33.  The Government endorsed the domestic authorities' findings that in the light of the specific circumstances of the case the impugned measures were proportionate. They stressed that ex ante there was reason to assume that the applicant was a very dangerous person who was furthermore experienced in hand-to-hand combat. Moreover, the applicant had confronted the intervening police officers while holding a knife. The statement of a participating officer before the Independent Administrative Panel indicated that the applicant had been informed about the reasons of the police intervention at its very beginning. As regards the alleged blindfolding during the strip search, the Government pointed out that the applicant had alluded to his blindfolding for the first time in his complaint with the Independent Administrative Panel but had not mentioned it as a reason for his complaint. Therefore neither the Independent Administrative Panel nor the Administrative Court had to dwell on this issue. In any event, the strip search had lasted only for some minutes so that an eventual blindfolding happened during a very short time. Nor could it be established that a police officer had actually pressed his knee against the applicant's neck while he was lying on the ground. Furthermore, the applicant had admitted that he could – albeit with difficulty – watch the police officers during the search of his house which indicates that no pressure had been placed on his neck. In the view of the background of the intervention and its relatively short duration it could be assumed that the police officers proceeded with utmost care until they could be sure that the applicant would not attempt an act of violence or try to escape. They made efforts not to tear the applicant's clothes during the strip search, did not cause any disorder in the applicant's flat and brought him back home after his release. As regards the applicant's complaint about the handcuffing, the Government pointed out that the handcuffs were covered when he was taken to the police car. In the light of the massive reproaches against the applicant, his interrogation lasting three hours did not appear excessive either. The Government concluded that the intervention did not reach the minimum threshold of Article <mask> of the Convention.


148.  The applicant complained that the unlawful taking and demolition of her flat had amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further complained that her forced eviction from her flat against her will had been in breach of her right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and had also amounted to a violation of Article 18 of the Convention.


62.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by three detainee escort officers on the premises of Riga Regional Court on 8 May 2006. Referring to Article 1 and Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention he also complained about the investigation into these events. He stated that the investigation had not been thorough, diligent and impartial, and that it had been unreasonably long.


70.  The Government contended that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and had been thorough and effective. They submitted that the allegations raised by the applicant’s mother in her initial complaint could not be considered credible as she had learned of them from the applicant’s friends and the applicant’s wife failed to reaffirm them. They, also, submitted that the effectiveness of a remedy did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant and that the domestic authorities had carried out all the necessary steps to examine the complaint raised by the applicant’s mother; that is: they had examined all the relevant forensic evidence, collected medical documentation and related reports, and conducted interviews with the applicant, his mother, his wife and other witnesses.


53.  The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government in respect of the remand prison population. In particular, he pointed out that the figures concerning the remand prison population contained visible corrections. In any event, he asserted that, if the Government’s allegations were accepted as credible, the personal space afforded to him during the periods of his detention in cells nos. 401 and 411 had been below three square metres, which fact alone had been found by the Court on many occasions as sufficient to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the correctional colonies, the applicant conceded that the conditions of his detention there had been better than the conditions of detention in the remand prison. Nevertheless, in view of insufficient personal space afforded to him and the scarcity and low quality of food there, he considered that those conditions had been incompatible with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention.


46.  The Government, referring to their description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention submitted before the Court (see paragraphs 20-23 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary measures to ensure adequate conditions of detention for the applicant and that his complaint was groundless. In addition, the Government submitted that the short period of the applicant’s detention should be taken into account when deciding on the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


125.  The applicants complained that, at the moment of their abduction and after it, Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev were subjected to ill‑treatment. The second applicant also complained that she had been beaten by the men who had abducted her brother. The applicants further claimed that, as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and the State's failure to investigate the crimes properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


35.  The applicant maintained his submissions made in the domestic proceedings. He stated that his conversion to Christianity was genuine and lasting. Referring to a number of reports on the situation of Christian converts, he argued that his conversion in and of itself put him at a real risk of being killed or ill-treated, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Iran applied the death penalty for apostasy and Christian converts were at a much higher risk of ill-treatment than persons born as Christians in Iran. He pointed out that the Iranian authorities increasingly sought out members of Christian house churches. Finally, he was not only at risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the state, but also from non-state actors, and could not rely on the Iranian authorities to protect him from such groups.


138.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had duly processed all the applicants' requests and they had enjoyed the rights to which victims were entitled in criminal investigations. They stressed that the applicants had not witnessed the alleged arrest of their relatives and that, on the contrary, the latest documents available concerning the whereabouts of their sons attested that they had been absolved of criminal liability and released, demonstrating that the State had no reasons to prosecute them.


33.  The applicant complained that on 15 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events. 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:


29.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on him had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He submitted, in particular, that he had never had a disciplinary punishment in prison and that for many years he had felt “depressed owing to isolation, loneliness and the many body searches”.


52.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations concerning the risk of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention had been thoroughly studied by the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s extradition and those concerning his request for refugee status. The domestic courts rightly rejected the references made by the applicant’s representative to various reports describing the general situation regarding the allegedly widespread ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan as being too general and insufficient for the purposes of blocking the applicant’s extradition. The Government expressed their firm belief that any risk of ill-treatment that might arise from the general situation in Kyrgyzstan has been completely excluded in the circumstances of the present case since the applicant’s extradition has been requested through official channels with the provision of the necessary guarantees. They further submitted that it was highly unlikely that the Kyrgyz authorities – who in 2014 had demonstrated their openness and commitment to cooperating with international organisations in fighting the ill-treatment and discrimination of ethnic Uzbeks – would breach those guarantees. The Government went on to affirm that no instances of non-compliance by the Kyrgyz authorities with the guarantees given in respect of extradited ethnic Uzbeks had been recorded so far in the course of the cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and Russia.


78.  The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to physical ill‑treatment by State Police officers while being arrested on 26 March 2004. The applicant submitted that his descriptions of the event given at different points in time had been complementary. He further relied on the results of examination at Riga no. 1 Hospital and the expert’s report and its conclusions. The applicant referred to Ribitsch v. Austria (4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which had not been made strictly necessary diminished human dignity and infringed Article <mask> of the Convention.


23.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and detention. He also complained that the conditions of his detention between his arrest and October 2006 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and about the authorities' failure to provide him with appropriate medical care while in detention. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


53.  The Government maintained that the criminal proceeding had not been completed yet and it was therefore too early to make any conclusions as to the credibility of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. They further submitted that domestic authorities complied with procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, contending that the investigation in question was being carried out thoroughly and comprehensively.


39.  The applicant submitted that the police officers should have been punished in accordance with the Criminal Code and not merely reprimanded, and that there has been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in particular after he had been left suffering without medical assistance for twelve hours. According to him, his arrest and detention in harsh conditions were intended to punish him for having protested in front of the Government building and to discourage him from doing so in the future.


48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that following his arrest on 6 December 2003 he had been subjected to psychological pressure and beatings by the police with a view to extracting his confession to the robbery and murder of Ms D. He also complained about the conditions of his detention in the police station. Namely, he alleged that he been deprived of food, sleep and medication. The provision relied on reads as follows:


26.  The applicant complained that the application of Article 586 of the CC in his case breached Article <mask> of the Convention in that it gave rise to an excessive and disproportionate punishment. Indeed, Article 586 did not apply a ceiling on the length of the imprisonment to which a sum could be converted. In the present case, there was no relationship of proportionality between the severity of the punishment (two thousand days’ imprisonment) and the minor infringement committed (the failure to observe a curfew). Moreover, this prison term, unlike in other cases, was not subject to remission for good behaviour.


55.  The Government failed to submit any document showing that the administrative authorities had conducted an assessment of the applicant’s asylum claim in the light of the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor did they demonstrate that the applicant had been notified of the content of the decision rejecting his asylum claim. Moreover, there are no documents in the case file to show that the authorities issued a formal deportation order and that the applicant was notified of that order. In their observations, the Government only submitted that the applicant had been suspected of involvement in international terrorism; that he had not been able to substantiate his allegations of possible ill-treatment; and that his claims had been assessed by the Ankara Administrative Court.


46.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. Referring to a number of court decisions in unrelated but relevant civil cases, where similar claims for compensation were allowed by domestic courts, the Government argued that the applicant should have sued the relevant State authority and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. Alternatively, he could have requested a domestic court, under Article 24 and 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, to order the relevant authorities to take additional measures for the protection of his health in prison. Since neither of those judicial remedies were resorted to by the applicant, the Government stated that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.


39.  The applicant contested these arguments. He affirmed that he had been detained in Korydallos Prison until 20 June 2013 and on that date he had been transferred to Larissa Prison, where he has remained until this day. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of detention in Larissa Prison submitting that they were similar to those in Korydallos Prison and should, therefore, be considered as a continuous situation.


37.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that such ill-treatment had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, decided to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision and which provides as follows:


74.  The applicants argued that, after they were hindered from continuing their travels to Baku, they were under the direct control of the Russian authorities and therefore in a comparable situation to persons in detention. The applicants further submitted that by not providing adequate care and protection to the applicants, as vulnerable members of society, the Russian authorities violated their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the conditions during their stay in Derbent led to physical suffering, feelings of humiliation and subsequent negative effects on the applicants’ health.


27.  The Government further addressed the applicant's argument of ineffective investigation into the events on 22 September 2001. They asserted that the Russian investigating authorities had done everything possible to effectively respond to the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment. They instituted criminal proceedings against the police officer and prepared his case for trial, having collected necessary evidence for the charges to be upheld in court. In the Government's view, those efforts, despite the officer's acquittal, corroborate the fact that the Russian authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant's case.


92.  The applicant contended that there had been no effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 29 and 30 October 2008. In particular, he had been totally excluded from the investigative process and in fact there was no evidence that any effective measures had been taken to investigate his complaints. In the applicant’s view this was obvious from the fact that the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office had rejected his criminal complaint solely on the basis of written material, which had been obtained without his knowledge and involvement. At the same time, no witnesses were questioned and no further investigative actions were taken. Similarly, in view of the very nature of the internal police assessment of lawfulness of the use of force it could not be said that such procedure aimed at the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention.


35.  The applicant complained that being exposed to public view, being taken to the court hearings in handcuffs and chained to another inmate, the poor material conditions of detention, his exposure to hazardous substances on 31 May 2010 in the cells of the Bucharest Police Department, the inappropriate material conditions of detention in the court-house cells, and the poor transport conditions every time he was taken to appear at court amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


68.  The Government stressed that the applicant lodged his complaint with the domestic authorities about the alleged ill-treatment with a substantial delay. They also contended that the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had been effective and had been held in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they stressed that all requisite measures had been taken (namely, forensic examination of the applicant, interrogation of relevant persons, etc.), following which it had been decided not to institute criminal proceedings.


52.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison had been compatible with the standards set forth in domestic legislation and the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on excerpts (22 in total) from the remand prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping places and the number of inmates in each cell, the total number of inmates in each of the seven wings of the remand prison and the total number of inmates in the entire remand prison, and on certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison concerning its population in August 2010. As for the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the correctional colonies, the Government submitted statements prepared by the colonies’ administration.


105.  The applicants submitted that the manner in which the police operation at their home had been carried out was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. On 31 March 2010, before dawn, a group of masked and heavily armed police officers had forced their way into their house without prior authorisation. The special officers had entered Mr and Mrs Gutsanovi’s bedroom and pointed their weapons at the couple’s two minor daughters. Mr Gutsanov, an influential and respected politician, had been forced to kneel down and been handcuffed.


38.  The Government also contended that the injuries found on the applicant’s body were not so serious as to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is not convinced of this, especially taking into consideration the applicant’s vulnerable state due to his very young age (fifteen at the time of the events). It considers that the treatment applied to the applicant could be qualified as inhuman and degrading. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb.


67.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 3 October 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing the medical expert opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation. Yet, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case (see paragraph 38 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of a relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013.


33.  The Government argued that the applicant’s conditions of detention could not be considered to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant was detained were found to be satisfactory and they were monitored on a regular basis. The applicant was allowed daily walks and was in good health. In particular the Government stressed that the applicant underwent a medical examination upon arrival and that during his detention he made no request for medical assistance. Finally, the authorities had no intention to make the applicant suffer, physically or morally, to debase his human dignity or to humiliate him during his detention.


26.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his time in police custody. In that connection, he claimed that he had been blindfolded, beaten and subjected to Palestinian hanging and had received electric shocks to his genitals several times. He further alleged that the medical examinations had not been conducted diligently and that his complaints had not been taken into account by the domestic authorities.


27.  The Government admitted that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate measures to protect the second, third and fourth applicants from ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further admitted that the authorities failed to meet the positive obligation to respect the family and private lives of the second, third and fourth applicants. Nevertheless, the Government contended that the second, third and fourth applicants were no longer victims because they were provided with satisfactory redress at the national level.


89.  The Government further noted that the situation of asylum-seekers in other EU Member States was constantly monitored and that assessments were made on the basis of current developments. There was a regular exchange of information between the Federal Asylum Office and liaison officers in Hungary, which also ensured the possibility of conducting individual investigations, where necessary. With reference to the pending proceedings concerning the applicant’s second asylum claim, the Government considered that the issue of whether the applicant’s transfer to Hungary would be in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention could not be answered in abstract terms.


91.  The applicant initially complained that his life sentence was de jure and de facto irreducible and that there was no separate regime for life prisoners or a special regime for detainees with psychiatric problems in the prisons where he had been held. In his letter of 2 November 2012 (see paragraph 3 above), following the conclusion of the periodic review of his life sentence, he further complained that even if a de jure possibility of conditional release had been created, de facto he had no hope of release as he had never been provided with any psychiatric treatment, and for that reason the risk of recidivism was deemed to be too high for him to be eligible for such release. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:


57.  The applicant submitted that the strip searches to which he had been subjected had been debasing and humiliating. He had been ordered to strip naked despite severe pain in his back. He had then been subjected to a search, including an inspection of his penis and anus. In his view, the prison guards had acted with the intention to humiliate and debase him and had not shown any respect for his human dignity. The applicant argued therefore that the situation complained of had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


16.  The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. Their cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions had been adopted in their favour. Mr Šukys had received adequate and sufficient compensation while Mr Vitanis had received an acknowledgement from the courts of a violation of domestic regulations.


95.  The Government observed that if a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on the applicant in the United States then Article <mask> of the Convention did not require the existence of a compulsory parole system as the one and only means to ensure compliance with the Convention. They further noted that the US Government had provided additional information about a shift of administrative practice in the kind of offences in question after the judgment issued in the Trabelsi case. According to the Government, the details furnished by the US authorities about how the Presidential clemency system now worked meant that the conclusion reached in Trabelsi should be reconsidered. In particular, the Government stressed that the objective, pre-established criteria that were currently at the cornerstone of the US Presidential clemency system, of which prisoners had precise knowledge at the time of the imposition of a life sentence and which meant they could obtain attain a reduction or commutation of their remaining time of detention if it could no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds, deserved careful consideration by the Court in the instant case.


104.  The applicant noted that where an individual was taken into police custody in good health but was found to be injured at the time of release, it was incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how these injuries had been caused, failing which a clear issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this case no such explanation had been given.


119.  The applicants complained that they had serious grounds to believe that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment before having been murdered and that no effective investigation had been conducted in that respect. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with the killing of their relatives and on account of the State’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the events concerned. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which states as follows:


101.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their relative’s disappearance. However, since the involvement of State agents into his abduction had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for their sufferings.


65.  The Government acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape. They observed that the courts of the Dagestan Republic had repeatedly criticised the ineffectiveness of the inquiry carried out by the investigative authorities and held that the latter’s acts and omissions were in breach of domestic law.


101.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution (see paragraph 91 above) and section 1405 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 92 above). Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article 3 of the Convention.


57.  The Government observed that, as had also been noted by the criminal investigator in her decision of 21 January 2003, within one month of the alleged violence occurring the police had been called only twice, but the applicant had made no allegations of being physically attacked by J.H.L., either in her statements to the police or to the officers who had attended her apartment on those two occasions. She had only complained that J.H.L. had refused to let her enter the apartment which they both shared as co-owners (see paragraph 16 above). However, on four occasions the applicant had taken it upon herself to ask the forensic experts to issue reports about the alleged injuries. In this connection, it had to be observed that, having analysed the evidence, the criminal investigator had had certain doubts concerning the nature of the disagreements between the applicant and J.H.L., and in her decision of 21 January 2003 the investigator had considered that the criminal investigation could have been initiated by the applicant because there existed unresolved financial disputes between her and J.H.L. For the Government, the latter decision by the investigator also revealed inconsistency in the statements given by J.H.L., the applicant and some of the witnesses regarding the alleged acts of violence, such discrepancies being an important aspect when deciding the issue of the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention.


28. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his custody. He also maintained that he had been arrested on 5 September 1999, not on 8 September 1999 as indicated in the arrest report. According to the applicant, he was beaten on the head and neck by a truncheon, punched, kicked and his testicles were squeezed during his interrogation at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate Building. In this respect, the applicant relied on medical reports dated 14 and 15 September 1999.


29.  The Government further submitted that detention conditions in IK-3 and prison hospital had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that in both facilities the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, sufficient food, clothes and bedding; and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature norms had been met (set out in paragraphs 12-14 and 19-20 above) and claimed that detention conditions in both penitentiary facilities had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government enclosed statements by several inmates who confirmed that in IK-3 there had been sufficient heating and that the detainees had never slept in their clothes.


81.  The applicants alleged that they had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, at the hands of the Belgian authorities. They explained, firstly, that they had been left for more than ten days in the transit zone without any legal or social assistance, without any means of subsistence, without accommodation or washing or sleeping facilities, without any place to enjoy a private life, without access to means of communication, without being able to receive visits and without any possibility of having the conditions of their detention reviewed by external independent authorities. Secondly, they had been beaten several times and insulted. They relied on Article 3, which provides:


153.  The Government contended that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged atmosphere of fear and uncertainty should equally be rejected for being out of time. From the time when she was recognised as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings, she could no longer claim that the atmosphere had been uncertain because the body found in Tarashcha had been identified with a high degree of certainty as being that of her husband, and criminal proceedings for murder had been initiated.


74.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Kerch ITT. He also complained under the same provision that there had been no adequate forensic examination of the injuries sustained by him in his fight with Mr and Mrs L. According to him, those injuries had been more serious than the courts claimed. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of the facts of the case and had misapplied the law. He also complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) that his representation by the lawyers appointed for him had been inadequate. The applicant also invoked Article 3 of the Convention in this connection. He further invoked Article 6 § 3 (d) without providing further details. He also complained that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence with the Court, having allegedly opened and read without his permission the Court’s letter of 24 August 2006 addressed to him. Lastly, in his reply to the Government’s observations the applicant raised for the first time a complaint under Article 6 about the hearing in the Supreme Court held in his absence and without him being legally represented, but in which the prosecutor participated.


111.  The applicant also maintained that ARV treatment was not accessible in all cases in Nigeria. In fact, only a minority of people living with advanced-stage HIV had access to it free of charge. The applicant had no funds and no social network and was liable to be stigmatised and discriminated against in seeking access to the labour market, in common with HIV sufferers generally and women in particular. It would therefore be very difficult if not impossible for her to fund her treatment, and a return to Nigeria would place her at risk of death within a short time in conditions of physical and mental suffering attaining the threshold of severity required by Article 3. In the applicant’s view, the Court should apply the same reasoning as in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III) and find that the difference between someone already close to death and someone who would die within a short time was minimal, and that expelling either a dying person or a person who was going to die within a short time was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


52.  The Government submitted that at the time the authorities had been unable to provide four square metres of cell space per detainee in this remand facility, as required under Russian law (see also paragraph 46 above). The problem of overpopulation had been widespread at the relevant time and could not be resolved in view of the high level of crime and a lack of funding. However, the mere fact of non-compliance with the national requirements concerning cell space per detainee, in the Government’s view, did not suffice to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The remaining conditions of the applicant’s detention (the fact that he had an individual bed and bedding, the light and temperature conditions in the cells, the presence of a toilet and table) had been acceptable.


48.  The Government further submitted that the allegations of psychological ill-treatment were manifestly ill-founded and that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable, given that the alleged ill-treatment had not reached the minimum level of severity required by that Convention provision. In this regard the Government submitted that the applicant had not specified in sufficient detail the manner and extent of the alleged psychological ill-treatment and its consequences. However, the fact that the law-enforcement officers had explained to her the negative legal consequences of the crime could not be interpreted as treatment prohibited by the Convention. Moreover, no indications of ill-treatment had been found by the domestic authorities, who had carried out a thorough examination of the matter.


71.  The applicant complained that between 7 and 10 September 2007 he had been physically and psychologically ill-treated by his fellow inmates at the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre and that the administration had not ensured his safety. He did not rely on any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


49.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had 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.


69.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not been suffering from any illness incompatible with his detention. He had been given all the medical care recommended during his detention, with the exception of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment. However, the latter was only an additional treatment that had not been proven in clinical trials to have any discernible effect on patients with medical conditions similar to the applicant's. The applicant had been seen by a number of doctors during his detention and had subsequently been placed under the medical supervision of prison hospital doctors, who had followed all the treatment prescribed to him by specialist doctors. His conditions of detention and treatment had not therefore amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


78.  The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. She also complained 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:


102.  The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court about the conditions of his confinement at that court’s convoy premises. On the merits, they relied on the letter from the President of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court and submitted that the first applicant’s conditions of detention at the courthouse complied with the requirements set out in the Detention of Suspects Act. With reference to the certificate issued by the head of remand centre IZ-77/2, they claimed that the first applicant had been provided with a dry ration on the days of the court hearings, and concluded that the conditions of his confinement at the District Court’s premises had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention.


46.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about ill-treatment by the police and the lack of any investigation into such ill-treatment. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, he complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and arbitrary. He further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that his case had been unlawfully transferred to the Sumy Regional Court, which had no territorial jurisdiction over the case; that the investigation had concealed important pieces of evidence; that the courts had been biased; and that the proceedings had been excessively long.


61.  The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention in Ploieşti Prison and of the general lack of adequate medical treatment for the venous thromboses in his legs. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, a lack of water, a lack of physical exercise and poor nutrition. Moreover, he complained that during detention he had been diagnosed with venous thrombosis in his legs and that he had not been treated adequately because of a lack of medicines and budget to pay for the medical expenses. He relied in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


39.  The Government maintained that the level of severity required for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be regarded as having been attained in the instant case. In particular, as regards the applicant’s detention in Omonoia police station, the Government cited the Court’s decisions in Ciocan and others v. Greece (dec.) (no. 41806/13, 6 October 2015) and Preci v. Greece (dec.) (no. 9387/15, 17 November 2015) and maintained that the applicant’s detention there for twenty-seven days did not reach the required level of severity. In respect of the applicant’s detention in Larissa prison, the Government referred to their description of facts and to the Court’s judgment in Kalamiotis and Others v. Greece, no. 53098/13, §§ 41-42, 29 October 2015). They argued that the applicant had actually benefitted from privileged conditions of detention and medical treatment owing to his disability, and invited the Court to reject the application as manifestly ill-founded. They also added that their version of the facts should be accepted by the Court as the application had been communicated under the immediate and simplified procedure and the applicant had not contested the facts as presented by the Government.


33.  The Government further submitted that the applicant’s allegations about the risk of ill-treatment in the event of execution of the expulsion order of 18 October 2013 were speculative and “could not be considered by the [domestic] court during the administrative proceedings”. Nevertheless, they had been thoroughly reviewed and found to be unsubstantiated by the Moscow City Court. In any event, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be expelled to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention had not been convincingly established.


53.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been debased, ill-treated and denied medical assistance while being detained in 1985. Relying on Article 5 § 1, she complained that her arrest in 1985 had been unlawful and that the inviolability of her home had been infringed. In substance she also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had been denied a fair trial in the criminal proceedings (unfair conviction and sentencing). She further complained under Article 5 § 5 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her claims for damages had been dismissed.


31.  The Government did not deny that the injuries on the applicant’s body had been caused by police officers during his arrest. However, they maintained that the use of force by the police officers had been justified by the applicant’s behaviour, in particular by his resistance to arrest, and that the intensity of the force used had not been disproportional to the applicant’s resistance. They relied on forensic medical report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007, in which it had been noted that a bruise and scratches had been found on the arms of one of the arresting officers. The Government maintained that in any event the suffering caused to the applicant had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required by Article 3 and asked the Court to dismiss the applicant’s complaint under that Article. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the Government submitted that the prosecutors had done everything which it had been necessary to do in order to investigate the applicant’s allegations. Therefore, the investigation had been effective within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


45.  The Government further asserted that the complaint of a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was not supported by any evidence. The applicant’s reference to the forensic medical expert’s report of 6 March 2004 was irrelevant, as the report had only evidenced a light injury which had clearly pre-dated the time of his arrest and detention. Moreover, his complaints to the domestic authorities and the Court had been too vague and inconsistent.


125.  The Governments of Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom observed that in the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment (15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V) the Court had stated the principle that in view of the absolute nature of the prohibition of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, the risk of such treatment could not be weighed against the reasons (including the protection of national security) put forward by the respondent State to justify expulsion. Yet because of its rigidity that principle had caused many difficulties for the Contracting States by preventing them in practice from enforcing expulsion measures.


34.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment, since the results of the domestic investigation had proved that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted. They further insisted that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been carried out thoroughly and comprehensively. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive or procedural limb and the applicant had had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention.


47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure by the police on 18 August 2005 and thereafter, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He also complained under the same provision about the conditions of his detention in Ladyzhynska prison no. 39. Article 3 of the Convention relied on by the applicant reads as follows:


36.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police used excessive force against him during arrest and under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached. However, it is noted that the applicant did not use any of the remedies available to him under domestic law. In particular he did not attempt to initiate proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him and against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which had allegedly breached his right to be presumed innocent. In view of the above, these complaints must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.


251.  The Government endorsed the Supreme Court’s findings (see paragraphs 159 and 160 above) that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They did not deny that the applicants had suffered as a result of their diving, and that they had consequently found or were still finding themselves in unfortunate circumstances. They might also feel that they had been treated unfairly and unjustly by the Norwegian authorities in that they had not succeeded domestically with their Convention complaints. However, their situation could not sensibly be viewed as inhuman or degrading treatment as understood in the Court’s case-law. Whilst any “suffering or humiliation involved must ... go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000‑XI), the applicants had engaged in diving activities voluntarily and their employment ought to be regarded as “legitimate” for the purposes of the Court’s assessment.


84.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant and argued that it was excessive. Referring to the applicant’s claims in respect of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government reiterated their position on the merits and claimed that the applicant’s conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. As regards the applicant’s claims in respect of the violation of Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4, the Government argued that a simple finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.


42.  The Government argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers was not in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and did not result in impunity for them as their sentences would be executed if they committed another wilful offence during the five-year period following the judgment. In this respect, the Government maintained that the police officers concerned had also been ordered to pay the legal costs and expenses incurred by the applicant during the proceedings. Finally, in terms of promptness, they submitted that the said proceedings had met the requirements of the Convention in that additional reports and medical evidence had been collected and witness statements had been heard during the entire period.


50.  The applicant further argued that the domestic authorities had wrongly established the facts relating to the incident in question. He claimed that the police officers and S.’s brothers had beaten him up and had used force against him that had not been necessary as he did not resist. With respect to his behaviour during the incident, the applicant noted that he had not been found guilty of any offence. He therefore insisted that his treatment had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


94.  The applicant has not submitted that there existed any exceptional circumstances preventing him from complying with the six months’ rule. The Court therefore considers that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about being placed in metal cages was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.


65.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases regarding both periods he complained of had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicant’s favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to him in compensation for non-pecuniary damage had been adequate and sufficient, and had been calculated in accordance with the Court’s case-law and by taking into account the entirety of the relevant criteria (the duration and the extent of the violation, the consequences for the applicant’s health of the violation, the actions of the aggrieved person, the economic living conditions in Lithuania, examples of similar cases, the criteria of equity, fairness and reasonableness, and the principle of proportionality) and the individual situation of the applicant.


31.  The Government argued that the force used against the applicant on 29 March 2007 did not reach the level of severity necessary for the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The force had been used only in order to prevent the applicant from attacking a prison guard. The prison doctor who had seen the applicant the same day had not noticed any injuries to his body.


111.  The applicant disputed the Government's factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility from 19 October 2005 to 25 October 2007 (see paragraphs 80-82 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 75-79 above), amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further claimed that the Government had relied selectively on the 2002 CPT Report and that this same report also contained “numerous criticisms” of the conditions in the MNS Detention Facility. In any event, in the applicant's opinion, the 2002 CPT Report was old and outdated and did not provide an accurate representation of the conditions of detention during the period of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility.


137.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been ill-treated to extract their confessions. They alleged additionally under Article 6 that the domestic court had erred in its assessment of evidence in the case, which had led to their conviction, although they had been innocent, and that the domestic courts had lacked impartiality. The first applicant also complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) that he had been unlawfully arrested. He also complained under Article 6 that the trial court had not questioned other, unspecified witnesses for the prosecution and had refused to question witnesses suggested by him. The first applicant also invoked Article 13 of the Convention. In addition, the second applicant complained of having been arbitrarily detained on the basis of false accusations and of having lacked remedies for his situation. He referred to Articles 1, 2, 5, 8, 13 and 17.


108.  The applicant complained about a further separate violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of her own suffering resulting from the authorities’ failure to establish the circumstances of her late husband’s death. Leaving aside the question of the applicant’s standing (compare Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 120 et seq., 6 November 2008, with further references) and in view of the Court’s findings under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, it is not necessary to give a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the present complaint.


99.  The Government considered that the first applicant had made detailed and credible statements concerning his PDPA membership, his employment as a prison guard at Pol-e-Charki Prison and subsequent employment by the KhAD/WAD where he reached the rank of either lieutenant-colonel or major. However, the Government considered that his return to Afghanistan would not, solely for this reason, entail a risk of treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


59.  The Government maintained that the applicant did not face a particular risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. In this connection they contended that the applicant was unlikely to attract the suspicions of the Sri Lankan authorities, given that he had never been politically active, had worked for the LTTE under duress and had carried out peripheral tasks only. Furthermore, and by his own admission, the applicant had been released by the soldiers in September 1995 when they were unable to confirm their suspicions that he was involved in the LTTE. He had also been given a travel permit to visit Colombo. Although the applicant had stayed in Colombo for longer than the prescribed seven days, he had nevertheless been able to leave the country by air – a means of travel subject to particularly strict controls – using a passport in his own name. There was, therefore, no reason to suggest that the Sri Lankan authorities harboured any particular suspicions about the applicant.


27.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been compatible with the requirements of Russian law and Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that although on 29 June 2005 the cells were crowded to the limit, the period of several hours is too short to attain the threshold of severity required for a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.


115.  The Government contended that there was no evidence that Apti Isigov or Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They added that the investigation into the alleged abuses committed during the special operation of 2 July 2001 in Sernovodsk had commenced in accordance with the procedural rule and within the statutory time-limit and therefore had not breached the requirements of Article 3.


70.  The applicant argued that although the extradition order had been cancelled it remained possible for Russian authorities to remove him from Russia by way of administrative removal or deportation. Thus, he continued to be at risk of ill-treatment, if removed from Russia to Uzbekistan. The applicant maintained that there was still an issue to be determined by the Court “under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention”.


53.  The Government submitted that in their view the applicant had not complained in concrete terms before the Court about the material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison and they asked the Court not to examine that part of the applicant’s complaints. Moreover, they argued that that part of the applicant’s complaints was inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae because the applicant did not claim to be the victim of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that while the applicant had made a general statement that the conditions of his detention were inappropriate, he had never referred expressly to overcrowding or the hygiene conditions in prison. Moreover, the fact that the applicant might have raised these issues before domestic courts did not imply that he wished to raise a similar complaint before the Court. In his application before the Court the applicant had failed to provide details about the conditions of detention he had been faced with personally and had been content to refer to the conditions of detention described by a different applicant in a separate case. Thus, had he desired to lodge a distinct complaint before the Court with regard to the material conditions of his detention, he should have complained of and described his own conditions and not confined himself to noting that such conditions were common knowledge.


79.  The applicants referred to their submissions on the exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above). They also pointed out that the prosecuting authorities and the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not opened disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who had carried out the searches, even after becoming aware of the applicants’ complaints before the Court.


25.  The applicant argued that in his letter of 6 October 2004 he had duly informed the investigating judge assigned to his case of the police brutality against him and had thus properly made the relevant domestic authorities aware of the alleged ill-treatment. As to the running of the six-month period, the applicant argued that it had not started to run from 24 April 2004 when the ill-treatment took place, but that it was connected with the State's obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment by the police. Since the relevant State authorities had so far not complied with that obligation, the six-month period had not yet started to run.


54.  The applicant maintained all his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that his frequent transfers to disciplinary cells amounted to a “continuous situation” falling within the six-month time‑limit. He further insisted on the lack of any opportunity to obtain an expert report on the origin of his medical condition and complained of ill‑treatment by the prison guards.


31.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were ill-treated under police custody. They further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of their police custody and subsequent detention on remand. They also submitted that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. Lastly, they referred to the different procedural rules applied before state security courts and ordinary criminal courts and invoked a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.


60. The Government argued that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the ill-treatment of the applicant, which on three occasions caused her physical injuries, combined with her feelings of fear and helplessness, was sufficiently serious to reach the required level of severity under Article 3 of the Convention and thus impose a positive obligation on the Government under this provision (see E.M. v. Romania, cited above, § 57; and Milena Felicia Dumitrescu v. Romania, no. 28440/07, § 54, 24 March 2015).


35.  The Government submitted that in his constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court, which had been an effective domestic remedy concerning the conditions of detention, the applicant had only complained of inappropriate medical care and lack of personal space in detention, as well as the alleged discrimination following the decisions of the Bjelovar County Court. However, he had failed to raise any other argument or complaint concerning the conditions of his detention and had thus failed to observe the principle of subsidiarity with regard to the other complaints he had brought before the Court. Furthermore, he had not invoked any of the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing protection from ill-treatment and respect for human dignity, notably Articles 23 and 25 (see paragraph 30 above); nor, for that matter, had he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he had not sufficiently substantiated his constitutional complaint. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had been legally represented and that it had been incumbent on his lawyer to properly use the constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court. Had he done that appropriately, it would also have been open for the applicant to lodge a civil action for damages in the event that a violation of his rights had been found by the Constitutional Court.


113.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance while serving his sentence in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective domestic remedy had been available to him in this regard. Articles 3 and 13 were both cited above (see paragraph 90 above).


46.  The applicant complained that his forced transfer to Hungary would subject him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 5, he further complained that he would be likely to be detained after his transfer to Hungary, which would subject him to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court considers that the complaint regarding the detention conditions in Hungary in fact also falls under Article 3, and will consequently be examined under that head. Article 3 reads as follows:


30.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she could have lodged a civil court action seeking compensation for the alleged violation, similar to those brought successfully by the applicants in the above-cited cases of Drugaliov, Gristiuc, Ipate and Ciorap. Moreover, she did not submit a complaint concerning the alleged inadequacy of her medical treatment to any of the domestic authorities, such as the Penitentiaries' Department. The only complaint made was addressed to the investigating judge, who was not competent to decide on that issue. That competence lay with the civil court examining any complaints seeking compensation for damage caused.


24. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had caused them stress and that their reputation in society had been damaged by the case. They further complained under Article 14 of the Convention on the basis of the same facts. Finally, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that at the end of the proceedings they had managed to obtain only a partial result to stop the unlawful occupation of their land.


271.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal in respect of the alleged violations of his rights, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented him from using those remedies. In particular, the applicant had been granted victim status in criminal cases nos. 21088 and 61857 opened into his allegations of ill‑treatment and the theft and destruction of his property respectively and could have availed himself of his procedural rights which had been explained to him. According to the Government, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all his queries in the context of the criminal proceedings, and therefore had had effective domestic remedies as regards his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


115.  The applicant further argued that, in view of the reasons for the respondent Government's adoption in July 2006 of a moratorium on decisions on asylum requests and on expulsions of Libyan nationals, the boldness with which the respondent Government maintained their denial of the existence of a “real risk” under Article <mask> of the Convention in his case was questionable.


95.  The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to an act of police brutality which had been completely unprovoked by her. The clubbing she received amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further submitted that the domestic authorities failed to proceed with a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible.


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


41.  The Government accepted the first medical assessment submitted by the applicant, prepared by a clinical psychologist (see paragraph 37 above), but argued that it did not prove that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, the Government contested the statement by A.Z., on the grounds that she had not been registered with the Bulgarian Medical Union as a medical practitioner. On these grounds, the Government contended that the first applicant had abused his right to individual application and urged the Court to dismiss his complaints in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.


68.  The applicants alleged a breached of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of their forced expulsion from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:


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 and high temperatures in the cells.


110.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture. They referred, in particular, to the methods of ill-treatment to which they had been subjected in Ingushetia and in Khankala, to the conditions of detention in Khankala and to the threats of execution. The applicants also complained under Article 3 that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


130.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, insalubrious sanitary facilities, the presence of lice, poor quality food, lack of hot or cold running water, lack of adequate activities and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time. He further complained of inadequate health care and that in response to his repeated requests for dental care he was told that there were not enough funds.


18.  The applicant complained that the low amount of compensation awarded to him in the domestic civil proceedings had not provided him with proper redress for the violation of his right not to be subjected to treatment proscribed under Article <mask> of the Convention, and that he was therefore still a victim under that Convention provision, which reads as follows:


67.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their son's abduction and killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly probable that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


33.  The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment, which in his view had resulted in impunity. The applicant relied upon Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.


37.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his appointment to a lower post and the imposition of sanctions constituted degrading treatment. He further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the impossibility to institute a criminal case against the command of his military unit. Relying on Article 6 the applicant complained about a violation of his right of access to court referring to the domestic courts’ refusal to consider on the merits his complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an unfair hearing and the outcome of the proceedings in the civil case concerning his dismissal. He finally invoked Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention without any further specification.


31.  The Government conceded that from 7 August 2003 to 3 December 2004 the floor space available to each detainee in the applicant’s cell had been below the sanitary requirement of four square metres and that that situation had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that the Government only cited the average number of detainees in the cell, which implies that at times the actual number of detainees had been higher. This coincides with the applicant’s submission that he had been obliged to share the cell with up to thirty-five individuals. As the Government only produced the cover page of the register and the page concerning the applicant alone, it is impossible to establish the exact number of detainees during the relevant period. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the cell was severely overcrowded and that detainees were afforded less than three square metres of floor space per person.


72.  The Government further took the view that the applicant's continued preventive detention on the basis of a judgment delivered in 1985 had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant's preventive detention for an indefinite duration did not amount to an irreducible life sentence because the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had to examine at least every two years whether the applicant was still liable to commit serious offences and had to release him if that was not the case. The fact that the applicant may have supposed at the time of his conviction that he could not be placed in preventive detention for more than ten years did not warrant protection because in accordance with Article 2 § 6 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34), the maximum duration of preventive detention had always been susceptible to be changed. It was only the Court's new case-law developed in M. v. Germany which led to the conclusion that the said provision could only be applied to a limited extent in respect of preventive detention.


23.  The applicant complained that conditions of her detention in remand prison IZ-52/1 between 23 August and 20 December 2007 had been in breach of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. She further invoked under Article 34 of the Convention alleging hindrance with her right to individual petition on account of undue restrictions on access to her representative before the Court. The relevant provisions read as follows:


35.  The Government pointed out that the procedural obligation imposed on the States with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In their submission, the investigative procedures brought before the two investigating judges were sufficient to consider that the Spanish State had fulfilled its obligations, irrespective of the fact that the police officers were ultimately not convicted.


37.  The Government have not sought to invoke convincing security reasons requiring the applicants’ isolation. Likewise, they have not said why it was not possible to revise their situation so as to permit adequate possibilities for human contact and meaningful activities outside the cell. While they stated that the applicants could take part in collective activities, apart from mentioning the library and the prison chapel, they did not specify what those activities were, or their frequency. The Court notes in this connection the CPT’s findings in its reports on its 2012, 2014 and 2015 visits to Burgas Prison, namely that there appeared to be little or no structurally planned intervention on the part of staff to attempt to provide appropriate mental and physical stimulation to life prisoners and that the vast majority of inmates had no access to organised out-of-cell activities and were left idle for up to 23 hours a day. It appears that this situation is to a great extent a result of the automatic application of the legal provisions regulating the applicants’ prison regime. In its recent judgment in Harakchiev and Tolumov (cited above, §§ 203-09), the Court found that such automatic isolation, even in application of the relevant statutory provisions, was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case.


91.  The applicant complained that his inability to receive conjugal visits from his wife during his pre-trial detention had caused him intolerable mental and physical suffering and had threatened to break up his family. He was also displeased that his entitlement in that respect had been more restricted than that of a convicted person serving a prison sentence. He alleged that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached.


33.  The Government argued, firstly, that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint as he could have applied to a court for compensation of damages caused by allegedly poor conditions of detention. The procedure for making claims was established in Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. They further claimed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in IZ-16/1 of Kazan had been fully compatible with the standards of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also asserted that the applicant, in their opinion, had failed to substantiate his allegations by any evidence, such as, for example, statements of other inmates who had shared the cells with him.


34.  The applicant contested the Government’s submissions. He submitted that even if the physical injuries inflicted on him were not very severe, the assessment of the severity threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention should take account of the racist motive for the violent acts and the possible effects of such motivation, namely feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority.


88.  The Government disagreed with their allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that the first applicant's allegations had been unsubstantiated because the medical documents confirming his injuries had been obtained by him at a much later date.


60.  The applicant’s allegation, as set out in his complaint to the prosecuting authorities, that the police had subjected him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in the course of his arrest was arguable. It was made shortly after the events and was supported by medical evidence, which showed extensive bruising on his body and limbs, as well as other material (see paragraph 15 above). The authorities were therefore required to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.


73.  The applicant reiterated his complaint in respect of the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and contended that the conditions of detention in which he had been held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not sustain or substantiate any complaints in respect of the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison.


104.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention (cited in paragraph 76 above), of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in a severely overcrowded cell at the Mozhaiskiy District police station of Moscow between 30 July and 6 August 2013. He alleged, in particular, that the cell in which he had been held for almost seven days had been originally designed for short periods of detention not exceeding several hours, and that it had been severely overcrowded.


130.  The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to lodge his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention within six months from the date of the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. More precisely, the applicant was entitled under Article 290 of the CCP (see paragraph 114 above) to contest the decisions of the investigating authority before the domestic courts. The applicant successfully exercised this right by instituting two sets of proceedings: the first one contesting the investigator’s decision of 7 June 2004 rejecting his allegations of ill-treatment and the second one contesting the prosecutor’s decision of 30 August 2004 terminating the criminal proceedings against him. The six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the first set of proceedings, which was taken by the Court of Cassation on 24 September 2004. The application, which had been lodged with the Court only on 10 November 2005, was therefore out of time. The Government argued that the applicant’s submission that the six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the second set of proceedings, namely 13 May 2005, was ill-founded, since those proceedings concerned a different issue, namely the termination of the criminal proceedings, and none of the court decisions taken in those proceedings concerned the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of ill-treatment or contained any ruling on the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.


74.  The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison. He alleged that he had been allocated less than 3 sq. m of personal space for several non-consecutive periods amounting in total to fifty days, and that there had also been several non-consecutive periods in which he was allocated between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the cells. In this connection he also alleged poor sanitary and hygiene conditions and nutrition, a lack of work opportunities, and insufficient access to recreational and educational activities. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


101.  The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article <mask> of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State’s positive obligations under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3.


100.  The Government argued, first of all, that the third applicant’s submissions as to the origin of his injuries had been inconsistent: having alleged on 13 March 1999 at the trauma unit that he had fallen down a fire escape, he later reported on 19 March 1999 he that he had been beaten up by the police officers. Besides, his allegations had not been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities in due time. In any event, they had been addressed by the Prosecutor’s Office, which on 19 January 2001 had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, a decision which the applicant had not challenged before a court. Subsequently, the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to make submissions regarding the alleged beatings and to question those who had allegedly taken part in them. The police officers who had been questioned had denied having applied any physical force against the applicant, for which reason on 28 February 2001 the criminal prosecution against them had been terminated for lack of corpus delicti. The trial court had also examined the applicant’s allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated. The Government concluded that the domestic authorities had undertaken all necessary measures in order to investigate the circumstances in question. However, it had not been established that the applicant had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected by the police officers to degrading and humiliating treatment. In particular, she complained that she had been thrown to the muddy ground and then handcuffed and taken straight to the police station. She had been placed in a dirty cell, where she had been kept for approximately twelve hours without any food, water or bedding. The next day she had been taken to the court and publicly exposed in the same muddy clothes. Article 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


34.  The applicant complained, relying on numerous articles of the Convention, that he was beaten by the police officers when he was detained on 19 December 1996 and that there was a lack of an effective investigation by the authorities relating to the aforementioned. The Court finds that, considering the specific circumstances of the present case, these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides the following:


36.  The applicant complained that the delays in the criminal proceedings against the individuals who raped her or participated were at variance with the respondent State’s obligation to provide an effective system of prosecution of the criminal offences committed against her, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, alleging that her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated in these proceedings.


42.  The applicants further maintained that on 16 May 1998 they had been beaten by the police. They pointed out that the Government had acknowledged that the incident in question had taken place, and had failed to contest the applicants’ arguments that the perpetrators had been police officers. The applicants insisted therefore that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


81.  The applicant also complained of an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention, since the unreasonably long investigation, which had not produced any result, had caused her moral and physical suffering. She alleged that the further lack of investigation had made her despair of any effective outcome of the investigation. She stated that her complaints had been ignored. This provision reads as follows:


81.  The Government posited that as regards the applicant’s complaint that he had no prospect of release and that the pardon option was inadequate and ineffective, the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, since he had been released from prison after a request for pardon had been granted on 31 March 2014.


162.  The applicants complained that Muslim Nenkayev had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate the ill-treatment. They further complained that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the authorities’ reaction amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


99.  The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant, namely space, sanitation, catering and health-care conditions, was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the lack of recreational activities, the Government submitted that detainees were provided free of charge with newspapers and, once a week, could choose books from the prison library. During 1998 the following cultural and recreational events were organised: several sports tournaments, four theatre productions, fourteen concerts, two art exhibitions, two television game shows, six visits by national celebrities, eighty cinema screenings and 200 video shows, as well as eighty-two religious services. The Government disputed that the applicant had not been afforded adequate medical assistance on 11 June 1998 or immediately thereafter, because no request for such assistance had been made via the special telephone line, as required by the Interim Prison Rules. Overall, the Government considered that the general conditions in the prison were compatible with Article 3.


33.  The applicant complained that the State had failed to discharge their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect her from domestic violence and to prevent the reoccurrence of such violence. She was a particularly vulnerable person given that, at the age of 72, twenty-two years after divorcing A.M., she had to endure his physical and verbal attacks.


190.  The applicant complained that in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow he had regularly been beaten by his cellmates and threatened with murder, allegedly with the consent or even under the instructions of the prison and investigative authorities, who had tried to force him into self-incrimination. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


71.  The Government merely submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had complied with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. He had an individual sleeping place and bedding and received food which corresponded to sanitary norms. Relying on medical records and reports, they further argued that the applicant had received necessary medical assistance and had only been released from the prison hospital after his leg had recovered.


77.  The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s opinion the applicants and other inmates had caused a riot, opened fire at the soldiers, set fire to their dormitories and corridors and attacked the soldiers by throwing stones at them and hitting them with sticks. It had not been possible to provide medical assistance to the applicants until after the riot was over, because they had continued rioting even after they were injured.


61.  The applicant submitted that, for the reasons set out above, the situation in his case was completely different from that in the case of H. v. Iceland, cited above. He reiterated that in the present case the reopening of the criminal proceedings based on sections 655 to 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law was not to be regarded as “an extraordinary remedy” (he referred to Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003‑X), but in fact appeared to be the only remedy available to him by which to obtain redress for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention.


39.  The applicant complained about the material conditions of his detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non‑smokers, in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility and Bacău Prison. He alleged, in particular, that the detention facility had been overcrowded, squalid and unhygienic; the sanitary facilities had been defective; the noise made by the other detainees had prevented him from sleeping; the food was of poor quality and insufficient; there had been insufficient opportunities to take outdoor exercise; the cells had lacked ventilation, beds, cutlery, furniture at which to take meals, blankets, pillows and bed linen; and he had had to share the cell with smokers. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


26.  The Government contested the applicant's allegations. In particular, they submitted that the physical findings noted in the medical reports did not attain a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, the Government maintained that an effective investigation had been conducted into the circumstances of the case. In this connection, they referred to the steps undertaken by the public prosecutor.


22.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, they further alleged that the criminal and administrative responsibilities of the accused police officers had not been established as the criminal proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time, so had ultimately become time-barred. They had therefore not been fair. The police officers had also not been suspended from duty, which had allowed them to enjoy impunity during the criminal proceedings.


112.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


22.  The Government did not contest the fact that the injuries on the applicant's body had been caused by the police. However, they stressed that the arresting police officers' actions had been justified in the circumstances because the applicant had used a firearm and resisted arrest. In the Government's opinion, the gravity of the situation had been proved by the injuries later found on the body of one of the arresting police officers. The Government also pointed out that the applicant was dangerous because he had practised judo and that the use of force against him by one the arresting police officers had been a last resort in order to neutralise and arrest the applicant. Moreover, the injuries received by the applicant were light injuries, exactly like those received by one of the arresting police officers, which proved that the ill-treatment had not reached such a level of severity as to trigger a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant had been passive in pursuing his case before the domestic authorities because he had challenged the prosecutor's decision not to initiate criminal proceedings only after eight months, despite having been immediately informed of it.


40.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been handcuffed whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case. Article 3 reads as follows:


43.  The Government submitted that the applicant had made use of his general right of complaint under section 36(1) g) of Law-Decree no. 11 of 1979 (see paragraph 14 above) which entitled him to request the review of the reasons for his security classification by a body independent of the penitentiary service and authorised to take action. The Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office had held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had not violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and provided detailed reasoning.


91.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 2 was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, because that Article could not be construed as requiring the State to allow access to unauthorised medicinal products. The same was true for the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The refusal to allow the applicants access to the experimental product MBVax Coley Fluid, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, could not be regarded as inhuman treatment.


93.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that upon their abduction Abubakar and Salman Bantayev were subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


55.  The Government asserted that in her original application of 22 May 2006, the applicant had only complained of a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time in the criminal proceedings. She had only raised the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in her submissions made on 23 June 2009, in which she had claimed that the State had failed to provide her with effective vindication of her right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by conducting unduly long criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the criminal acts against her. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Government, the applicant’s latter complaint was lodged after the expiry of the six-month period and was therefore inadmissible.


25.  The applicant, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, complained that the conditions of his detention were inadequate and that his state of health was incompatible with incarceration. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 55, ECHR 2015) considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: