59.  The Government asserted that the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don, and the conditions of her transport to and confinement at the courthouse, had complied with both the requirements of domestic law and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were unable to provide exact information on the number of persons detained simultaneously with the applicant in each cell due to the destruction of registration logs upon expiry of the time-limit for storing them. They submitted, however, that notwithstanding the existing overpopulation of facility IZ-61/1 in 2001-2005, the cells for female convicts had not been overcrowded given the small number of female inmates at the material time.


114.  The Government referred to the Court’s case-law concerning Article <mask> of the Convention and its application to detainees. In similar cases (in particular, Keenan, cited above, and Aerts, cited above), the Court had held that the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned was incompatible with the standards of Article 3 had, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain about how they were being affected by any particular treatment.


82.  The Government further submitted that that the applicant’s continued detention was not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in order for a punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level and in any event had to be other than the usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment (they cited Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 37, ECHR 2000-XI).


45.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the first applicant’s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants’ complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant’s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:


82.  The Government argued that the conditions in the detention centres where the applicant had been detained during the period under consideration could not be considered to amount to “inhuman or degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant had been detained were satisfactory. In particular, in cell no. 101 at the Volokolamsk detention centre the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping berth. From 11 January 2004 the number of bunk beds in cell no. 101 had been reduced to 8 and no more than 8 detainees had been kept in that cell. According to a certificate signed by the head of the administration of the Volokolamsk detention centre, cell no. 101 was in compliance with sanitary and hygiene standards and no parasite insects had been detected there. The applicant had been in good health; he had undergone a medical examination upon arrival and during his detention had made no request for medical assistance. The applicant had been given the necessary bedding and crockery.


93.  The Government submitted that the allegation of politically motivated persecution of the applicant had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill‑treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


107.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of bedding and food and insufficient light and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor’s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve his situation.


60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police officers after the arrest and that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He further complained that the courts convicted him relying on the self-incriminatory statements obtained from him by the investigating authorities through ill-treatment. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the court had misinterpreted the facts and wrongly applied the law in his case.


169.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody upon his arrest; under Article 6 that he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been presumed innocent in that he was held in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him; that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful; that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. He further complained that the Supreme Court had not read out the full text of the appeal decision of 10 March 2005. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy with regard to the alleged violations.


49.  The applicant complained that he required specialised medical care and direct and constant assistance from another person in his daily activities, which had not been provided to him during his detention in Poznań Remand Centre. Considering his particular health condition, namely severe epilepsy and other neurological disorders, the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance, constituted, in the applicant’s opinion, a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


35.  The applicants complained that they all suffered from mental health problems and that deportation of the first, second and fourth applicants to Kosovo or Serbia would amount to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention both in respect of the third applicant’s health, since to separate him from the rest of the family would jeopardise his chances of getting well, and also in respect of the other applicants’ health.


47.  The Government submitted that the police had dispatched officers to ensure the safety of the participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, in view in particular of the threats made against them. The group of fifty to seventy persons intercepted by the police behind the National Palace of Culture had been armed with knuckledusters, torches, empty bottles, rocks and wooden sticks. Their failure to heed the officers’ orders and their provocative conduct had prompted the police to arrest the most aggressive among them, including the applicant, and take them to a police station. The officer who had arrested the applicant had now been identified and had stated that neither he nor his colleagues had used force or gear other than handcuffs in the course of that operation. Based on that, the Government submitted that there was no evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the police had used disproportionate force when arresting the applicant, or that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


84.  The applicant maintained her complaint, stating that she was Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s mother, had witnessed him being abducted and had actively searched for him. She argued that the way the domestic authorities had treated her applications had amounted to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, given, in particular, that she had not received adequate information concerning the fate of her son or the course of the investigation into his disappearance.


51.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of his ill-treatment by unspecified police officers with the aim of extracting a confession from him and that the conditions of his detention in the ITT had been inhuman. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained between 21 January and 9 February 2000. The applicant stated that he had been unlawfully sentenced to life imprisonment, as in 1999, when he had committed the crimes, such a punishment had not existed. The applicant cited Article 7 of the Convention in that regard.


50. The Government submitted that a special prison van, in which the applicant had been transported on 11 December 2002, was designed for twenty-four people. They annexed a certificate issued by the Board for Security of Suspects and Accused, according to which the conditions of the applicant’s transportation had been satisfactory; there had been twenty-three detainees and one police officer in the van. The travel time had been around 30 minutes. According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government emphasised that the applicant had never lodged any complaint in respect of the conditions of his transportation.


43.  The applicant complained that on 22 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 of that incident, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 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:


41.  The Government argued that the fact that the applicant’s flat had been sold did not constitute such a substantial change in her circumstances that it was unreasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live in her home country. Nor did the continuous, gradual weakening of health of a relative due to ageing constitute such a substantial change in that person’s circumstances to make it unreasonable to expect that the person continue to live in his or her home country. The applicant had not substantiated her allegation that she had no access to the necessary medical treatment in Russia in her own language. In the event of execution of the deportation order, the executing authority would examine whether the state of health of the deported person affected the deportation. In such cases the transportation could be, and had been, organised by ambulance, for example. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the applicant could receive the treatment she required in Russia. There was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


93.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal Sevli, Reşit Sevli, Aşur Seçkin, Salih Şengül, Yusuf Çelik, Naci Şengül and Kemal İzci had been beaten by members of the security forces before being arrested. Zübeyda Uysal and Emine Çelik also complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that they had both suffered miscarriages as a result of the violence to which they had been subjected by members of the security forces. The applicants maintained under Article 8 of the Convention that on the day of the events giving rise to the present application the security forces had conducted searches of their houses, seized their belongings illegally and subsequently destroyed the houses. The applicants further submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that they had been denied an effective remedy in respect of their aforementioned allegations. They also complained of violations of a number of rights in respect of Casım Çelik, Aşur Seçkin, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın and Abdullah İnan under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants finally complained, under Article 14 of the Convention, that all the alleged breaches of their rights enshrined in the Convention had been motivated by their Kurdish ethnic origin.


