FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37507/02
by X.
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Fatoş Aracı, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list of cases and the text of a unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application,
Having regard to the applicant’s comments on the Government’s original and amended unilateral declarations,
Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A.  The circumstances of the case
1.  The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment in police custody
On 16 June 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering L. the day before. He alleged that he was assaulted by officers in the Cahul Police Commissariat throughout the day of his arrest and during the night, with the aim of obtaining a confession. According to the applicant, he was punched and kicked, was hit with wooden sticks and nearly asphyxiated with a plastic bag. No report confirming any injuries to the applicant appears to have been drawn up at the time of his arrest.
On 22 June 2001 he was transferred to Prison no. 5 in Cahul. When he was admitted to that institution, he was examined by a doctor, who established the following diagnosis: “Multiple physical injuries to the body and limbs in the form of , bruises and grazes. Bleeding wound on the head 3.0 x 4.0 cm. Head trauma?” According to the doctor, the applicant told him that he had been ill-treated by the police and also that he had hit himself on the head with a brick. According to the applicant, he said nothing to the doctor about a brick and this part of the medical notes was the result of influence exerted on the doctor by L.’s brother, also a doctor in prison no. 5. The applicant later had to undergo treatment for head trauma on seven occasions between 23 June 2001 and 17 June 2004.
The applicant claims that in July 2001, before his transfer to Chişinău for a psychiatric examination, the staff of prison no. 5 beat him and then introduced a rubber stick into his anus. He named specific officers responsible for his ill-treatment. No medical report appears to have been made in respect of his allegations. It is unclear whether he requested that such a report be drawn up.
On an unknown date in August 2001 the applicant requested the prosecutor to discontinue the investigation against him, which was refused.
According to the applicant, he was again severely beaten on 20 September 2002, just before a court hearing. The judge and the lawyer appointed by the authorities did not react when they saw his injuries.
On 2 November 2001 the applicant’s lawyer requested the administration of prison no. 5 to inform her about the applicant’s state of health on the date of his admission there. In response she was informed about the findings of the report of 22 June 2001.
The applicant complained on numerous occasions about his ill-treatment in the Cahul police commissariat and in prison no. 5, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the courts. On 3 April 2003 a prosecutor adopted a decision refusing to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police and staff of prison no. 5 because no elements of a crime had been proved. The applicant made another complaint of ill-treatment and on 23 December 2004 he was informed by the prosecutor that he had been given an answer on 3 April 2003. The applicant complained to a court about the letter of 23 December 2004, considering it unlawful. At the court hearing he complained that there had been repeated refusals to open an investigation into his ill-treatment on the night of 16-17 June 2001, and mentioned the many complaints made to the prosecutor’s office in this respect. On 31 January 2005 the Cahul District Court rejected his complaint, finding that it had been directed against the letter of 23 December 2004, while in order to challenge the prosecutor’s decision not to open an investigation of 3 April 2003 he needed to complain about that decision and not the letter.
On 27 February 2003 the Ministry of Justice forwarded the applicant’s complaint of excessive length of proceedings to the President of the Cahul District Court and asked him to take all lawful measures in order to speed up the proceedings in the applicant’s case.
On 21 April 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to include in the file the applicant’s medical report at the time of his admission to prison no. 5. This request was accepted by the court. In his appeal of 8 June 2004 the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and made reference to this medical report.
On 11 January 2002 the applicant was convicted by the Cahul Regional Court. On 30 April 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered the re-examination of the case by the first-instance court because a number of important pieces of evidence had not been examined; notably, no expert report had been drawn up on either the applicant’s or the victim’s clothes and bodies or on glass found at the crime scene.
On 21 April 2004 the applicant was convicted by the Cahul District Court. The court found that a number of witnesses had consistently testified that on the night of the crime they had seen the applicant and two other men attacking and severely beating L. and then taking him away. The two other attackers gave evidence that the applicant remained alone with L. and later told them that he had killed him. A forensic report found that L. had a broken arm and many other injuries and had been raped and strangled. The court warned the prosecution that the loss of incriminating objects, and thus evidence, was unacceptable.
In his appeal, the applicant complained, inter alia, that there had been no effective investigation of his claim that he had been ill-treated while in police custody, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He relied on Ribitsch v. Austria;4 December 1995, Series A no. 336.
On 5 April 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the conviction, mostly basing itself on the reasons given by the lower court. In response to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment the court found that he had not made any complaint between June 2001 and September 2002 and that he had made no self-incriminating statements. In addition, it appeared from the description of events by the witnesses that the applicant had fought with L. and had fallen to the ground, which was a possible explanation for some of his injuries. Moreover, according to three reports of the police from June 2001, the applicant had been involved in fights with co-detainees. On 22 June 2001 he explained, in the presence of his lawyer, that his injuries were self-inflicted. The doctor of prison no. 5 wrote that the applicant had declared that he had himself caused his head wound using a brick and that he had sustained the other injuries before his arrest. On 24 June 2001 the applicant hit his head against a bed. Moreover, according to a psychiatric report on the applicant, he was irascible and aggressive when drunk. The court found that his allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated and rejected his complaint.
The court also examined the applicant’s complaint that the lower court had refused to hear witness M. on his behalf. It found that M. was in hospital at the time of the request and could not be heard. In any event, having examined the written statement made by M., the court found no reason to question the applicant’s conviction.
2.  Conditions of detention and alleged infection with hepatitis
The applicant claims that he was detained for several years in a cell in prison no. 5 with very limited access to daylight and constant electric lighting; there was no toilet except for a bucket which was not separated from the rest of the cell; the cell was damp and lacked ventilation and bedding; and the quality and quantity of food was poor, limited to 0.3 euros (EUR) a day per detainee.
According to the applicant, he had been ill with hepatitis A in his childhood, but had recovered completely. When he was admitted to prison no. 5, where L.’s brother worked as a doctor, the latter threatened to infect him with a dangerous illness. During his treatment in prison no. 5 the applicant was allegedly deliberately infected with hepatitis and syphilis. According to a certificate issued by a doctor in prison no. 5 on 2 November 2001, the applicant stated that he had suffered from hepatitis during his childhood. According to a medical certificate issued by the medical authorities in prison no. 5 on 26 March 2004, the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis B on 28 November 2002. According to another such certificate issued by the same authority on 26 August 2008, such a diagnosis had been made in 2003, the diagnosis upon release being chronic hepatitis B and D. In response to the applicant’s lawyer’s request, on 5 September 2008 the Centre for Family Doctors informed him that the applicant had not been seen by any of their doctors since 1999 and that they had no medical records to verify whether he had suffered from any form of hepatitis earlier.
According to a certificate from a medical commission composed of renowned Moldovan specialists in the area of viruses and infectious diseases, which examined the applicant’s medical file at the request of the Government Agent Office, chronic hepatitis was found in the applicant’s blood on 22 June 2001. On 28 November 2002 hepatitis antigen was found. The applicant’s medical history also included five occasions of being ill with honouree and one instance of trichomoniasis, which he had treated himself. The doctors stated that it could not be excluded that he had been ill prior to his arrest. In the absence of his medical file at the place of residence it was impossible to determine more exactly the period during which he had been infected. However, hepatitis A (which according to the applicant he had had in childhood) even if untreated, while capable of leading to health complications, could not become a chronic disease, which excluded that cause for the antigen found in the applicant’s blood upon his very first admission to hospital. The doctors finally stated statistical data showed a relatively high percentage of the population of Moldova (8-12%) were affected by hepatitis, and the prevalence was higher in the southern part of the country, where the applicant lived.
3.  Alleged interception of the applicant’s correspondence
The applicant complains that all his correspondence was read by the prison administration, as shown by stamps on all the letters he received. One of those letters bearing such a stamp was from the Court, others were from the Prosecutor General’s Office and other authorities. Some of the letters were addressed directly to the applicant and others were addressed to the prison administration and the applicant.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
Article  19 of the Law on the Protection of Health (no. 411-XII of 28 March 1995) reads as follows:
“Article 19. The right to compensation for damage caused to health.
1.  Everyone has the right to compensation for damage caused to his or her health by ... ill-intended actions of others.
...
2.  Patients, ... have the right to compensation for damage caused by medical-sanitary units by failing to observe medical treatment rules, by prescribing contraindicated medication or by dispensing incorrect treatment that worsens the health, provokes invalidity, endangers the patient’s life or results in his or her death”.
Article 1422 of the Civil Code reads as follows:
“Article 1422. Compensation for mental and emotional damage.
1.  If a person is caused damage (physical or mental and emotional suffering) by acts which violate her personal moral rights, as well as in other cases provided by law, the court has the power to order the person responsible for the damage to compensate for it with a monetary equivalent.
2.  Compensation for mental and emotional damage shall be paid regardless of the existence and extent of any pecuniary damage caused. ...”
In its judgment of 7 February 2008 (no. 2-110/08) the Rîşcani District Court found that Mr G. had contracted tuberculosis while in detention, but had completely recovered after receiving the necessary treatment. Nonetheless, he was awarded a total of 10,797 Moldovan lei (MDL) (EUR 656 at the time) in compensation for the damage caused to him. That judgment was upheld by the higher courts.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and staff of prison no.5 in Cahul.
He also complained, under the same Article, that the conditions of detention in prison no.5 were inhuman and that he had been deliberately infected with hepatitis and syphilis there.
He also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, without giving any reasons.
He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against him had been excessively long.
The applicant complained under the same Article that a witness on his behalf had not been heard.
He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his correspondence had been intercepted by the prison authorities.
He further complained that he had no effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned complaints. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
The applicant finally complained of a violation of Article 34 of the Convention because of a prosecutor’s refusal to issue him a copy of a document.
THE LAW
A.   Complaints concerning infection with hepatitis, failure to hear a witness and the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention.
1.  Alleged infection with hepatitis
The applicant complained that he had been deliberately infected with hepatitis B and D and syphilis while in detention and had thus been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
Article 3 reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The applicant argued that there were no remedies in Moldova to exhaust in respect of that violation, since the courts always sided with the State authority responsible for human rights violations. Even if they found in favour of the victim on rare occasions, the courts awarded only small amounts of compensation, which did not offer sufficient redress. Moreover, he had been ill with hepatitis A in his childhood, but not the B and D forms of that illness.
The Government submitted that it was impossible to verify exactly when the applicant had become ill with hepatitis, and that he had signs of that disease already at the time of his arrest. In any event, the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies, since there existed legislative provisions giving anyone who had suffered damage as a result of improper medical acts the right to obtain compensation. Moreover, in practice the courts applied that legislation and made monetary awards in favour of victims (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” above).
The Court considers that it is not necessary to decide whether the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies referred to by the Government, in view of its findings below. It notes that while the applicant submitted medical materials confirming that he was infected with hepatitis B and D, he did not provide any evidence of when he could have contracted those illnesses. Neither could the experts who examined the applicant’s medical documents at the Government’s request establish the time when he had been infected, prior to or during his detention. It was clear to them, however, that upon his arrival at hospital no. 5 shortly after his arrest the applicant already had hepatitis antigens of a form not present in hepatitis A cases, and that the hepatitis was at a chronic stage. Moreover, according to the applicant’s medical history, he had been ill with a number of infectious sexually transmitted diseases prior to his detention, which in the Government’s view only increased the probability that he had also contracted hepatitis before his arrest.
In the particular circumstances of the present case, and in view of the complexity of the medical issues at stake, which are primarily for the domestic medical authorities to examine, the Court considers that it has not been shown with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant was infected during his detention. At the same time, the applicant did not complain that he had not received appropriate treatment and it follows from the file that he did receive such treatment for his illnesses.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2.  Complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, without giving any reasons. Article 5 § 1 reads as follows:
“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ...”
The applicant did not explain what had constituted a violation of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention either in his initial application or in his subsequent observations. For its part, the Court does not see anything in the file raising an issue under that provision.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3.  Alleged failure to hear a witness
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the domestic courts’ failure to hear a witness on his behalf. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:
“1.  In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ....
... 3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
... (d)  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; ...”
The witness in question (M.) was allegedly told by another person that he, and not the applicant, had killed the victim.
The Court notes that the domestic courts heard a number of witnesses requested by both the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer. In their judgments the courts relied on various types of evidence to convict the applicant. The Supreme Court of Justice examined M.’s written statement and found that it did not raise any doubts as to the applicant’s guilt.
In such circumstances, and given that the proceedings had already lasted for almost four years, the courts’ decision not to hear one additional witness who was unavailable at the relevant time and who could only provide hearsay evidence obtained from the alleged real criminal (the latter not having come forward and thus presumably not willing to confirm having told anything to M.) does not disclose a procedural violation of such an importance as to undermine the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
4.  Complaint under Article 34 of the Convention
The applicant further complained of a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, which reads:
“The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”
The applicant submitted that on an unspecified date in February 2007 his lawyer had asked the prosecutor’s office to send him a copy of a declaration made by a detainee who had seen the applicant being beaten by the police. In response, on 27 February 2007 the prosecutor allegedly refused to provide him with such a copy, inviting him instead to see the relevant statement at the prosecutor’s office.
The Court notes that the applicant and his lawyer did not include in the file either his request or the prosecutor’s response. Even assuming that such an exchange did take place, it remains unclear, for instance, whether the request had mentioned that the document was intended to be used in the procedure before the Court or whether the prosecutor had prevented the applicant’s lawyer from making any copies thereof at the prosecutor’s office. In such circumstances, the Court considers that this complaint is unsubstantiated.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B.  Other complaints
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and staff of prison no.5 in Cahul, that the authorities had failed to investigate his ill-treatment properly and that he had been detained in inhuman conditions in that prison.
Article 3 reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against him had been excessively long.
The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his correspondence had been intercepted by the prison authorities.
The relevant part of Article 8 reads as follows:
“1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. ...”
He also complained that he had no effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned complaints. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
 By a letter dated 21 January 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving some of the issues raised by the application, while they considered the remainder of the application inadmissible. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“... 1.  The Government regrets the alleged suffering caused to the applicant in the context of Article 3 of the Convention (the fact that he was the victim of inhuman and degrading treatment, the fact that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation and also the applicant’s conditions of detention), Article 6 § 1 (notably, the excessive length of the proceedings), Article 8 (concerning the violation of the secret of correspondence in the case of a letter sent by [the Court] on 17 October 2002 and addressed to [the applicant], a fact acknowledged by the Government in their observations ... of 5 March 2007), as well as of Article 13 in conjunction with the above-mentioned Articles, and undertakes to adopt the appropriate instructions and take all the necessary measures in order to guarantee the observance in the future of the prohibition of torture (including the obligation to provide adequate prison conditions, the taking of all measures necessary to prevent the application of inhuman and degrading treatment to anyone, and the obligation to carry out effective investigations), the right to have one’s case examined within a reasonable time, as well as the right to respect for his or her correspondence.
[The Government described a number of legislative and organisational measures already taken to achieve the aims stated above, including methodical instructions sent by the Prosecutor General’s office to the prosecutors on the manner of dealing with the crime of torture and the adoption of order no. 216/11 by the same office on 19 November 2007 on the organisation of investigations in cases of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment].
2.  Taking into account the circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case law in similar cases, the Government offer to pay the applicant ex gratia the sum of EUR 10,000 in compensation for any damage caused to him, and also to cover any expenses for his representation before the Court. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
3.  The Government consider that supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the enforcement of the Court’s judgments regarding the Republic of Moldova in cases such as the present one constitutes an appropriate mechanism to guarantee the constant improvement of the situation in the field. They undertake to continue cooperation in this respect.
At the same time, the Government submits that [the Court] has already specified in a number of occasions when examining applications with a similar content the existence and extent of obligations of the State in respect of the principles and guarantees given to detainees in accordance with Articles 3, 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
In the light of the above, the Government invite the Court to decide that there are no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application and to strike it out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention... While examining the applicability of Article 37 of the Convention, [the Court] should also take into account the observations and evidence submitted by the Government in their letter of 5 March 2007. ...”
 In a letter of 21 July 2008 the Government’s Agent stated that “... in their unilateral declaration the Government have acknowledged, inter alia, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and offered compensation...”.
The applicant requested that the Court reject the Government’s proposal on the basis that the unilateral declaration was insufficient in terms of the level of compensation proposed, which he found inadequate having regard to the damage sustained. In particular, the applicant submitted that the declaration did not cover all the violations complained of (such as his infection with hepatitis and his complaint under Article 34), and did not provide for the obligation of the Government to seek the reopening of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in order to hear witness M., logically leading to the applicant’s acquittal.
The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of an attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government on 21 January 2008 and modified on 21 July 2008 outside the framework of the friendly settlement negotiations.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court would also state that under certain circumstances it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-lawTahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005).
 As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention as regards the rights of detainees (see, among others, Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, §§ 54-67 and 68-76, 4 April 2006; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, §§ 62-71 and 99-104, 19 June 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 97-102, 13 September 2005; and Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, 10 May 2007). Where the Court has found a breach of these Articles it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which has depended on the particular features of the case.
In examining the Government’s declaration, the Court takes into account the various measures mentioned in it as having been already taken or planned in order to prevent future violations, in particular those concerning violations of Article 3 of the Convention. It finds these measures encouraging and, not yet having information about their effectiveness, it will closely follow their effect in any future cases it may have to examine.
The Court further notes that in their amended declaration filed on 21 July 2008 the Government have clearly acknowledged violations of the applicant’s rights under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, thereby eliminating any ambiguity in this connection contained in their original declaration and which may have created major obstacles to its acceptability.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court’s awards in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar,, and also Haran v. Turkey (striking out), no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002).
In the light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, the complaints covered by this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
The Court has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court). In the present case, taking into account the relatively straightforward nature of the issues involved, but also the amount of work carried out by the applicant’s lawyer, it decides to award EUR 1,500 in respect of legal costs and expenses.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as it relates to the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 (ill-treatment and its investigation, as well as conditions of detention), 6 (length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant), 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 of the Convention;
Decides to award EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
Decides to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Fatoş Aracı	Nicolas Bratza
	Deputy Registrar	President