Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to conditions of transfer; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3; Violation of P4-2; Violation of P1-3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
Where the authorities detain a suspect for a lengthy period before trial, they must show special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings to justify continued detention. Article 3 prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and of the victim’s behaviour.
26772/95,  119 ECHR 2000 IV,  ECHR 160,  ECHR 161
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited – Al Akidi v Bulgaria ECHR 31-Jul-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The applicant asserted infringement of his rights by virtue of his detention before trial. He was arrested and detained in 1993, but his case was not concluded . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.165854