of ARV treatment known as “highly active antiretroviral therapy” (HAART) now existed which produced very good results and was a combination of several drugs which all existed separately in Nigeria. The medical official’s report also showed that the applicant was fit to travel and that her condition was not of sufficient concern at this stage to prevent her return to her country of origin.


112.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-51/1 (SIZO-1) in Murmansk between 30 December 2003 and 21 May 2006, in correctional facility no. IK-16 in Murmashi between 21 May and 9 October 2006, in remand prison no. IZ-35/2 in Vologda between 12 and 17 October 2006, and in remand prison no. IZ‑77/3 in Moscow between 18 October 2006 and 24 January 2007 had been inadequate. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:


52.  The applicant argued that his confinement and forced psychiatric treatment in the Bălţi psychiatric hospital caused him severe mental suffering amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reasons to disagree with the applicant and notes that no medical necessity to subject the applicant to psychiatric treatment has been shown to exist and that his subjecting to psychiatric treatment was unlawful and arbitrary (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above). Moreover, the Court notes the considerable duration of the medical treatment which lasted for forty-one days and the fact that the applicant was not allowed having contact with the outside world during his confinement (see paragraph 8 above). In the Court’s view such unlawful and arbitrary treatment was at the very least capable to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority. Accordingly, the Court considers that the psychiatric treatment to which the applicant was subjected could amount at least to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of his detention. He further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the duration of his detention and submitted that the reasons relied on by the national courts for ordering and extending his detention had been insufficient and inadequate throughout his detention. Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 read:


132.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to describe sufficiently the risks in Libya because they had not applied to the Italian authorities for asylum. The mere fact that the applicants had opposed their disembarkation in Libya could not, according to the Government, be considered to be a request for protection, imposing on Italy an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


68.  The Government observed that they did not have access to the relevant documents from the Lugansk SIZO in order to formulate a position on the substance of the applicant’s grievances. At the same time, they argued that the applicant had failed to show that the conditions of his detention in that facility had been in breach of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention.


73.  The applicant disagreed. He maintained that neither he nor his representative had been informed about the aforementioned decision and therefore could not be reproached for not having challenged it. His mother, who was his official representative at the time, denied having received the letter from the Zhytomyr prosecutor referred to by the Government. In any event, the applicant considered that the issue of exhaustion of the domestic remedies was to be joined to the merits of his complaint under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention.


122.  The applicant reiterated his complaints. He claimed that the bulk of the information provided by the Government related to the period 2000‑2005, which was subsequent to the applicant's period of detention, and that it related primarily to the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison. He noted, however, that he had also been detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service for four months in complete isolation, as had allegedly been admitted by the Government. In respect of this facility, he also noted that there had been no natural light in the cells, which continued to be situated underground. In addition, the applicant alleged that it had also been admitted by the Government that visits and access to newspapers and magazines had been restricted as they had both been subject to the approval of the Prosecutor's Office. In conclusion, he asserted that the conditions of detention in which he had been held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and the Pazardzhik Prison had been inadequate and had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention.


51.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention between 2001 and 2008 had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of inadequate medical assistance and incompatibility of the physical arrangements of his detention with his state of health. He further complained under the same provision of the misconduct of the officers of Penitentiary no. 47. The relevant provision of the Convention reads as follows:


114.  The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in detention. She further complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. Under this heading the applicant also submitted that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son’s disappearance and on account of the State’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The respective Article reads as follows:


37.  The Government noted that the first applicant had brought several actions under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”) but had failed to inform the Court of their existence and outcome. They also observed that an action under the SMRDA represented a real and effective remedy in cases of poor conditions of detention and cited a number of court judgments in which domestic courts had awarded damages in connection with such claims. Accordingly, they claimed that the first applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. On the basis of these submissions they may also be understood as questioning in substance the first applicant's victim status. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the first applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on a report of 14 March 2008 of the Execution of Sentences Directorate of the Ministry of Justice, which stated that the sanitary conditions in the first applicant's cell in Varna prison had improved following various renovations, without specifying in which year these had been made, and that the first applicant had been ensured access to fresh air and natural light as well as to a toilet and running water during the day. It also stated, without elaborating further, that the food had been prepared in compliance with the applicable regulations.


22.  The applicants complained that on 14 September 2000 they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the 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:


57.  The applicant complained of police brutality and of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment. He contended that the injuries inflicted on him had been caused by police officers without any justification. He further claimed that the criminal proceedings instituted by him against the police officers had lasted more than nine years. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


45.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, he failed to adduce any evidence such as medical documents and/or witness statements in support of his allegations. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.


26.  The Government stressed that the regime had been imposed on the applicant for a very short period of time during which he had been provided with adequate stimulation and human contact. In particular, twice a week he had the right to visit a library and a room equipped with a computer, a television and other means of entertainment. He was also entitled to receive visits. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision.


128.  The applicants in all the applications complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant parts of these Articles read as follows:


52.  The Government submitted that there were several effective domestic remedies at the applicant's disposal. They argued that domestic law provided the applicant with adequate means of redress in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that a case had been brought against police officers from the Adana Security Directorate who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. In their observations of 26 June 2002, the Government claimed that the case was still pending and that the delay in the proceedings could not be attributed to the conduct of the domestic court since the reason for the postponements was the absence of the applicant and one of his witnesses.


64.  The Government considered that the applicant’s complaint had concerned only his detention from 25 April 2005 onwards, while he had had no objection to the conditions of detention in the same facility from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005. They conceded that the conditions during both periods had been identical. However, they concluded that the applicant had not complied with the six-month rule in respect of the first period. They also contended that he had not complained about the conditions to any public authority, while being represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings. In particular, he could have lodged a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government acknowledged the insufficiency of cell space afforded to the applicant between December 2004 and mid-October 2005. However, they contended that the applicant had been given an individual sleeping berth and bedding. They submitted that the cell-space factor was an insufficient basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards Tomsk Remand Centre.


89.  The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of damage suffered on account of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also claimed EUR 5,000 for damage sustained as a result of the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Finally, he claimed EUR 50,000 for pecuniary damage flowing from the two alleged breaches of Article 8 of the Convention. He said that the search, which had been widely publicised, had seriously damaged his professional reputation and had no doubt deterred potential clients. He further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage occasioned by the two alleged breaches of this provision.


56.  The applicant complained that the investigation into her beating was lengthy and ineffective. She invoked in this respect Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court which is master of characterization to be given in law to the facts of the case considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:


11.  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.


68.  The applicant, with reference to the arguments which she had raised in the domestic proceedings, maintained that her sterilisation had not been a life-saving intervention and that it had had a lasting impact on her physical and psychological health, her relationship with her husband, and on her family and had affected her position within the Roma community. It had amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


139.  The applicant submitted that, in keeping with the Court’s case-law as established in the judgments in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011) and Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had to be examined in concreto and in the light of all the facts of the case, taking into consideration the accessibility of treatment in the country of destination and the particular vulnerability of the person concerned.


86.  The applicants considered that the verbal and physical abuse to which they had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They further claimed that the Georgian authorities were responsible, via the conduct of their agents, for the violent dispersal of several large religious gatherings of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2000-2001. On a wider scale, the Georgian authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had taken no measures capable of preventing the widespread extension of religious violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the country and had refused to conduct prompt and efficient investigations into acts of violence of which they were fully aware and which had been perpetrated not only by private individuals but also by representatives of the State.


66.  The Government submitted that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest on 29 October 2008 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the applicant was a young and strong man and he had already been injured several times in his life, which should have certainly made him more tolerant to pain. Accordingly, the injuries which he had sustained during the arrest, for which he had received prompt medical assistance, could not have caused him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity to fall under Article 3 of the Convention.


166.  The applicants were foreign nationals whom the Government would have deported from the United Kingdom had it been possible to find a State to receive them where they would not face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 125 and 127, ECHR 2008). Although the respondent State’s obligations under Article 3 prevented the removal of the applicants from the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State nonetheless considered it necessary to detain them for security reasons, because he believed that their presence in the country was a risk to national security and suspected that they were or had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism and were members of, belonged to or had links with an international terrorist group. Such detention would have been unlawful under domestic law prior to the passing of Part 4 of the 2001 Act, since the 1984 judgment in Hardial Singh entailed that the power of detention could not be exercised unless the person subject to the deportation order could be deported within a reasonable time (see paragraph 87 above). Thus, it was stated in the derogation notice lodged under Article 15 of the Convention that extended powers were required to arrest and detain a foreign national “where removal or deportation is not for the time being possible, with the consequence that the detention would be unlawful under existing domestic-law powers” (see paragraph 11 above).


89.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his pre-trial detention. In particular, he complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prisons. Next, he alleged that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. Further, he complained about the conditions of his transfer to and from the court-house and the conditions of detention in the assembly section of the remand prisons and the convoy room of the Moscow City Court. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


40.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to an unjustified use of force which amounted to torture, and had been further subjected to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention since the police officer had insulted him and demanded that he plead guilty. He further invoked Article 13 of the Convention, stating that for more than seven years the State authorities had failed to protect his rights.


34.  The applicants complained that the treatment to which they and their close family members had been subjected by the police officers during the events of 3 August 2004 had caused them great physical and mental suffering, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also complained that the investigating and prosecuting authorities, as well as the court, had failed to proceed with an effective and impartial investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. In that connection the applicants invoked Article 3 as well as Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.


37.  The Government argued that it was open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for any alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on a case lodged by a detainee (Nichita Ipate). They also submitted that in the case of Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06, § 67, 7 April 2009) the Court had acknowledged the existence in Moldova of a remedy in the form of lodging civil court actions.


76.  The Government submitted that neither the conditions in the border police’s detention facility in Vidin nor the manner in which the applicants had been provided there with food and drink had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, especially in view of the presence of both their parents and the limited amount of time which they had spent there – especially the fifth applicant, who had been out of the facility for several hours when taken to a hospital in Vidin on 18 August 2015. There was no requirement under Bulgarian law to detain minor migrants in specially adapted facilities.


27.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention was unlawful, and under Article 5 § 4 that he had no possibility to challenge it. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of detention in the prison where he had been placed for one month, following the judgment of 15 October 1998, had been inadequate. The Court observes, however, that the applicant was detained until 30 September 1999. The Court further notes that these complaints were first submitted to this Court on 30 November 2004, that is more than five years after the detention. Accordingly, by virtue of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, the Court is not required to examine this part of the application as it was lodged out of time.


56.  The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention centre in Volsk had fallen short of the requirements of the national standards and the recommendations of the CPT. At the same time, the Government considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in such conditions did not show that there had been a positive intention to humiliate or debase him. They further submitted that there were objective reasons for the domestic authorities’ failure to ensure that the applicant was held in proper conditions at the temporary detention centre in connection with the on-going reform of the detention facilities. Lastly, they argued that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected as a result of his detention in the temporary detention centre had not gone beyond the threshold of severity set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison and the conditions in which he was transported between those two detention facilities, the Government asserted that they had been in compliance with domestic and international standards. The relied on excerpts from the remand prison population register and statements prepared by the administration of the remand prison in July 2010. They also submitted copies of receipts confirming the provision of the applicant with dry food ration on the days of his transfers from one detention facility to the other.


129.  The applicant did not claim that the general circumstances obtaining in Iran would on their own preclude his return to that country. Moreover, the Court notes that a general situation of violence will not normally in itself entail a violation of Article 3 in the event of an expulsion to the country in question (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, §41, Reports 1997‑III). However, the Court has never excluded the possibility that the general situation of violence in a country of destination may be of a sufficient level of intensity as to entail that any removal to it would necessarily breach Article <mask> of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court would adopt such an approach only in the most extreme cases of general violence, where there is a real risk of ill-treatment simply because the individual concerned will be exposed to such violence in that country (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, § 218 and NA. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 115).


98.  The Government submitted that, generally, the alleged lack of medical treatment could not be considered as amounting to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government argued that the applicant had been provided with all necessary medical treatment. Specifically, they noted that all of the applicant's requests for medical examination had been satisfied and that he had been regularly examined by the government doctors and provided with necessary in-patient and out-patient treatment. After the applicant's in-patient treatment in the specialised hospital for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis, his health condition stabilised and no deterioration in his state of health was observed thereafter.


57.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment her husband was probably subjected to while he was unlawfully held in detention and her anguish at the uncertainty about his fate, coupled with the authorities' indifference to her persistent efforts to request information and an effective investigation constituted a breach of her rights and those of her husband under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


20.  The applicant complained in substance under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Târgu Jiu Prison. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bed bugs, inadequate ventilation and natural light, poor quality of food and a lack of segregation between smokers and non-smokers.


57.  The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had incurred any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3, the finding of a violation would itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, if the Court were to find a violation of the material and the 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.


22.  The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004, in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation conducted by the authorities in response to his complaint of ill-treatment had been incomplete and contradictory. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


17.  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.


46.  The applicant argued that her complaints fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the ill-treatment she had been subjected to attained the minimum level of severity required by the Court’s case-law (Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009). On this point, she maintained that the actual physical force which she had been subjected to on multiple occasions had not been moderate. She had been kicked in the face, buttocks and other parts of the body, grabbed by the throat, pulled by the hair, punched in the face and hit on the head. The applicant saw those physical injuries as serious enough not to be regarded as being “of a merely trivial in nature”, as suggested by the Government (see paragraph 55 below). Furthermore, the mere fact that the applicant had not suffered longlasting or permanent injuries did not mean that the ill-treatment had failed to reach the level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3, because in Tyrer v. the United Kingdom (25 April 1978, § 33, Series A no. 26) the Court had found a violation of Article 3, even though “the applicant did not suffer any severe or long lasting physical effects”.


122.  The applicants concerned alleged that they had been ill-treated by a group of Orthodox extremists led by Father Basil while attending a hearing in the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. I. Geliashvili, E. Kakhelishvili, L. Nozadze and S. Kvergelidze escaped physical aggression (see paragraph 30 above). The Court therefore concludes that there no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under either its substantive or procedural head has been established in their respect (applicants nos. 26, 27, 30, and 33).


91.  The Government also pointed out that throughout the applicant’s stay in the hospital her condition had been constantly monitored, she had been given the opportunity to move about and she had not made any other complaints about the conditions of her confinement. Moreover, her mental condition had later improved and was constantly improving. Thus, in the Government’s view, neither the use of physical restraint nor the overall circumstances of the applicant’s internment in the hospital had run contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention.


36.  The Government treated the applicant’s claim as a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the proceedings had not been excessively long and that the applicant’s detention during the proceedings had been justified. Referring to the claim in respect of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the amount claimed was too high in the light of the Court’s previous case-law in Article 3 cases concerning Moldova. They also submitted that in some cases the Court considered that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction.


16.  The Government considered that the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial which had ended on 19 March 2012 and his placement behind a metal partition in the remand prison five months later, on 10 August 2012, for the purposes of participating, via a video link, in the appeal hearing of his criminal case did not give rise to a “continuing situation” and that therefore the part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning his caging during the trial should be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.


75.  The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Sultan Khatuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of her husband's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


119.  The applicant complained that his detention from 19 December 2003 to 12 January 2004 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Without relying on any Convention provision he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy to obtain an improvement in the conditions of his detention. The Court considers that the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Article 3 is cited above. Article 13 reads as follows:


36.  The Government considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention both in the remand prison and the correctional colony were in compliance with the standards prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. At no time was the applicant held in overcrowded cells. The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected. The Government relied on copies of the daily registers of the remand prison population and statements made by prison officers in December 2009. They further provided statements by the administration of the correctional colony where the applicant had been detained. They also submitted hand-drawn plans of the cells of the remand prison to substantiate their submissions concerning the layout of the prison cells and disciplinary cell no. 2 in the correctional colony. The plans were signed and stamped by the remand prison administration, but contained no measurements indicating the size of the cells.


123.  The Government conceded that the facility, and in particular cell no. 55 in which the applicant had been held between 15 December 2004 and 31 August 2007, had been “somewhat” overcrowded, but argued that the conditions of his detention had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the fact that the applicant's complaints in respect of the conditions of his detention had been rejected by the domestic courts as unsubstantiated (see paragraphs 84, 86 and 89).


104.  The applicants moreover argued that that there was no jurisprudence to show that they could have claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, such a claim, in any event, could not have improved their conditions. As regards lodging a claim with the Administrative Court, the applicants maintained that this remedy would have been ineffective as the claim would not have been resolved in due time. In support of this argument they referred to decision no. U 1319/2003 of 11 May 2004 issued in proceedings concerning the transfer of a sentenced prisoner because of problems relating to his mental health and conflicts with other inmates. The Administrative Court had remitted the case for re-examination one year after the prisoner’s request had been rejected by the director-general of the General Administration.


47.  The applicant, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, asserted that the conditions of his hospital visits had been inhuman and degrading as the obligation to wear prison clothing, handcuffs and ankle cuffs had exposed him to the public as a prisoner. The handcuffs and ankle cuffs had, moreover, caused him physical pain, distress and mental suffering and had triggered his urges to self-harm. The members of the escort team had demonstrated their power over him by carrying their firearms and special equipment visibly during the visits. The measures employed had been disproportionate as he had never tried to escape. In any event, other less restrictive means (like a GPS tracker and/or an escort team waiting behind a door) would have been sufficient. The applicant asserted that he had asked to be allowed to wear his own clothes, but permission had been denied. He had even refused to see a doctor shortly after being taken to the hospital on 27 October 2011 as he had been worried about what impression it would give to other people.


79.  The Government submitted that the allegation of religious persecution against the applicant had been checked by the migration authorities when examining his refugee application and had been rejected as unfounded. The migration authorities had relied on the statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there was no risk of ill-treatment for persons who committed criminal offences in Uzbekistan. The Government noted, however, that the applicant had not raised his complaint under Article 3 before the district judge who had ordered his expulsion. With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities and Uzbek legislation (see paragraphs 75 and 77 above), the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to any ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


106.  The applicant initially claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged breach of Article 8 (in her reply to the Government’s observations of 10 April 2012) and a further EUR 200,000 in respect of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (in her reply to the Government’s additional observations of 25 December 2013). In addition, in her reply to the Government’s observations of 10 April 2012, she also asked that the respondent State be obliged to buy her share in the disputed flat at a fair price, corresponding to the market value of half the flat, in order to enable the applicant to buy another flat, which would belong to her exclusively.


87.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not received adequate and sufficient medical treatment during his detention. He submitted, in particular, that there had been no medical staff in the Sevastopol ITT, where he had been detained. The applicant contested the veracity of the explanations of Mr D. (see paragraph 43 above), alleging that the latter had been working in the ITT as a guard, not as a medical attendant. In substantiation, he referred to the fact that the extract from the medical logbook had been signed by the acting chief of the ITT (see paragraph 29 above), not by a medical specialist, for there had been none. Lastly, the applicant insisted that his health condition had warranted his hospitalisation and in-patient treatment, which, although this was confirmed by doctors on many occasions, had been denied to him.


98.  The Government also maintained that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention had been lodged prematurely as the preliminary investigation concerning Mr Gutsanov was still pending. The Court can discern no direct link between the criminal proceedings to which the Government referred and the applicants’ complaint: the proceedings in question are not designed to establish whether the agents of the State safeguarded the applicants’ physical well-being or dignity, but rather to ascertain whether Mr Gutsanov was guilty of conspiracy and of various other criminal offences linked to his position as chairman of Varna municipal council ...


115.  The Government disagreed with these allegations. They stated that the first applicant and Umar Zabiyev had not been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents and that the allegations of the ill-treatment had been investigated. They emphasised it was impossible to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev given that those responsible for his injuries mentioned in the forensic report of 11 June 2003 had not been identified. They further asserted that the first applicant had sustained mildly severe bodily injuries and that an investigation into their infliction had been opened, but submitted no information on progress in that investigation. The first applicant had also been granted victim status in case no. 23600032 concerning her son's killing.


123.  The Government first argued that the applicant’s regime in Daugavpils Prison had not exceeded the minimum threshold to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the construction works in the unit for life-sentenced prisoners in Daugavpils Prison had been finished by July 2008. They argued that the applicant could have taken part in recreational and educational activities, such as daily exercise (for one hour), use of the gym with a TV set (one and a half hours), use of the computer room (one and a half hours) and use of the library. Moreover, he had been offered an opportunity to work in prison, but as he had refused to come to work on a number of occasions, he had been fired. The Government also submitted that the constant use of escort dogs had been stopped in 2007 and that “their use is limited to emergency cases”. In addition, panels conducting the individual risk assessment of life-sentenced prisoners had commenced their work.


74.  The Government further stated that the first applicant’s complaints had been duly investigated at the domestic level – in particular, a number of police officers had been questioned and two medical examinations had been performed – and that there were sufficient grounds for the decision refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. The Government opined that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the first applicant’s complaints.


40.  The Government argued that the police officers had not hit the applicant but merely ordered him to stop filming and pushed away the camera. In any event the State authorities had examined the complaint lodged by the applicant and the police officers in question had been admonished by the Minister of Internal Affairs for their behaviour. In so far as the conditions of the applicant's detention were concerned, the Government contended that the detention had been too short for the suffering to attain the minimum threshold of severity necessary to trigger a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed to the case of Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (no. 4) (no. 18491/07, §§ 37-39, 7 April 2009), in which a complaint concerning poor conditions of detention had been declared inadmissible on account of the short duration of the detention.


50.  The Government referred to the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaints and submitted that the applicant’s allegations had been properly investigated in conformity with the requirements of the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed did not mean that the investigation had been ineffective.


112.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained under this heading that Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had probably been subjected to ill-treatment upon their respective abductions. Article 3 reads:


69.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and deprived of food. He complained under Article 5 of the Convention that there had been no judicial authorisation of his detention from 14 July 2004 to 8 June 2005; that he had not been afforded an opportunity to be present at the remand hearing on 21 February 2007 and on appeal on 14 June 2007.


68.  The Government relied on the information from the US Department of State Reports that persons arrested for political reasons were treated better than “ordinary” prisoners and presumably were therefore not subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is however of the opinion that better treatment does not necessarily mean treatment in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention. At the same time it notes other reports that torture and other ill-treatment of protesters and detainees was widespread at that time. It also notes the admission of the Guinean Government in 2010 before the UN Human Rights Council that “serious and massive” human rights violations were committed between June 2006 and September 2009.


113.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the applicants by the fact of their relatives' disappearance, that, in the Government's view, was beyond the evaluation of the law enforcement authorities and could not be objectively measured, as it related to psychological aspects, such as the emotions and personalities of the individuals concerned.


23.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. His case had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in his favour had been issued. The applicant had received adequate and sufficient compensation and, as regards Šiauliai Remand Prison, the number of inmates there had constantly changed over the course of 235 days, and thus that had positively affected the applicant’s personal space. The compensation for this period could thus be reduced. The Government also stated that, as regards Klaipėda police station, the applicant had received adequate compensation, and it had to be taken into account that at all times he had had more than 4 square metres of personal space there. Finally, the Government argued that although in Lukiškės Remand Prison the applicant had not had enough personal space for one evening and the partition between the sanitary facilities and the rest of the cells had not been sufficient, the acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant’s rights had been sufficient.


46.  The applicants alleged that the conditions of their detention had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, drawing the Court’s attention in particular to the lack of outdoor activities and the poor quality of the food. They argued that their detention in police stations for such long periods of time had constituted per se a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and cited the Court’s judgments in Vafiadis v. Greece (no. 24981/07, 2 July 2009), Shuvaev v. Greece (no. 8249/07, 29 October 2009) and Ibram v. Greece (no. 39606/09, 25 October 2011), in which the Court had found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.


36.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. In this connection they also relied on Article 13 of the Convention and alleged that they had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaint of ill-treatment by the police officers because the public prosecution had become time-barred, resulting in the discontinuance of the proceedings. The applicant in application no. 38513/05 also invoked Article 6 of the Convention in this respect.


64.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak, cited above, in §§ 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had been moved to a cell in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 m2 per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.


59.  The applicant argued that a further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division in the asylum proceedings, as well as in the proceedings on the exclusion order, was not an “effective” remedy as the Division would not have reviewed the facts on the basis of which the Regional Court had found that the applicant’s removal would not be contrary to Article 3. In this connection, he relied on three rulings given by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on 27 April 2005 (no. 200409315/1), 17 June 2005 (no. 200501236/1) and 7 July 2005 (no. 200500948/1) respectively. In these three rulings the Administrative Jurisdiction Division reiterated its well-established case-law at that time that an individual member of a group against which organised, large-scale human rights violations are committed must establish that specific facts and circumstances exist relating to him or her personally in order to qualify for the protection offered by Article <mask> of the Convention.


51.  The Government, for their part, referred to the Independent Administrative Panel's decision of 3 September 1999. They underlined that it had held a number of hearings, some of which had been conducted shortly after the events at issue, and that it had carried out a visit on the spot. Assessing the applicant's complaints in the light of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Independent Administrative Panel had come to the conclusion that they were unfounded.


62.  The Government argued that Article 3 was not applicable to the present case since the applicant had suffered only bodily injuries of a lesser nature. Should the Court nonetheless find Article 3 applicable, the Government maintained that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention did not require a judgment convicting the perpetrators of a crime. Therefore, the Court’s assessment should be limited to the effectiveness of the investigation. In that connection the Government stressed that there had been an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of an attack against him and that the State Attorney’s Office and the police had established all the relevant facts. They had heard evidence from the applicant, the alleged assailants and two independent witnesses. These authorities had not found any indication that the attack on the applicant had been racially motivated. Since the alleged perpetrators had been either minors or young adults, special provisions were to be applied. The Government admitted that the criminal proceedings had been terminated owing to expiry of the statutory limitation period, but argued that that in itself could not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.


43.  The applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical care while in detention. He further complained that the date for his operation had repeatedly been postponed and that it had been the authorities’ responsibility to have it rescheduled. He alleged that the delay in performing his operation had resulted in the deterioration of his health and in other forms of suffering. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


90.  The applicant referred to his factual submissions (see paragraphs 33-35 and 48 above) and maintained that the physical conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs had been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Both buildings dated from the nineteenth century and needed complete renovation. Both had been severely overcrowded, poorly lit and ventilated and had lacked proper sanitary facilities.


74.  The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies in relation to both applications because the Federal Constitutional Court, in its leading decision of 5 February 2004 to which that court's decision in his case had referred, had also had regard to the provisions of the Basic Law which corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention.


71.  The Government submitted in respect of the applicant’s first detention in the detention facility of the General Police Station that he had been detained in four different cells which measured between seven and thirteen square metres and contained three to four persons at any time. Every cell had a window through which natural light passed. The inmates were disinfected every seven days. Every cell had a sanitary facility with running water and the inmates were provided with products for personal hygiene. The applicant was provided with medical assistance every time he requested it. The food was appropriate and was provided to the applicants in accordance with the existing norms. According to the Government the CPT reports relied on by the applicant were no longer up to date because between 2004, when the last CPT report had been adopted, and 2005 the situation had improved. In any event the applicant’s detention was too short to attain the minimum threshold of suffering required under Article <mask> of the Convention.


28.  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 the police officers responsible for the treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


96.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the material conditions of detention while he was in the custody of the Prahova Police Department. Moreover, he complained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him for murder had been unfair in so far as the witnesses for the prosecution had mostly been relatives of the victims, the domestic courts had misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions and lacked impartiality, and he had not been able to have witnesses examined in his defence. Lastly, the applicant complained in substance under Article 8 of the Convention that he had been unable to contact his family while he was in the custody of the Prahova Police Department.


52.  The applicant maintained that the cells had been severely overcrowded, that he had not had a separate bed, that there had been no ventilation or privacy during the use of sanitary facilities. Referring to the Court’s case-law, he submitted that the cumulative effects of overcrowding, absence of ventilation, excessive temperatures and lack of privacy had manifestly exceeded the “minimum level of severity” required for the treatment to be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that despite the serious nature of his injuries the police officers who had inflicted the ill-treatment on him had not been punished. He further maintained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings against the police officers had been excessive. Under the same head, he contended that the Istanbul Assize Court had dismissed his objection to the judgment of 23 December 2008 without awaiting his submissions and without holding a hearing. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that he had been denied an effective remedy in domestic law on account of the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against the police officers.


80.  The applicant submitted that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment for his periodontitis. More specifically, his doctor’s recommendation in 2009 that he be given a dental prosthesis and moved to a semi-liquid or liquid diet had never been acted on by the authorities. As a result, he had had to endure constant pain and hunger, he had lost almost 70 % of his teeth and had developed an ulcer and gastroduodenitis. He had brought this situation to the attention of the competent authorities on numerous occasions but to no effect. The applicant contended that the regulations which provided that the cost of dental prostheses for prisoners who do not have any income shall be supported jointly by the social security scheme and the prison’s budget were ineffective since there was no special budget allocated for prosthetic work for prisoners and, according to the information submitted by the national authorities, only two prisoners had benefited from this system of payment between 2012 and 2013. The applicant concluded that the suffering he had endured because of the authorities’ inaction for a period of more than five years had gone beyond the threshold necessary to constitute degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention.


67.  The Government reiterated their account of the detention conditions at the Kumkapı Removal Centre (see paragraphs 18-20 above) and stated that those conditions complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided photos of some of the sleeping and communal areas, as well as copies of the logs recording the number of male detainees at the removal centre on various dates during the applicant’s detention.


38.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged negligence on the part of the prison authorities. In addition, they also claimed that the complaint was unsubstantiated. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical treatment for all of his ailments throughout his detention.


38.  The Government referred to the Court's finding in Sarban (cited above, § 78) that the material conditions of the applicant's detention did not exceed the level of severity required for an issue to arise under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court referred in that paragraph to the conditions of detention at the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”, see paragraphs 26 and 45-47 in Sarban), while the applicant complained in the present case about the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13, another institution. The Court recalls the CPT's finding in paragraph 53 of its 2004 report in respect of the CFECC that “the material conditions in this remand centre prove that it is clearly possible to ensure in Moldova adequate material conditions of detention”. Unfortunately, the same could not be said about Prison no. 13 in Chişinău.


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


111.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. His representatives further supplemented his complaint, submitting that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of his secret transfer to Uzbekistan, which could only have been achieved with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation. Article 3 reads as follows:


31.  The applicant disagreed and claimed that her lawyer had complained twice to the domestic courts about the inadequacy of the medical assistance available to her as an epileptic. She submitted copies of the complaints made to the investigating judge and the Chişinău Court of Appeal in which her lawyer had asked for her release in order for her to obtain the medical assistance required by her illness, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, she had allegedly made verbal complaints to the prison administration, but to no avail.


69.  The applicant complained that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also decided, of its own motion, to examine this issue under Article 13 of the Convention. The relevant provisions of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


54.  The applicant maintained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected amounted to torture. The Government did not comment. The Court observes that the applicant sustained multiple injuries to his chest, left leg and foot. The injuries must have caused him mental and physical suffering. Moreover, it appears that the use of force was aimed at debasing the applicant, driving him into submission and making him confess to a criminal offence. Therefore, the Court finds that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected was sufficiently serious to be considered inhuman and degrading within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


109.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured psychological distress in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under this Convention provision that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the servicemen who had abducted Isa Aytamirov and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the alleged ill-treatment. Article 3 reads:


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


34.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they contended that he could have challenged the decisions of 11 September 2003 and 1 March 2004 before a court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, but he had never used that remedy. They also argued that the applicant would be able to receive compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in criminal or civil proceedings if the guilt of those responsible for inhuman treatment in his respect was established by a final and binding court decision.


381.  The Government disputed the applicant’s argument that his request for a stay of execution had no chance of succeeding, producing five of the Board’s judgments from 2008 and 2009 ordering the suspension of transfers to Greece under the extremely urgent procedure on the ground that, in view of the gravity of the applicants’ complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, the order to leave the country was not, prima facie, sufficiently well-reasoned. According to the Government, it was always in the applicants’ interest to proceed with their applications for judicial review so as to give the Aliens Appeals Board and then the Conseil d’Etat an opportunity to propose a solution and analyse the lawfulness of the impugned measures.


57.  The Government contested that argument. They considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the special detention centre in Ivanovo had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. It was impossible to provide any data concerning the daily population of the cells in the detention centre, since the applicable national legislation did not require such data to be kept. In any event, the personal space afforded to the applicant had at all times been in compliance with domestic standards. The Government’s submissions were based on a report prepared by the district prosecutor’s office on 22 February 2012.


58.  The applicant argued that in view of the severity of the attack against him and the injuries he had sustained, Article 3 was applicable to the present case. As to the compliance of the State with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant argued that real and effective protection from the act of ill-treatment required effective investigation and prosecution. In this connection he stressed that the State’s positive obligation could not be limited to merely conducting an investigation. An investigation did not serve any purpose on its own, nor, alone, did it provide any protection against and redress for ill-treatment where it was not accompanied by effective follow-up. He maintained that the State authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his case and that they had also failed to apply the relevant criminal-law mechanisms in an adequate manner. The investigating authorities had failed to act effectively and numerous mistakes and delays had occurred, causing the prosecution to become time-barred. In the applicant’s view, the time-barring itself amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Although the assailants had admitted in their interviews with the police that they had hit the applicant, the State Attorney’s Office had brought a criminal prosecution against only one of them, B.B.


13.  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, high temperatures in the cells and inadequate health care.


17.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied a fair trial and an effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint. He maintained, in particular, that the national authorities had failed to carry out an effective official investigation capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible for torturing him.


43.  The Government argued that in the internal enquiry held following the applicant’s complaint to the Supreme Court about the alleged breach of his voting rights, the complaints as to the verbal insults of the prison guards proved untrue as the prison guards denied the applicant’s allegations. The Government emphasised that the Supreme Court in its decision of 27 October 1993, had carefully assessed the circumstances of the case and found no breach of the applicant’s voting rights. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


30.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate and prosecute the individuals who had assaulted him. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see, among other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


29.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Valmiera Prison had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that as a result of the prison administration’s refusal to provide him with personal hygiene products such as toilet soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste and toilet paper he had constantly felt dirty and humiliated. He also alleged that the toilets were not separated from the rest of the cell.


21.  The applicant alleged that, in the course of his detention in the custody of the Istanbul police headquarters between 6 and 20 November 1992 (see paragraphs 6‑7 above), he had been subjected to serious forms of torture in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further alleged that he had been detained in police custody for a period of 14 days before being brought before the judge at the Istanbul State Security Court on 20 November 1992. In the applicant's opinion, he had not been brought promptly before the judge, in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant alleged that his inability to benefit from early release pursuant to Law no. 4616 on account of the fact that he had been convicted under Article 168 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 8 above), violated his rights under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.


72.  The applicants complained that none of the domestic authorities had reviewed the merits of their claim that they faced treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in their country of origin. At the same time the requests for judicial review of the decisions not to grant them asylum had had no automatic suspensive effect. Replying to an objection of the Government on the ground that he had withdrawn his request for a judicial review in the asylum proceedings, the first applicant stated that this had been due to the fact that he had already been held at the airport for a long time and he intended to lodge a new asylum application by which he hoped to be released from the airport reception centre. However, he had not been able to do so while his original application had been pending.


62.  The Government listed the cells in which the applicant was kept in the Gdansk Detention Centre. They acknowledged that between 29 August and 1 September 2005 and between 12 and 15 September 2005 the space per person in the applicant’s cells had been inferior to 3m². They argued, however, that the applicant had not suffered inhuman or degrading treatment which attained the minimum level of severity within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


36.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that while in police custody he had been subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture. He further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a serious and impartial investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment and that they had thus deprived him of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.


60.  The Government argued that their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had been fully discharged. As regards the applicant’s medical treatment, they submitted that shortly after his very first complaint to the resident doctor in October 2013, he had been subjected to an in-depth medical examination and had received comprehensive medical treatment comprising injections, a drug regimen and physiotherapy. The authorities had used their utmost efforts to restore his health. In support of their arguments the Government submitted the applicant’s complete medical file.


38.  The applicant complained that his detention at the Güzelçamlı gendarmerie station was unlawful and thus in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. He also alleged under Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention that he had not been provided with information at any stage of his detention regarding the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, its maximum length or any means of challenging it. Lastly, he maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions in which he was detained at the Güzelçamlı gendarmerie station, coupled with the mental anguish arising from lack of communication with the outside world, the uncertain length of the detention and the risk of being deported, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.


284.  The Government submitted that the claims were exorbitant, that the amounts sought were far higher than any previous awards made by the Court in conditions-of-detention cases in Bulgaria. In their view, the mere finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants, especially in relation to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention flowing from Mr Harakchiev’s whole life sentence. The Government noted that Mr Harakchiev had served less than ten years of his sentence and, having shown no signs of remorse or rehabilitation, was not in a position to seek a modification of his prison regime or an adjustment of his sentence.


49.  The applicant submitted that her injuries were serious enough to bring the case within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, with special regard to her sex, the unlawful nature of the policeman’s action and that she, being a foreigner, did not speak Hungarian. She had, therefore, not understood what was happening. Concerning the mental effects, she submitted that she had felt deeply humiliated and had experienced considerable psychological trauma, which had resulted in her decision to leave Hungary.


123.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during and after his abduction Bashir Mutsolgov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate that allegation. They also submitted that, as a result of their relative's 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:


36.  The Government went on to say that since the amount of time that the applicant had spent in police detention had been quite brief, the conditions of that detention had not reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also disputed parts of the applicant’s account of the conditions in the pre-trial detention facility and of the medical care provided to him there.


84.  The Government also reiterated that the reason why the domestic authorities had refused to reopen criminal case no. 50207598 was not because the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had been established in a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government and accepted by the Court, but because the unilateral declaration did not and could not contain any new facts or evidence that could be used in the investigation to remedy the shortcomings which had led the Government to concede a violation of Article 3.


12.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration on 26 September 2014. In particular, they acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the remand centre had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, and expressed their readiness to pay the applicant 3,765 euros (EUR) as just compensation. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The remainder of the declaration read as follows:


34.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Varna Prison for the period from 25 February 2003 to 19 April 2004. They further argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open to him to seek damages in respect of the remaining period of his detention in that prison. They cited a number of judgments in which domestic courts had awarded damages in connection with poor conditions of detention. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the conditions in which the applicant had been detained in Varna Prison had been the same for all prisoners and therefore had not revealed any intention of humiliating the applicant.


38.   The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, including his detention in solitary confinement from 10 December 2008 to 8 October 2010, as well as the conditions of his detention in correctional facility IK-56 from 4 November 2010 onwards had amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the Russian authorities had placed him in solitary confinement and thus in social isolation, and that they had taken no steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical care. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


55.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention of M.S.A. and R.K. in the detention centre for foreign nationals, because the conditions of their detention had been in full compliance with the domestic standards regulating such centres. The Government also submitted that the duration of their stay there had been relatively short, but did not make any further observations on the merits of the present complaint.


62.  The Government further submitted that they had not been able to duly examine the applicant’s description of the conditions of detention and to substantiate their own position because the relevant documents had been destroyed after the expiry of the relevant statutory time-limits. Therefore, the case should not be examined solely on the basis of information provided by the applicant unless it was supported by relevant material. The applicant could have obtained such documents if he had applied to a domestic court for compensation in respect of damage sustained as a result of the allegedly poor conditions of detention. The Government pointed out, referring to the case of Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009), that the effectiveness of such a remedy was not in doubt. The analyses in the domestic case-law showed that Russian citizens had actively applied that remedy. A number of persons in the Perm and Kazan regions had obtained compensation for damage sustained as a result of unacceptable conditions of detention. In the case of Mr. S., the Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Republic of Mariy-El had acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and made an award for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 250,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Mr D. had been awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 25,000.


30.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that in 1998 the police officers had beaten him up and forced him to confess. He further complained, under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, about the restrictions on his right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice. He also complained, under Article 6 § 3 (d), of the Convention that the court did not hear the defence witnesses until two years after the criminal proceedings had been instituted.


50.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had endured mental suffering because of the national authorities’ reaction to the disappearance of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and their failure to investigate it properly. The third applicant complained under the same Convention provision that he had been subjected to ill-treatment after his abduction and that the national investigation into the matter had not been adequate. Article 3 reads:


54.  The Government submitted that they had indeed applied close and rigorous scrutiny to ascertain all relevant facts to establish that the applicant would not be at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if expelled to Sudan. Regarding the overall credibility of the applicant’s submissions, the Government submitted that his statements regarding the itinerary he had taken while fleeing were only one piece of evidence, among others which raised doubts about the alleged persecution the applicant would face if returned to Sudan. As established in the first asylum proceedings, the applicant had also made inconsistent and contradictory statements about the name of the village where he claimed to have grown up and had further lacked basic knowledge of the region he claimed to originate from.


47.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court on 27 March 2015. In this connection, the Court notes 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 therefore cannot conceive of allowing authorities to circumvent an interim measure, such as the one indicated in the present case, by replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of an applicant’s situation. However, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case. In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which was to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant, independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continued exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, § 67, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013).


62.  The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order to complain about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention. They cited, in particular, “a possibility of lodging applications with the State authorities and courts”. However, the applicant had failed to use them. The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaint was in any event manifestly ill-founded as the applicant had been provided with appropriate medical assistance during his detention in remand prison.


27.  The Government submitted that the applicant did not stay in the Kopeysk IVS continuously, but rather for short periods of up to three days. Furthermore, he was often taken out of the cell to take part in investigations or to attend court hearings. The applicant had sufficient personal space at this disposal and also had had the right to one hour of outdoor exercise daily. Although the cells did not have tables or bed linen, the conditions of the applicant's detention were generally compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention.


42.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He failed to bring a civil action for compensation under Articles 23 and 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code whereby persons deprived of their liberty who had suffered a violation of their personal rights as a result of the conditions of their detention may bring a civil action against the State Treasury. They provided some examples of the domestic practice in this respect.


89.  The Government considered that the medical treatment prescribed and administered to the applicant had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been under regular medical supervision and had received the necessary medication. His condition could be said to be satisfactory and stable. On the other hand, in the Government’s opinion, the applicant had been negligent in following the prescribed treatment. In particular, on several occasions he had refused to undergo antiretroviral therapy. As regards his tuberculosis infection, in the Government’s opinion, the applicant had contracted it prior to being remanded in custody. The reactivation of tuberculosis during the applicant’s detention had been provoked by HIV.


35.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had subjected him to torture in order to force him to confess to a crime. He argued that he could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 because the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, and the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


98.  The Government conceded that remand centre IZ-77/2 had been overcrowded at the time of the first applicant’s detention. According to the information provided by them, the first applicant was afforded from 1.4 to 2 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 6 and from 1.2 to 1.4 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 122. In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually had less than three and a half square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Guliyev, cited above, § 32; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005). The Court is also mindful of the fact that the cells in which the first applicant was detained contained some furniture and fittings, such as bunk beds and the lavatory, which must have further reduced the floor surface available to him. In the absence of any information as to whether the first applicant was afforded daily exercise, the Court concludes that he was detained in the cramped conditions described above day and night for one year and four months.


53.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant had stated his concerns of ill-treatment after the decision on extradition had already been taken. These allegations had been examined by appeal courts at two levels of jurisdiction and dismissed. The Government further relied on the decision of the FMS by which the applicant's request for refugee status had been found unsubstantiated. Lastly, the Government relied on the assurances provided by the Belarusian authorities covering the applicant's concerns.