87.  The applicant had informed the Russian authorities that he had feared persecution because of his alleged involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities. In particular, on 22 August 2008 he had informed the Moscow City Court that in 2001 he had been told that upon his return to Tajikistan he would be arrested. The applicant had been on a wanted list since 2001, which was proven by the fact that on 27 October 2001 he had been detained with a view to extradition as a person wanted in Tajikistan. The applicant stated that when questioned by the Moscow City Court on 22 August 2008 he had not been assisted by a lawyer and thus could not understand the legal consequences of his statement that he had arrived in Russia to look for employment. He also asserted that he had had a right to apply for refugee status at any time, not necessarily immediately upon his arrival in Russia. The applicant doubted the validity of the diplomatic assurances given in his case. In sum, the applicant claimed that his extradition to Tajikistan would be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicant claimed that the treatment which he had been subjected to by the police officers in the form of punches, slaps, kicks, electric shocks to his genitals and verbal insults had attained the minimum level of severity and had amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained that despite his numerous complaints to the administrative and judicial authorities and the medical reports indicating the presence of injuries on his body, which had rendered him unfit for work for three days, no meaningful investigation had been carried out and that those who had inflicted ill-treatment on him had escaped justice without any punishment.


95.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. They stressed that he had not appealed against the decision of 17 June 2002 to the competent domestic court. In the alternative, the Government submitted that there was no objective evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to treatment contrary to the requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the expert medical reports, including the most recent one of 4 May 2006, confirmed that the applicant’s illnesses were congenital or had been acquired in childhood. The illnesses could not have resulted from traumas allegedly caused during his military service. At the same time the Government acknowledged that one of the expert reports, namely the one issued by the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442, stated that the applicant had “acquired the illness during his military service”. However, the Government, relying on Regulation 46 of the Regulations on Military Medical Examinations, provided the following interpretation of the expert finding. They insisted that by virtue of Regulation 46, a military medical commission issued a conclusion that an illness had been acquired during military service even if that illness had been present before conscription for military service, but had been diagnosed during military service. In the Government’s opinion the phrase “acquired during military service” did not mean that the individual, in the present case the applicant, had been injured (or felt sick) during military service.


75.  The Government alleged that the applicant had not made an arguable claim concerning the incompatibility of the conditions of his detention with Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaints under Article 13 were therefore likewise unsubstantiated. They noted, in particular, that, as regards the conditions of detention in the Odessa SIZO, the applicant’s complaint was very general. He had neither described in detail the conditions in which he had been detained, nor elaborated on the nature and extent of the distress he had suffered. Likewise, he had not elaborated on the conditions of his detention during transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony. They further contested the applicant’s allegation that the prison authorities had refused to dispatch his mail and submitted that the applicant had first deposited his hunger-strike declaration on 30 October 2006. He had been medically supervised as from that date. Following a proper medical report concluding that his health had deteriorated, the applicant had been force-fed from 8 to 15 November 2006. He had not complained about the manner in which he had been force-fed. Lastly, as regards the conditions of detention in the Kryvyy Rig Colony, the applicant had not lodged any relevant complaints either with the domestic authorities or with the Court. This part of the application was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions.


57.  The Government did not dispute that the injuries sustained by the applicant reached the minimum threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that no responsibility could be attributed to the State, given the fact that the prison governor, as established in the course of the compensation proceedings, had not been alerted to the alleged aggressiveness of the bull. Nor there had been any information in the records of the veterinary hospital responsible for the livestock in the prison that the bull had been aggressive. In addition, the bull’s behaviour had been unpredictable and the authorities should not have the impossible burden placed upon them of preventing every claimed risk from materialising.


162.  The applicants complained of a violation of the positive and negative obligations in Article <mask> of the Convention given the impact on them of the restrictions on abortion and of travelling abroad for an abortion. They maintained that the criminalisation of abortion was discriminatory (crude stereotyping and prejudice against women), caused an affront to women’s dignity and stigmatised women, increasing feelings of anxiety. The applicants argued that the two options open to women – overcoming taboos to seek an abortion abroad and aftercare at home or maintaining the pregnancy in their situations – were degrading and a deliberate affront to their dignity. While the stigma and taboo effect of the criminalisation of abortion was denied by the Government, the applicants submitted that there was much evidence confirming this effect on women. Indeed, the applicants contended that the State was under a positive obligation to protect them from such hardship and degrading treatment.


109.  The applicant complained that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, the care and conditions of his detention from 7 January 2001 to 28 February 2001, from 1 September 2003 to 26 May 2004 and from 2 September 2005 to 18 June 2008 had been incompatible with his special needs, in view of his paraplegia. That provision reads as follows:


45.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, he argued that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. He also complained of the conditions of his transfer to and from the court-house and the conditions of detention in the convoy room of the Moscow City Court. Lastly, he stated that his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


57.  The applicant was assigned to Unit 6. The precise number of prisoners in the unit is a matter of dispute between the parties. While the recent certificates obtained from the facility director and the original documents gave the maximum number as eighty-six persons, the applicant maintained that the unit population had exceeded one hundred individuals. The floor plan indicates that the dormitory of the applicant’s unit measured 164 square metres. It follows that, even if the lower occupancy figure were to be accepted, the available personal space per prisoner fell even below the domestic statutory requirement of two square metres. In previous cases against Russia concerning conditions of detention in correctional colonies, the Court has found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in similar circumstances (see Sergey Babushkin, cited above, § 56; Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013, and Kulikov, cited above, § 37).


106.  The Government submitted that there was an inevitable element of suffering inflicted on the applicant inherent to the imprisonment and that he had not been subjected to any premeditated form of ill-treatment that fell foul of the standards required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of the applicant’s detention were the same as those of other prisoners, were compatible with respect for his human dignity, and did not subject him to distress and hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering in detention.


91.  The Government explained the overcrowding in the cells by the fact that at that time the courts of Sevastopol had been considering an extensive number of criminal cases and all persons detained in the ITT had been taking part in their respective criminal proceedings in the courts. The Government further noted that as for other conditions of the applicant’s detention, they did not reach the minimum threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had been detained in the ITT for the short periods of 10 and 4 days, respectively. The applicant’s situation was not different from the situation of any other person suffering from limitations related to the deprivation of liberty.


35.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about being ill-treated by the police and under Article 5 of the Convention about his unlawful arrest. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention the applicant further complained about unfair trial, in particular, that he did not have a lawyer between 24 and 30 May 2002. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about an ineffective investigation following his complaints about ill-treatment. The applicant finally invoked Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention in respect to the first set of criminal proceedings.


16.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers and substantiated his complaint with medical documents attesting to abrasions on his forehead. The applicant’s claim was therefore shown to be “arguable” and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, most recently, Manzhos v. Russia, no. 64752/09, §§ 33-35, 24 May 2016, and the case-law cited therein).


80.  The Government submitted that the burden of proof in cases of treatment or punishment allegedly incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention rested on the applicant; however, in the present case the applicant had failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his allegations. Upon his arrival at the SIZO in August 2001 the applicant had been examined by a doctor and found to be healthy. He had been diagnosed with tuberculosis only one year later and prior to August 2002 he had not complained of coughing or of any pain in his chest. After the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, he had been immediately transferred to the special tuberculosis ward of the SIZO where he had stayed until 13 November 2004.


23.  The Government contested the applicant's argument. They stated that his allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined. It had been established, however, that the police officers had not subjected the applicant to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, there had been no violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, either under the substantive or the procedural limb.


95.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives. All of the applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. The applicants also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no domestic remedies available to them against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


55.  The applicant complained of a failure by the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint was not immediately forwarded to the prosecutor’s office and no medical examination was carried out immediately in order to verify the presence of injuries before they disappeared. Moreover, video materials from the prison which could reveal whether he had in fact resisted the prison staff and attacked them was not requested from the prison authorities and was allowed to be destroyed.


57.  The applicant complained that while in the custody of the police he was subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Under the same Article he also alleged that he had been ill-treated in the course of his transfer to prison. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment and had thus deprived him of an effective remedy.


58.  The Government considered that the mere fact of detention in one cell of a number of inmates exceeding the designed capacity of that cell was not in itself a ground for finding a violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, since other aspects of his detention had been in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. In particular, during his detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Moreover, overcrowding in remand prisons was a common problem for many member States of the Council of Europe. In the Russian Federation the overcrowding was due to a high level of criminality and limited capacity of remand prisons. The remand prison administration had not had any intention to humiliate the applicant. The Government considered that the overcrowding of the cells in which the applicant had been detained could not in itself be a ground for drawing a conclusion about inhuman treatment of the applicant. In sum, the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prisons nos. 52/1 and 77/3 had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.


171.  The Government argued that the measures used in respect of the applicant had been therapeutic and necessary. Turning to the events of 25 January 2005, they submitted that the social workers had decided on their own to tie down the applicant as they had been afraid for her life. Although the exact length of time that the applicant had been tied up for was not clear, it could have lasted for only fifteen to thirty minutes and had not continued any longer than necessary. During the incident the applicant had been forcibly injected with 10 mg of Haloperidol, whilst the average therapeutic dosage of the said medication is 12 mg. Haloperidol is a common antipsychotic medicament prescribed for individuals suffering from schizophrenia in order to eliminate the symptoms of psychosis. According to the generally accepted principles of psychiatry, medical necessity had fully justified the treatment in issue. The Government also drew the Court’s attention to the prosecutor’s decision of 31 July 2006 to discontinue the pre-trial investigation in connection with the applicant’s forced restraint. They also noted the absence of any other similar incidents at the Kėdainiai Home in respect of the applicant. The Government summed up that even if the treatment of the applicant on 25 January 2005 had had unpleasant effects, it had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention.


83.  The applicants in five recent cases against France – R.M. and Others v. France (no. 33201/11, 12 July 2016), A.B. and Others v. France (no. 11593/12, 12 July 2016), A.M. and Others v. France (no. 24587/12, 12 July 2016), R.K. and Others v. France (no. 68264/14, 12 July 2016) and R.C. and V.C. v. France (no. 76491/14, 12 July 2016) – had been between four months and four years old, and had been detained for periods ranging between seven and eighteen days. The Court noted that unlike the detention facility at issue in Popov (cited above), the material conditions in the two detention facilities concerned in those five cases had not been problematic. They had been adapted for families that had been kept apart from other detainees and provided with specially fitted rooms and child-care materials. However, one of the facilities had been situated right next to the runways of an airport, and so had exposed the applicants to particularly high noise levels. In the other facility, the internal yard had been separated from the zone for male detainees by only a net, and the noise levels had also been significant. That had affected the children considerably. Another source of anxiety had been the constraints inherent in a place of detention and the conditions in which the facilities had been organised. Although over a short period of time those factors had not been sufficient to attain the threshold of severity engaging Article <mask> of the Convention, over a longer period their effects would necessarily have affected a young child to the point of exceeding that threshold. Since the periods of detention had been, in the Court’s view, long enough in all five cases, it found breaches of Article 3 in each of them (see R.M. and Others v. France, §§ 72-76; A.B. and Others v. France, §§ 111-15; A.M. and Others v. France, §§ 48-53; R.K. and Others v. France, §§ 68-72; and R.C. and V.C. v. France, §§ 36-40, all cited above).


73.  The applicant complained that her detention for approximately twenty hours in a cell for administrative detainees at the District Department of the Interior’s premises on 8 and 9 December 2001 was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had been injured and had slept on the floor and had not been given any food or drink.


39.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court in its decision of 16 October 2014. The Court notes in this connection 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 expert medical opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation. Yet that is exactly what the Government did in the present case (see paragraphs 20-23 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant, independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continued exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, § 67, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013.


49.  The Government submitted that the handcuffing had been aimed at protecting the applicant, in particular from any further attempt at self-mutilation. The handcuffing had been connected with a lawful arrest and detention and thus as such did not run counter to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular given the appropriate conditions of the applicant's detention (see paragraph 10 above).


89.  The Government stated that the prosecutor’s office had conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. In particular, the investigation was started immediately after the applicant’s lawyer’s complaints and a number of important witnesses were questioned, and a forensic medical examination was conducted. Later, more witnesses (the applicant’s cellmates) were questioned and additional information was checked. The applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment were carefully checked and finally rejected on 27 June 2013 as unsubstantiated. The investigation was full and prompt and all the court’s and prosecutor’s instructions were followed.  Therefore, there was no breach of the applicant’s right to an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention.


164.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody following his arrest, and that the medical assistance in IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don and the conditions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse had been inadequate. He complained under Article 5 that his arrest on 18 December 1998 had been unlawful. The applicant complained under Article 6 that the domestic court had used allegedly unreliable evidence, failed to obtain the attendance of several witnesses and victims and failed to presume him innocent by holding him in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him. He further complained under the same head that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful and that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 8 that his continuous detention had prevented him from taking care of his elderly father; under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic authorities had failed to look after his property and belongings while he had been in detention and under Article 13 that there had been no effective domestic remedy with regard to the alleged violations.


252.  The applicant stated that there had been no effective investigation capable of establishing the facts of his detention and treatment, auxiliary to the investigative element of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, there had been no domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and his transfer into CIA custody, auxiliary to his rights under Article 5. The same applied to his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.


65.  The Government claimed at the outset that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, the fact that the Court had indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that “the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice” meant that the applicant ran no proximate or imminent risk of being removed from the country.


143.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated in the decisions ordering and extending his detention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his Convention complaints. Finally he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against in comparison with other defendants.


86.  The Government disagreed, arguing that the facts of the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police had not been proven in the domestic proceedings, which had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant’s injuries could have been caused by a third person in the course of a fight prior to the applicant’s arrest, and there had been no medical evidence of the second applicant having suffered any injuries.


92.  The Government, in their written submissions of 20 May 2014, contended for the first time that the applicant had neither exhausted domestic remedies nor complied with the six-month time-limit as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, and his complaints under Article 6 relating to the pre-investigation inquiry.


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


59.  The applicant maintained that he had sufficiently established that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if he were expelled to Morocco, given that the Moroccan authorities must be considered to be aware of his conviction for terrorism-related crimes in the Netherlands, his association with a dismantled Moroccan militant cell loyal to the Islamic State and his asylum application in the Netherlands. On this point, he referred, inter alia, to the requests for mutual legal assistance of 5 November 2014 and 20 April 2015 (see paragraph 9 above), to various news articles (see paragraphs 11 and 16 above), to an official translation of a report of 24 April 2015 from the Commissioner of the Team combatting terrorism of the police in Salém (Morocco) to the General Prosecutor at the court in Rabat (see paragraph 22 above) and to the judgment by which B.B. and eight others had been convicted (see paragraph 31 above).


19.  The applicant stated that the authorities had established and acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They had convicted the police officer and sentenced him to a fair punishment. Furthermore, they had awarded the applicant compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. However, the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured, and had been determined without regard to the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in similar cases under Article 41 of the Convention (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 49-50, 10 April 2008, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202-16 and 213, ECHR 2006‑V).


21.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in the Sokalska Colony and about various aspects of the regime in it: the procedure followed whenever the cell was opened and when he had been escorted outside the cell, the organisation of washing, searches, the prohibition on using mattresses and bedding during the daytime, and the lack of disinfection measures. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


48.  The Government did not comment on all of the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Instead, they commented only on a few issues she raised, concentrating mainly on the applicant's attitude towards her prison sentence and the prison environment (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In particular they submitted that the penitentiary premises were adequately furnished, ventilated and clean; the inmates' hygienic needs were satisfactorily ensured; the time was adequately organised both for working and non-working inmates; the penitentiary had a library, a fitness hall and computer equipment; and the applicant was provided with an adequate diet and medical assistance (see paragraph 27 above).


110.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ 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 claimed that Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. Furthermore, the first and second applicants complained that at the moment of their sons’ abduction they had been beaten. Article 3 reads:


170.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev 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:


60.  The applicant further complained that the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention unit at Tuymazinsky police station between 19 January and 13 March 2002 had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been lengthy and unlawful. Furthermore, under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (a), (b) and (c) of the Convention, he claimed that changes were made during the trial to the scope of the charges against him, that the evidence was erroneously assessed by the domestic courts and that during the investigation, he had been interviewed as a witness in violation of his defence rights.


64.  The applicant argued that since 14 March 2007 he had been deprived of his liberty and, therefore, the authorities of Ukraine had been obliged to provide him with the appropriate medical treatment and assistance. However, it was not until 6 April 2007 that he had been diagnosed with cancer; his treatment had commenced on 12 April 2007, six days after the diagnosis was made. The applicant was of the opinion that he should have undergone a puncture biopsy to confirm the diagnosis, which could only have been performed in a specialised hospital. He believed that his treatment was aimed at relieving his pain and not at recovery. As a result his health had deteriorated significantly. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that his symptomatic treatment, including the morphine injections, had not been adequate, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


77.  The applicant complained, relying in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison guards, in that he had been handcuffed to his hospital bed the entire time he was hospitalised for his open-heart surgery, and that in Rahova Prison he had been denied adequate medical care for his medical condition on account of a lack of funding prior to his open-heart surgery in May 2009. Moreover, he complained by relying in substance on Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life had been breached, in so far as he had had limited contact with his wife and had not been allowed by the prison guards to see his children or to speak to the other individuals in the ward while in hospital for his open-heart surgery.


118.  The applicants complained 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. Furthermore, the first applicant complained that at the time of his son’s abduction he had been beaten and that no effective investigation was conducted into the incident. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


43.  The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the applicant had failed to put forward any concrete evidence in support of his allegations. They contended that the allegations were deceitful and were part of a scenario used by the terrorist organisation to dishonour the fight against terrorism. The Government further submitted that the reports of 27 December 1993 and 14 January 1994 should not be regarded as inconsistent. In this connection, they contended that the applicant had sustained the injuries mentioned in the second report as he had probably been beaten by his fellow-inmates in prison, since he had disclosed information to the police concerning the PKK. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


67.  The Government maintained that the acts of the medical staff in the sobering-up centre, who were not state agents, could not be attributed to the State. In any event, according to them, the restraining of the applicant had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for application of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that it was more appropriate to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Actually, the strapping of the applicant had been necessary for the protection of his own health, it not having been possible to use a less severe measure, such as tranquilisation with medicines, because the applicant had refused to give a blood sample in order for the doctors to be able to identify the substance the influence of which he had been under.


22.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he 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 (see paragraph 16 above). Moreover, the complaints about the conditions of detention which the applicant had made to the prison authorities were “not credible” and were unfounded.


32.  The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected at the police station amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that no effective investigation had been carried out into his allegations at the national level under Article 6 of the Convention. He complained that the national court had not concluded the proceedings within a reasonable time and that that failure had eventually resulted in those proceedings becoming time-barred.


131.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance afforded to him in remand centre no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg. In his opinion the medical records showed that he had not received any regular treatment for his rheumatoid polyarthritis. The recommendations made by a rheumatologist had not been complied with. An independent medical expert had confirmed that the treatment had been inadequate, in particular because the applicant had not been prescribed any disease-modifying drugs (see paragraph 72 above). As a result of the insufficient medical assistance afforded to him the applicant had suffered from severe pain and his disease had progressed.


32.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated during her detention in police custody and that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. The Court recalls that on 3 April 2007 it delivered a decision in the case Azime Işık v. Turkey ((dec), no. 63900/00, 3 April 2007), which concerned the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3 and the alleged lack of domestic remedies under Article 13. It follows that this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.


103.  The Government argued that the use of physical force and special means against the applicant on 28 October 2007 and 14 February 2008 had been made necessary by the applicant’s own conduct and had been lawful in domestic terms. They further argued that the treatment of which the applicant complained had not attained the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government made no comment on the issue of the compliance of the investigation in the present case with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


155.  The applicant alleged in substance that his conditions of detention in Belgium had constituted treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained of the constant transfers from one prison to another, the conditions under which the transfers had taken place and the special security measures applied to him during his incarceration. He backed up this complaint with several reports drawn up by psychiatrists pointing to the negative effects of such a situation on his mental health.


44.  The applicant restated his complaints and relied on the findings of the CPT to corroborate his contentions. In respect of the conditions at the Pazardzhik Prison he also referred to the findings of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in its annual reports of 2001, 2004 and 2005, where they had allegedly deemed the conditions of detention at this facility to have been inadequate. In particular, the 2001 report detailed that there was overcrowding and insufficient access to sanitary facilities as there was only one toilet per thirty to forty prisoners. The applicant also alleged that during the period of his detention in the Pazardzhik Prison he had not been allowed any visitors and had had a daily walk of only an hour and that the food had been insufficient and of substandard quality. In spite of being held at this facility for just a month he argued that the minimum level of severity had been attained and that there had therefore been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account.


39.  The Government have 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 have 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.


63.  The applicant complained of two distinct violations of Article <mask> of the Convention by prison staff while he was in Jelgava prison. First of all, he claimed to have been subjected to various unlawful disciplinary penalties; he particularly emphasised the illegal and unjust character of the last of these, imposed on 18 July 2000. Secondly, he complained of a brutal assault by prison guards which, according to him, took place on an unspecified date at the end of 2000 while he was again placed in a disciplinary cell. He claimed to have suffered serious injuries as a result and alleged that no adequate medical treatment had been provided to him. Finally, he alleged that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.


109.  The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for asylum immediately after his arrival in Russia does not necessarily refute his allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi, cited above, § 138). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Russian Office of the UNHCR acknowledged that, in its opinion, the applicant qualified as a “refugee” within the meaning of the 1951 Convention (see paragraph 46 above).


74.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention had been submitted too late, as they had not been included in the original application form. They also maintained that the submissions of 13 April 2011 should in any case be dismissed as they failed to comply with the requirements of Article 47 of the Rules of Court. The Government further contended that if the date of introduction of the application was accepted as being 16 November 2004, then the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies since at the material time the criminal proceedings against the police officers were still pending.


101.  The Government submitted that the first applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment at the hands of the police on 13 May 2004 at Tbilisi police headquarters had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt owing to the absence of relevant medical certificates or other evidence that confirmed with certainty the existence of marks of the purported physical violence on the applicant. They continued by saying that it was the first applicant’s own fault that he had not requested a medical examination in the immediate aftermath of the alleged ill-treatment. He had also not reported the ill‑treatment to the public defence lawyer appointed for him on 13 May 2004 or to the doctor at Prison no. 7 upon his transfer there on 16 May 2004. As regards the domestic authorities’ positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that as soon as the applicant’s wife had complained for the first time to the prosecution authority about her husband’s ill-treatment on 8 October 2004, the investigation had been launched immediately. They referred to the comprehensive investigative actions the authority had undertaken (see paragraph 52 above). The results of the latter examination had led to the decision of 17 November 2004 to close the case for lack of established facts that were arguably constitutive of a criminal offence. It was in the light of those findings that the relevant investigative authority had not deemed it necessary to involve the applicant in the investigation by granting him victim status.


91.  The Government stated that the Romanian authorities had introduced a series of important measures aimed at ensuring full observance of Article <mask> of the Convention. Indicating that they were aware of the Court’s findings concerning detention conditions and the case-law it had developed following the Iacov Stanciu v. Romania judgment (no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012), the Government gave assurances that they had redoubled their efforts to improve material conditions of detention and reduce overcrowding rates in prisons. Legislative, administrative and budgetary measures had been taken to that end.


60.  The applicant complained about a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention in prison no. 3 in Chişinău between 23 February and 15 November 2005 (see paragraphs 26-28 above). He also relied on the findings of the CPT and of the domestic authorities (see paragraphs 37 and 38 above).


65.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers on three separate occasions: 4-5 May, 28-29 June and 4 August 2005. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a proper investigation in this connection. The Court finds it appropriate to examine those grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


129.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to torture at the Artashat Police Department on 23 April 2004 and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective instigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He invoked Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


58.  The Government asked the Court to take into account the fact that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies as regards the complaint raised under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. As to the applicant’s claim concerning the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention the Government submitted that the amount requested by the applicant was excessive.


46.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional facility no. IK-13 had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed that the Government’s description of the conditions of his detention was not correct. He submitted that at all times during the period under consideration he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that he had not had his own bed or bedding. He further provided statements by the inmates detained in the same cells as him in the remand prison and the correctional settlement which contained a similar description of the conditions of detention there.


35.  The applicant alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the State had failed to secure adequate living conditions for him throughout his detention. He maintained that during the whole period of his detention the cells allocated to him were designed for four but were shared by six prisoners.


53.  The applicants disagreed with the Government. They claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence that their injuries had been inflicted by the prison officers and that the Government had failed to provide a credible alternative explanation as to how they had sustained them. They further argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities into their allegation of ill-treatment had not been thorough, effective and independent and that the Government had therefore failed to meet their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention.


38.  The applicant's situation was also comparable with that of an applicant in the aforementioned Kalashnikov case, who had been confined to a space measuring between 0.9 and 1.9 m² for a period of slightly more than two years, if counting from the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Russia. The Court emphasised in that case that such a degree of overcrowding in itself raised an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (loc. cit., §§ 96-97).


68.  The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their son's killing. However, since the involvement of State agents in his abduction or killing had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for their suffering. They also stated that the investigation had not established that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention.


89.  The Government further argued that the injuries sustained by the applicant did not suggest that the alleged treatment reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the investigative authorities had not found that the injuries had been inflicted by the officers. The Government thus considered that Article 3 of the Convention did not apply in the present case.


44.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of ill-treatment by the police and investigators on 11 May 2001 in the Centru District Police Station and of the prosecution's refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into their alleged ill-treatment on that date. They also complained, under the same Article, of ill-treatment on 13 June 2001 in Ialoveni Police Station and of delays in the proceedings regarding their complaints of ill-treatment on that date. Article 3 of the Convention reads:


155.  The Government refuted the applicants' arguments and claimed that the evidence given in the fact-finding hearing in the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal had shown that the applicants' allegations were ill-founded and that there had been no violation of any provision of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that there was no proof that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment or that the authorities breached Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government considered that the witness evidence, taking into account a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies given in the course of the fact-finding hearing, clearly showed the lack of a factual basis for a possible finding that the prisoners had been beaten or ill-treated in Zamkova Prison on 30 May 2001 and 28 January 2002.


40.  The applicant complained that after his arrest he had been subjected to beatings by the police in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation into that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's obligations under Article 3, which reads 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. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


250.  The Government suggested the following remedies: complaints to the prison or prosecution authorities and complaints to the domestic courts, according to the procedures provided by the national law. The Court, taking into account its case-law as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies described above (see paragraphs 247 - 249 above), will examine the effectiveness and accessibility of these remedies in relation to each of the applicants' complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


64.  The applicants also alleged that the Belgian authorities had engaged in treatment proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention in that they had deported the second applicant without awaiting the Canadian authorities’ decision on their application for family reunification and had failed to ensure that she would be met by a member of the family or, at least, a Belgian official. They said that the second applicant, who was only five years old at the time, had travelled without anyone being assigned to accompany her and had been forced to wait at Kinshasa Airport from 5 p.m. until approximately 11 p.m., when Ms T. arrived to collect her. In their submission, deporting the child of a person with recognised refugee status was contrary to the fundamental rule that asylum-seekers should not be expelled. There was, furthermore, a danger in such cases that the authorities in the country of origin would use the child’s presence there to compel the refugee to return or even that they would seek to exact revenge on the child. The applicants added that the Government had been aware that neither B., who was a student, nor any other member of the family was in a position to look after the second applicant. In their submission, their case had to be distinguished from the case of Nsona v. the Netherlands (28 November 1996, Reports 1996‑V), in which a nine-year-old girl had been deported in an aircraft belonging to one of her father’s acquaintances and had been accompanied by a (sufficiently) close relative. The present case was different in that the second applicant had travelled alone. It was not enough to say that an air hostess had been assigned to look after her by the airline. Furthermore, the complications in Nsona had come about following the intervention of counsel for the applicant in that case, which was not the position in the present case. The fact that the Belgian authorities had been aware of the first applicant’s refugee status in Canada and that the second applicant had ultimately returned to Europe after five days indicated that the decision to deport her was disproportionate. Lastly, as the applicants had already stated with regard to the second applicant’s detention, the Government had had other means at their disposal.


34.  The Government argued that the applicant had provided the Court with incomplete and misleading information, as he had failed to disclose the fact that he had been released from prison three years ago on 15 July 2010 and had been a fugitive from justice ever since. Consequently, the Government argued that the applicant’s behaviour constituted an abuse of his right to lodge an application and his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.


71.  The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police both during his transport to the Zagreb Police Department and during the police questioning and that during that questioning from 6 a.m. on 1 June 2004 until about 1 a.m. on 4 June 2004 he had been deprived of sleep and food and forced to sit on a chair. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


68.  The applicants complained, in respect of each incident described above, that they 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, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 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:


36.  The Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof. The assessment of whether the force used by the police officers had been indispensable and not excessive was not part of the superficial domestic inquiry, which fell short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Accordingly, given the applicant’s minor age and the particularly serious nature of his injuries, the force used by the police officer was clearly excessive, unjustified and aimed at intimidating the applicant.


29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his removal to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of torture and other forms of ill‑treatment on account of his affiliation with Ennahda. He further submitted, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that he had not been interviewed by the competent authorities regarding his asylum request until November 2009, and has not been informed of the outcome of that interview. The applicant also contended that he was not able to challenge the decision to deport him as he had not been informed of any deportation order made in his respect.


139.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment during his time in police custody from his arrest on 13 April 1996 until his admission to hospital on 16 April 1996. He further complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his confinement in hospital from 16 April to 3 May 1996, when, in great pain and in need of care and support, he was deprived of all contact with his family while police officers were posted permanently in his ward. As his death had been caused by serious and severe injuries, the treatment he had been subjected to amounted to torture. The applicant further claimed that his brother had been tortured for the purpose of compelling him to confess to certain crimes.


77.  The Government submitted that the pre-trial investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been prompt, thorough and independent. They noted that the investigation had been started on the same day that the applicant had complained about ill-treatment, that numerous investigative actions had been carried out, such as interviews and confrontations between different witnesses, that the witnesses asked for by the applicant had been questioned, that the applicant had been able to submit various appeals and requests and several of those had been successful, and that all the decisions taken in the course of the investigation had been well reasoned. Accordingly, the Government contended that the pre‑trial investigation had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


397.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no domestic remedies at their disposal against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3, 5 and 13 read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


54.  The Government considered that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that by challenging the prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings concerning his allegations of ill-treatment during the trial against him the applicant had chosen an inappropriate remedy. They submitted that he ought to have challenged such a refusal in separate proceedings specifically aimed at this end under Article 236-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, noting that the applicant had eventually used the above procedure under Article 236-1, they considered that he could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 3, as he had not challenged the second refusal of the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings concerning his allegations and therefore had to be considered as having accepted that refusal.


53.  The Government submitted that the applicant's request for temporary asylum had been examined and rejected by the competent authorities. They noted in this connection that the applicant had entered Turkey illegally and had omitted to request asylum for several years. Moreover, he was accused of being a member of the terrorist organisations Ennahda and Al-Quada. They maintained that the Ministry of the Interior had decided on the applicant's request taking into consideration the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the UNHCR's decision to recognise the applicant as a refugee. The Government concluded that the applicant's removal to Tunisia would not expose him to any risk.


48.  The applicant submitted that on 13 February 1999 she was arrested in a manner contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. She further alleged that she had been beaten up upon arrival at the police station by the officers who questioned her and then again on the same day by the police officers when she refused to let them search her flat. She alleged that she had sustained injuries, such as bruises and abrasions, and that she had felt intimidated due to such treatment. She also alleged that she had received no medical assistance subsequently.


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


27.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb and that the authorities had complied with their procedural obligations under this head. They argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers had not been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as their sentences would be executed if they committed another wilful offence during the five-year supervision period.


126.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stated that the police officers had tried to improve the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the administrative-detention cell. They had allowed his relatives to bring him food and given him their permission to use a toilet located on the premises of the police station.


222.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, as certain applicants had been minors at the time of the abductions of their parents. The Government also noted that the domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints.


94.  The applicant was detained in a sobering-up centre, a health care facility that was part of a psychiatric hospital, the purpose of which is to treat persons under the influence of drugs. The fact that the applicant was a person suffering from a mental illness was or should have been known to the staff of the centre, as it was already stated in the record drawn up by the ambulance staff who had brought the applicant to the psychiatric hospital. Therefore the Court considers that the rules and standards on using restraints on patients with mental disabilities in psychiatric hospitals are relevant for the interpretation and application of Article <mask> of the Convention to the facts of the present case.


31.  The Government submitted that as of 26 November 2009 the applicant had been detained in a cell in which the statutory minimum space of 3 square metres per person had been respected. 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.


73.  The Government, having submitted the applicant’s medical file in its entirety, accounted in detail for many factual circumstances, unknown to the Court prior to the communication of the application, concerning the treatment provided to the applicant in prison. Referring to those numerous circumstances (see paragraphs 37 and 43-58 above), the Government claimed that the applicant’s treatment fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, rendering the applicant’s complaint manifestly ill-founded.


23.  The Government commented on the conditions of the applicant’s detention. In particular, they submitted that, in violation of the domestic requirements, the applicant had usually been detained in poorly lit cells with no ventilation, lavatory pan or furniture, apart from bunk beds. The cells had not been disinfected. Detainees had received small quantities of food once a day and had not been provided with bedding. Nonetheless, the Government argued that those conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their subsequent submissions to the Court, having commented on the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction, they again asserted that the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention had not been violated. They noted that the applicant had used domestic remedies: he had applied to the Russian courts and had received RUB 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, the Government stressed that the applicant could therefore no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.


31.  The Government contested that argument. They claimed that the strict life imprisonment being served by the applicant was based on a court decision and was prescribed by law. It was, moreover, not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s imprisonment amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The execution of his sentence was thus compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


60.   The Government maintained that the applicant had received entirely appropriate treatment for his injury, including treatment in specialised clinics, an operation on his foot, regular check-ups and physiotherapy, which had led to a full recovery. Admittedly, there had been a delay in the treatment, but it had been for several hours only and moreover it had been caused by the applicant himself, as an experienced doctor had concluded that the applicant’s immediate transfer to hospital was not possible due to his intoxication. In their view, the delay had not been serious enough to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


47.  The applicant submitted that such a prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for subjecting him to the regime. All decisions imposing and extending the regime had lacked justification and had not referred to any individual circumstances imputable to the applicant. The regime had been imposed arbitrarily and extended automatically. Moreover, his good behaviour in the remand centre had not been taken into account by the commission.


42.  The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained some minor bodily injuries. They stressed, however, that he underwent a medical examination four days later, after his release from the police station. Accordingly, the injuries could have been inflicted on him somewhere else. The Government still accepted that some of these injuries could have been caused to the applicant in the course of his arrest at the scene of crime, but emphasised that the use of force was necessary because of his own conduct. No excessive force had been used against him and no beating had taken place in the police station. The Government finally maintained that the investigation into the applicant’s allegation about ill-treatment had been carried out effectively. In particular, the victim and all important witnesses were duly questioned and forensic medical examinations were held. Therefore, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in any regard.


43.  The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any suffering they might have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the CFECC remand centre were appropriate. A doctor was employed there. In case of an emergency, detainees could be taken to a nearby hospital (in Sarban, cited above, the Government specified that the Municipal Emergencies Clinical Hospital was situated 500 metres from the CFECC remand centre), as happened on 18 November 2004 in the case of Mr Istratii. There was no obligation under the Court's case-law to transfer detainees outside their places of detention if they were offered appropriate medical assistance there.


247.  The applicants further submitted that the domestic investigation of their alleged ill-treatment had been ongoing for years without any meaningful attempt to establish the truth and to punish those responsible. Referring to their complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of that investigation, they argued that they were under no obligation to await its completion. In any event, the Government’s objection as to the admissibility of their complaint under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention could only be examined together with the examination of the merits of their complaint under its procedural limb.


29.  The applicants argued that the State had failed to discharge its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect them from domestic violence and to prevent the recurrence of such violence. The authorities had been informed of M. M.’s actions, but had only fined him, which had had no effect on his behaviour. The failure to immediately remove M. M. from the common residence had resulted in the applicants being put at a constant risk of further ill-treatment.


47.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison no. 52/1 (between 8 July 2003 and 12 January 2005 and between 6 December 2005 and 14 February 2006) and in Moscow remand prison no. 77/3 (between 13 January and 5 December 2005) had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


26.  The Government submitted that the complaint was belated. The applicant had been transferred out of the detention facility on 7 July 2010; however, he did not mention the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in his application form of 28 July 2010. Although he stated his intention to lodge such a complaint in his letter of 2 November 2010, his subsequent submissions of 7 February 2011 did not meet the requirements of Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings. The Government concluded that the date of the application form of 16 April 2012 must be taken as the date of introduction of the complaint. The final decision on the applicant’s claim for compensation could not re-trigger the running of the six-month time-limit since the Court has already found that it was not an effective remedy to be exhausted (here they referred to Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013).


47.  The Government contended that they had received sufficient assurances from the Kazakh authorities that the applicants’ rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would not be violated if they were extradited to Kazakhstan. The Government also stated that they had never received complaints about ill-treatment by the Kazakh authorities from people who had been extradited to Kazakhstan in the past. According to the Government, the applicants’ prosecution in that country was not of a political nature.


73.  The Government referred to their description of the conditions of the applicants’ detention and maintained that even if they had not been ideal, they had not been such as to breach Article <mask> of the Convention. They drew the Court’s attention mainly to the improvements that had taken place in 2015 and 2016, insisting, however, that even before these improvements the conditions of the applicants’ detention had been appropriate. Lastly, they claimed that the applicants’ allegations were general and that a simple reference to the CPT’s reports could not substantiate their claims, as those reports had concerned previous periods other than the applicants’ detention.


212.  The applicant’s representatives argued that the highly suspicious events surrounding the applicant’s disappearance in Russia, his crossing of the Russian State border, and his ensuing return to Uzbekistan demonstrated that Russian State officials had been passively or actively involved in that operation. They concluded that Russia should be found responsible for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account.


34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment when he had been detained in police custody both in 1996 and in 2002. He further argued that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, despite the medical reports of 21 and 25 February 2002 having recorded injuries on his body.


39.  The applicant next complained about the fact that he was strip searched. The Court notes that it has already had occasion to apply the principles of Article <mask> of the Convention set out above in the context of strip and intimate body searches. A search carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and for a legitimate purpose (see mutatis mutandis, Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§166-67, ECHR 2003-XII where there was no valid reason established for the shaving of the applicant prisoner's head) may be compatible with Article 3. However, where the manner in which a search is carried out has debasing elements which significantly aggravate the inevitable humiliation of the procedure, Article 3 has been engaged: for example, where a prisoner was obliged to strip in the presence of a female officer, his sexual organs and food touched with bare hands (Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001‑VIII) and where a search was conducted before four guards who derided and verbally abused the prisoner (Iwańczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001). Similarly, where the search has no established connection with the preservation of prison security and prevention of crime or disorder, issues may arise (see, for example, Iwańczuk, cited above, §§ 58-59 where the search of the applicant, a remand prisoner detained on charges of non-violent crimes, was conducted on him when he wished to exercise his right to vote; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2003-II, where the strip-searching was systematic and long term without convincing security needs). Finally, in a case concerning the strip search of visitors to a prisoner which had a legitimate aim but had been carried out in breach of the relevant regulations, the Court found that this treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3 but was in breach of the requirements under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, 20 September 2006).


34.  The applicants complained that the treatment to which they were subjected by the prison authorities and gendarmes on 20 July 1995 in Buca Prison amounted to torture and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their observations dated 11 May 2006 the applicants further complained, without any elaboration, that the incident at Buca prison and subsequent developments also violated their rights under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.


39.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted, in view of the judicial award in the applicant’s favour, that he had lost his victim status, even though such an award did not signify that his rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed. The amount of the award had been commensurate with the severity of his injury. In the alternative, the Government asserted that the applicant could have sustained the injuries prior to his arrest, a fact which had been confirmed in the course of the effective investigation conducted by the authorities in response to the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment in custody. The investigating authorities had taken all the steps necessary to verify the applicant’s allegations. They had questioned the witnesses and studied the medical documents. Both the investigating authorities and the courts had repeatedly looked into the matter. Accordingly, the national authorities had complied with their obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation.


87.  The applicants finally submitted that the refusal by the Appeals Board of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice, in its decision of 22 November 2000, to examine their complaint of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 22 above) meant that they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention at their disposal.


22.  The Government invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. With regard to the fifth, seventh and ninth applicants, the Government contended that they had been released or transferred to other prisons, and should therefore have instituted civil proceedings under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, in conjunction with the Penal Code and Article <mask> of the Convention, which was directly applicable to the national legal order. The domestic remedy was capable of affording those applicants adequate redress in the form of monetary compensation for any damage caused to them.


26.  The Government opened their line of arguments by attracting the Court's attention to the circumstances of the applicant's husband's arrest and her extreme reaction to the police officers' lawful actions. The Government stressed that the applicant had unlawfully sought her husband's release, which had been effected in compliance with domestic requirements, including that of informing an individual of the reasons for his arrest. The applicant, who in the trial hearings did not deny this, was drunk, acted aggressively, attempted to resist her husband's arrest, used offensive language, grabbed the police officers by their uniform, threatened them with violence and even kicked an officer on the leg. She continued her outrageous behaviour in the police station by breaking the panes of glass in the entrance door and bursting into the building. The Government argued that in those circumstances the use of force by the police officer, as well as the use of handcuffs, was a justified and lawful response to the applicant's conduct. Moreover, it was the only possible and effective response, as no non-violent methods were capable of calming the applicant down. In the Government's opinion the force used against the applicant did not run contrary to the guarantees envisaged by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the force did not reach the minimum level of severity required by that Convention provision for it to become applicable. The damage caused to the applicant as a result of the use of force did not lead to any long-term negative consequences for her health and was considered “insignificant” by the experts. Furthermore, while applying force and handcuffing the applicant, the officer had no intention of causing her physical or psychological suffering or of humiliating her. The Government concluded that the force did not reach the limit of inhuman or degrading treatment.


42.  The Government maintained that while in detention the applicant had been provided with the necessary medical assistance. The Government noted that there was no evidence that “before August 2013” the applicant had informed the detention facilities’ administration about his HIV status. However, the applicant has been HIV-positive for a considerable period of time, and while at liberty he was not having any treatment. Once the applicant’s state of health worsened, he had a number of examinations and was placed in a specialised hospital. There he was supervised by doctors and provided with the necessary medication in full. In particular, the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis in August 2012 and provided with the necessary treatment. Therefore, there was no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant’s case.


113.  The applicant submitted that they had reason to believe that their relatives had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. They also complained that as a result of their close relatives' disappearance and the lack of an adequate response from the authorities they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish amounting to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


43.  The Government concluded that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been slight and that therefore the treatment complained of did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. Alternatively, even assuming that the treatment complained of could be regarded as falling within the scope of that provision, they argued that the use of physical force against the applicant by the staff of the centre had been made strictly necessary by her own conduct and had also been lawful. The Government were of the view that the suffering experienced by the applicant had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of otherwise legitimate treatment.


40.  The Government argued that the applicant’s claim should be rejected owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant had failed to raise his complaint before “prosecution bodies” or a court. Secondly, they questioned the existence of a link between the allegedly inadequate medical treatment and the development of the applicant’s cancer. They also stated that the conditions of detention in the remand prison had fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government supported their statements with certificates issued by officials at the remand prison describing various aspects of the conditions of detention.


49.  The applicant disagreed with the Government’s objections. She claimed that the remedy indicated by the Government had not been available to her, as copies of the decisions refusing to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment had not been given to her. She further claimed that she had raised the issue of ill-treatment before the courts dealing with her criminal case. She insisted that she had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of that contention, the applicant referred to procedural shortcomings by the authorities in that period, emphasising that they had failed to provide her with access to a lawyer.


29.  The applicant insisted that he had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained his version of events and argued that on 26 August 2003 he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers who were taking revenge on him because he had shot their colleague. He also submitted that neither the authorities at the domestic level nor the Government in the proceedings before the Court had provided any plausible explanations as to the origin of his injuries.


29.  The applicant argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that following the Iraqi authorities' refusal to admit him through the official Habur border post, he was locked up overnight inside a bus while handcuffed to a seat and was kept in various police and gendarmerie stations until he was deported to Iraq by illegal means, which exposed him to various deadly hazards, such as drowning and being blown up by a mine.


88.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the investigative authorities during the pre‑trial investigation; under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in SIZO no. 3 pending his trial had been unlawful; and under Article 6 § 3 (d) that the trial court had failed to summon Z., another purported criminal association member, as a witness. Finally, the applicant cited Articles 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17 in respect of the facts of the present case.


32.  The applicant complained that his arrest had been carried out by six police officers who entered his house with firearms pulled out. The police officers had been masked so that the individual police officer could not be identified as author of a particular action. Furthermore, a police officer had threatened him to “pick him off”. He had been laid on a table and stripped, and then forced to the ground where he remained for some 15 minutes while one of the officers pressed his knee on the back of his neck and some other officers searched his house. Finally, he had remained handcuffed during all the time of his arrest and subsequent detention despite his calm and cooperative attitude. He submitted that this treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:


86.  The Government reiterated that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ukraine prohibited torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution contained directly applicable provisions and could be relied on by a claimant as a legal basis for his or her claim. Moreover, in accordance with the Constitution, the Convention formed an integral part of Ukrainian legislation. The applicant faced no obstacles in bringing a complaint before the domestic courts in order to seek redress for alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention.


25.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police officers during his questioning on 20 April 2002, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into his ill-treatment complaint and he therefore lacked an effective remedy in respect of the above violation.


37.  The applicant complained that the prison officers had not taken enough measures to protect his life, particularly in connection with the failure to provide medical assistance after he had been injured by another inmate. He complained further that he had been put in solitary confinement after that incident had taken place and that he had been placed in the same unit as his aggressor. The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: