CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 juillet 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 24760/94                      Assenov, Ivanova, Ivanov                               against                              Bulgaria   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 10 July 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 17-78) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 17-70). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 71-78). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 79-188). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (paras. 79-80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17        B.    Points at issue           (para. 81). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17        C.    As regards the applicants           (paras. 82-83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17        D.    Complaints related to the events of September 1992           (paras. 84-120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18             a) As regards Article 3 of the Convention           (paras. 84-98). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18             CONCLUSION           (para. 99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20             b) As regards Article 13 of the Convention           (paras. 100-108). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20             CONCLUSION           (para. 109) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22             c) As regards Article 6 of the Convention           (paras. 110-119). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22             CONCLUSION           (para. 120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24        E.    Complaints related to the events since 1995           (paras. 121-179). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24             a) As regards the lawfulness and the conditions           of detention           (paras. 121-127). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24             CONCLUSION           (paras. 128-129). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25             b) As regards the right under Article 5 para. 3 of the           Convention to be brought before an officer exercising           judicial power           (paras. 130-142). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25             CONCLUSION           (para. 143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27             c) As regards the right under Article 5 para. 3 of the           Convention to a trial within a reasonable time or to           release           (paras. 144-150)    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27             CONCLUSION           (para. 151)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28             d) As regards Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention           (paras. 152-165). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28             CONCLUSION           (para. 166) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31             e) As regards the right of petition to the Commission           under Article 25 of the Convention           (paras. 167-178). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31             CONCLUSION           (para. 179) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33        F.    Recapitulation           (paras. 180-188). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33     PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY . . . . . . . 35   APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE           ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . 37   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicants are a family of Bulgarian nationals, residing in the city of Shoumen, Bulgaria.   Their complaints concern almost exclusively Anton Assenov ("the first applicant"), born in 1978, who is currently detained on remand.   The second applicant, born in 1956 and the third applicant, born in 1952, are the first applicant's parents.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mrs. Zdravka Kalaydjieva, a lawyer practising in Sofia.   3.    The application is directed against Bulgaria.   The respondent Government were represented by Mrs. Guenka Beleva, Agent of the Government, and, subsequently, by Mrs. Ilina Taneva of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns complaints under Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 deriving from an incident in September 1992 when the police allegedly ill-treated the first applicant at the bus station in Shoumen and at the Shoumen police station; and complaints under Article 5 paras. 1, 3 and 4, and Articles 3 and 25 concerning another group of events related to the first applicant's detention   on remand since July 1995.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 6 September 1993 and registered on 3 August 1994.   6.    On 22 February 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's written observations were submitted on 16 May 1995, after an extension of the time-limit.   The applicants replied on 15 July 1995.   On 4 July 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) granted the applicants legal aid for the representation of   their case.        The applicants submitted additional complaints by letters of 31 August and 14 September 1995 and elaborated their arguments by letters of 10 November 1995 and 3 January 1996.   The Government replied to the additional complaints by letters of 12 and 30 October 1995.   8.    On 16 January 1996 the case was transferred from the First Chamber to the Plenary Commission, by decision of the latter.   On 22 January 1996 the Commission decided to examine the applicant's additional complaints together with the initial application and to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.        On 26 January 1996 the Commission examined the applicants' request to rely on the written testimonies of witnesses submitted by them on 10 November 1995.   These are four short handwritten statements. One of them, signed by 13 persons whose addresses are not given, states that the third applicant (the first applicant's father) has never been gambling.   Another statement of a witness states that the third applicant was apprehended by the police on the street on 8 March 1995 without any apparent reason.        The remaining two statements are from two persons who allege having witnessed the scene at the bus station square on 19 September 1992 and having seen the policemen "pushing and kicking the [first applicant] and his father and swearing at them" and "hitting" them.   These two statements are not dated, the applicants' lawyer having explained, in November 1995, that they had been taken "at an earlier moment".   The applicants' lawyer sought to rely on the statements provided that the respondent Government would not be informed of the identity of their authors.   If this was not possible "under the rules of procedure and the practice of the Commission", the lawyer requested the Commission "not to rely on [the] statements" and stated that, such being the case, she "withdraw[s]" them.        The Commission decided not to rely on these statements under the conditions stipulated by the applicants' representative.        The hearing was held on 27 June 1996.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. G. Beleva, and also by Mrs. S. Margaritova of the Ministry of Justice and Lieutenant-Colonel V. Parvanov of the Military Prosecutor's Office.   The applicants were represented by Mrs. Z. Kalaydjieva, a lawyer practising in Sofia, and by Mr. P. Duffy, a barrister practising in the United Kingdom.   9.    On 27 June 1996 the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 10 July 1996 and they were invited to submit further observations. The Government submitted observations on 24 September 1996 and the applicants on 23 September 1996 and on 15 October 1996.        On 19 October 1996 the Commission invited the parties to answer additional questions on the merits of the application.   The Government submitted their answers by letters of 26 November 1996, 16 December 1996, 17 January 1997 and 17 February 1997.   The applicants sent their   replies by letters of 9 November 1996, 8 January 1997 and 12 February 1997.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                H. DANELIUS                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                E. BIELIUNAS   13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 10 July 1997 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   15.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   Events of 19 September 1992 and the ensuing proceedings   17.   On 19 September 1992, while gambling at the square in the city of Shoumen, the first applicant was apprehended by a policeman and brought to the nearby bus station.   18.   Subsequently the second and the third applicants, who were both working at the bus station, came and asked for their son's release. At some point more policemen arrived.   They forcefully took the first applicant and his father into a police car and brought them to the police station.   There they were detained for about two hours and then released.   19.   On 21 September 1992, the first working day following the incident, the applicants visited a doctor.   They explained to him that the first applicant had been beaten by three policemen with a truncheon and with the handle of a pistol and that the second applicant had been beaten with a truncheon.   The doctor examined the first applicant and his mother and issued medical certificates.   20.   The certificate concerning the first applicant stated that the boy had a band-like haematoma about 5 cm long and 1 cm wide on the upper outer side of his right arm, the bruise being purple-bluish in the periphery and pale in the centre, three band-like haematomas each about 6 cm long and 1 cm wide on the right side of his chest, another bruise about 4 cm long on the left scapula, a haematoma of about 2 cm in diameter on the back haired part of the head, and also five grazes each about 5 cm long on the right chest.   The certificate concerning the second applicant stated that she had a bruise about 5 cm long on her left thigh. The doctor concluded that the bruises could have been inflicted as described by the applicants.   21.   On 2 October 1992 the second applicant filed a complaint with the District Directorate of Internal Affairs (Regionalna directzia na vatresnite raboti) ("the district police") alleging that while entering the room at the bus station, she and her husband had seen that policemen were beating and insulting their son.   The parents asked the policemen to stop because their son was suffering from heart disturbances.   However, the policemen continued to beat the first applicant, and also hit his parents.   The second applicant further stated that the first applicant had been beaten again in the police station.   She requested the punishment of the officers responsible for the incident.   22.   The complaint was dealt with by Colonel P., inspector at the personnel service of the district police.   On 15 October 1992 Colonel P. heard each of the applicants and prepared written accounts of their oral testimonies, signed by him and by the person giving the testimony. The first applicant was heard in the presence of a pedagogue, a Mr. G.   23.   According to these statements the first applicant and another person were engaged in gambling when a plain clothes policeman approached and took the first applicant to the nearby building of the bus station, from where he telephoned the police.   The policeman kicked the boy.   Then the boy's father came and asked for his son's release. He shouted at his son and hit him several times with a thin ply-wood strip to punish him.   After that two policemen came.   They hit the applicants with truncheons.   The father at some point tried to pull his son and to release him.   The father and the boy were handcuffed and brought to the police station.   There the policemen separated them and started beating the boy again.   24.   Colonel P. also ordered the three police officers involved and the officer who had been on duty at the police station to submit written explanations.   They did so on 21, 22 and 26   October 1992 respectively.   25.   According to these statements Sergeant B., who was not working that day and was not wearing a uniform, was passing by the central bus station when he saw people gambling.   He apprehended the first applicant and brought him to the bus station from where he called the police officer on duty.   Thereupon the father appeared, shouted at the boy, and started hitting him with a ply-wood strip.   The father, and also the mother who came shortly thereafter, started also protesting against their son's arrest and pulling the boy.   When Sergeants S. and V. arrived the father shouted, swore, and threatened the police officers, who told him in response to shut up and to come voluntarily to the police station.   A crowd of about 15 - 20 gipsies gathered. Also about 20 drivers from the bus station were around and witnessed the scene.   As the father continued his violent behaviour the police officers subdued him forcefully, put handcuffs on him and brought him and the first applicant to the police station.   There officer S. filled out a form for the seizure from the first applicant of the sum of 100 leva and then the arrested were released.   It was not true that they were beaten at the police station.   Five days later officer S. drew up an act for the institution of administrative proceedings for unlawful gambling against the first applicant.   26.   On 26 October 1992 Colonel P. also obtained a written explanation from the traffic manager at the bus station.   She stated that a policeman had brought a boy and had asked her to telephone the police for a car.   She did not remember any disturbance having occurred.   27.   Based on this material on 6 November 1992 Colonel P. drew up an internal note in which he made a summary of the facts and concluded that the boy had been beaten by his father.   28.   On 13 November 1992 the district police sent a letter to the applicants stating that the conduct of the police officers had been lawful.   29.   On 12 December 1992 the second and third applicants submitted a request for the criminal prosecution of the alleged offenders to the Regional Military Prosecution Office in Varna (Okrazhna voenna prokuratura), which was competent to prosecute police officers.   In the request they again described the events of 19 September 1992, insisting that the policemen had beaten the first applicant with truncheons and with their fists at the bus station and again at the entrance of the police station.   Finally the parents asserted that the first applicant had been held for two hours in the police station handcuffed to a radiator.   They also stated that the type of injuries their son had suffered could not have been inflicted by his father.   30.   On 30 December 1992 the Regional Military Prosecutor ordered an inquiry to be handled by investigator G. at the Military Investigation Office in Shoumen.   31.   On 27 January 1993 a human rights non-governmental organisation sent a letter to the Regional Military Prosecution Office insisting on a speedy examination of the complaint.   32.   On 8 February 1993 investigator G. wrote a letter to the director of the police in Shoumen instructing him to hear the applicants and the police officers and to report back. Since there had already been an inquiry on the matter, on 15 February 1993 the district police sent the materials regarding the inquiry to the investigator.   33.   It is disputed whether investigator G. heard the applicants personally.   The Government affirm that he did, but it appears that no trace of the hearing was left in the file.   34.   On 20 March 1993 investigator G. drew up a one page internal note summarising the facts and proposing that the opening of criminal proceedings be refused.   He stated that the allegations were not proved and that the evidence in the case was "contradictory".   On the basis of this note on 24 March 1993 the Regional Military Prosecution Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen concerned.   The decision stated inter alia that the first applicant's father had been hitting his son, shouting and pulling him, which amounted to disobedience to police orders and had caused their arrest. The decision also stated that the evidence taken from witnesses did not confirm the use of physical violence by the policemen against the boy.   35.   On 15 April 1993 the applicants appealed against this decision to the General Military Prosecution Office (Prokuratura na vaorazhenite sili).    They stated that it was obvious from the decision that the only witnesses examined had been the police officers, who were in fact the suspects; that the medical certificates had not been taken into consideration; and that it was untrue that the applicants had disobeyed police orders.   36.   The appeal was submitted through the Regional Military Prosecution Office, from where it was forwarded on 30 April 1993 accompanied by a letter which expressed the opinion that the complaint should be dismissed.   A copy of this letter was sent to the applicants.   37.   On 21 May 1993 the General Military Prosecution Office, apparently after an examination of the file, refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers on the same grounds as the lower prosecution.   The decision stated inter alia:   <Translation>         "A medical certificate is enclosed in the file, from which it appears that there were haematomas on the juvenile's body, indicating superficial bodily harm, and corresponding, in terms of mechanism of infliction, to blows with a band-like solid object.        The Deputy Regional Prosecutor correctly considered that even if blows were administered on the body of the juvenile, they occurred as a result of disobedience to police orders.   The physical force and auxiliary means employed were in accordance with Article 24 para. 1 items 1 and 2 of the Law on the National Police now in force."   38.   Apparently as a result of additional complaints and pressure from the Ministry of Justice to reexamine the matter, on 13 July 1993 the General Military Prosecution Office sent a letter to the Regional Military Prosecution Office.   The letter stated that the matter had been dealt with in breach of the instructions which required that preliminary inquiries against policemen should include the examination of independent witnesses.   Accordingly, further investigations had to be effected.   39.   On 22 July 1993 the Regional Military Prosecution Office objected to these instructions, but it nevertheless proceeded with the examination of certain witnesses.   These were a driver and a person working at the bus station, who submitted written explanations on 29 and on 30 July 1993 respectively.   The driver stated that he had witnessed the disturbance on 19 September 1992 and had even helped the policemen to subdue the first applicant's father, who had been behaving violently.   Also, he had seen the father hitting his son, but the policemen had not beaten them.   The other witness remembered vaguely the events and could not say whether the father had hit his son or whether the policemen had beaten them.   40.   These additional investigations apparently did not conclude with the delivery of a formal decision.   Their results were not communicated to the applicants.   41.   On 20 June 1994 the applicants appealed to the Chief General Prosecutor of Bulgaria (Glaven prokuror na Republika Bulgaria).   The appeal again explained the applicants' version of the facts.   It added that the beating of the first applicant had been accompanied by insults referring to his gipsy ethnic origin, and that his parents had also been called offensive names on the basis of their ethnic origin.   The applicants further asserted that there had been a lot of witnesses to the incident as it had taken place at the city bus station, but no effort had been made to take evidence from any of the bystanders.   The appeal also stated that there was a contradiction between the findings of the Regional Military Prosecution Office, which found that physical force had not been employed, and the conclusion of the General Military Prosecution Office, which established that there had been use of physical force, but that it had been legal.   The appeal stated that violations of Articles 3, 6 and 14 of the Convention had occurred in the case.   42.   This appeal was apparently transferred to the General Military Prosecution Office, which on 28 June 1994 wrote a letter to the applicants' lawyer stating that there were no grounds for annulment of the previous decision.        Criminal proceedings against the first applicant since 1995   43.   In 1994 and 1995 the prosecution authorities in Shoumen opened several preliminary files and criminal proceedings dealing with cases of theft and robbery.   In January 1995 the first applicant was questioned, apparently as a suspect, in the course of these proceedings.   The investigations revealed the alleged continuous criminal activity of six persons considered to have been accomplices in numerous thefts and robberies.   44.   On 27 July 1995 the first applicant was arrested by decision of an investigator in the framework of case No. 110/95 of the list of the local investigation authorities.   On 28 July 1995 the first applicant was brought before the investigator, who formally charged him, decided to detain him on remand and questioned him.   Present at that moment in the office of the investigator were also prosecutor K. and the first applicant's lawyer.   The decision of the investigator to detain the first applicant on remand was approved the same day by prosecutor A., who had not been present when the first applicant was charged and questioned.   45.   The charges against the first applicant, as elaborated during the investigation (see paras. 48 and 58), consisted of ten or more thefts and burglaries allegedly committed between 9 January and 2 May 1995 and six robberies committed between 10 September 1994 and 24 July 1995, the last robbery having been committed three days before the arrest.   In addition to the first applicant, two other persons were formally charged and one of them was also arrested.   Several provisions of the Penal Code were invoked in the accusations (see para. 76).   46.   The burglaries with which the first applicant was charged allegedly resulted in the stealing of television sets, other electrical appliances, fur coats, and other objects worth about 300,000 leva (about 24,000 FF at the time).   The robberies, which followed one and the same pattern, were committed allegedly as follows: when walking on the street the boy suddenly attacked a by-passer and forcefully wrenched from him or her a bracelet, a purse or another object.   The first applicant admitted most of the thefts and burglaries but denied having committed the robberies.   47.   On 27 July, 2 August, 7 August and 15 August 1995 the first applicant was brought together with other suspects at identification parades, at which four victims of robberies identified him.   A lawyer was present on all occasions.   48.   On 28 August 1995 an expert appointed by the investigator submitted a report concerning the value of the objects allegedly stolen by the first applicant and his accomplices.   On an unspecified date a criminal case, which concerned other thefts in which the first applicant was suspected to have been an accomplice, was joined to the initial case No. 110/95.   49.   Between the opening of the criminal proceedings at the beginning of 1995 and until September 1995 the investigation authorities examined about 60 witnesses and alleged victims.   It appears that no other evidence has been collected after September 1995.   50.   On 11 September 1995 the first applicant submitted a petition to the Shoumen District Court (Shoumenski raionen sad), requesting his release.   On 19 September 1995 a judge at the Court sitting in camera dismissed the petition stating, inter alia, that the charges against the first applicant concerned serious crimes, and that his criminal activity had been persistent.   Therefore there was a danger that the first applicant would commit crimes if released.   51.   When deciding the case, the judge apparently had before him the first applicant's petition and the case-file of the criminal proceedings against him.   It is unclear what other material, if any, was at the judge's disposal.   52.   On an unspecified date in 1996 the first applicant challenged again before the Shoumen District Court his detention on remand in case No. 110/95.   On 28 March 1996 the Court requested the case-file from the District Porsecutor's Office and thereupon, noting that an appeal had already been examined on 19 September 1995 (see above para. 50), rejected the new petition as inadmissible.   53.   The first applicant, his lawyer and his parents submitted to the prosecution authorities numerous requests for the first applicant's release.   It appears that some of them were examined individually, and that others were grouped and decided on several months after their submission.   In his request dated 12 October 1995 the first applicant stated inter alia: "My criminal activity, the crimes committed by me, were established and proved in the course of the investigations. No further evidence has to be collected as regards me."   On this ground, and in view of the fact that he had a one year old daughter and a newborn second child, the first applicant demanded to be released.   54.   The requests submitted to the prosecution authorities, as well as the request of 11 September 1995 to the District Court (see para. 50 above), also raised issues concerning the first applicant's health. Thus, on 17 August, 11 and 12 September 1995 the first applicant stated that he had a cyst on his chin and that he had suffered from a valvular defect from birth.   The parents complained that the investigating judge would not order an examination by a cardiologist unless they presented their son's medical records, which were unfortunately unavailable. Also, when they visited their son in prison he appeared depressed and complained of heart pain.   55.   On 21 August 1995 the first applicant was examined by a doctor, who found that he was healthy.   On 20 September 1995 the first applicant was examined again, by a cardiologist from the Regional Hospital of Shoumen, who concluded that he "does not suffer from any cardiac disease, either congenital or acquired", and that there are "no counter-indications against him staying in detention, as far as his cardio-vascular status is concerned".   56.   On 13 October 1995 district prosecutor I. dismissed two requests for the first applicant's release.   The refusal was confirmed on 19 October 1995 by regional prosecutor A.   The applicants then complained unsuccessfully to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stating inter alia that there had been a "campaign" against them because of their application to the Commission.   In its decision of 8 December 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicants' arguments.   The decision further stated that the investigation had been completed in general lines in September 1995. Nevertheless, the detention was still necessary as there was a clear danger that the first applicant would resume his criminal acts. Thus, the boy's criminal activity had continued after the institution of criminal proceedings, only the arrest having put an end to it.   57.   The decision of 8 December 1995 also stated that a prolonged detention in the premises of the Shoumen police would be harmful to the first applicant's "physical and mental development" and that therefore he should be moved to the specialised Boychinovzi juvenile penitentiary.   The transfer took place three and a half months later, on 25 March 1996.   58.   On 21 March 1996 the investigator separated off, under another case-file, No. 271/95, the accusations concerning the robberies.   On the same day the investigator ordered the first applicant's detention on remand in case No. 271/95, questioned him and concluded the examination of the case.   On the next day, 22 March 1996, the investigator drew up a report summarising the facts in case No. 271/95 and sent it to the prosecutor proposing that an indictment be prepared.   59.   On 3 July 1996 district prosecutor I. sent case No. 271/95 back to the investigator with instructions for an additional inquiry.   On 23 August 1996 the investigator returned the case as the witness who had to be examined had died.   On 26 September 1996 district prosecutor I. drew up an indictment in case No. 271/95 and, four days later, submitted it to the Shoumen District Court.   The Court held a hearing in the case (which now had No. 366/96) on 6 February 1997.   The Court heard four witnesses and adjourned the hearing to 29 May 1997 as two other witnesses had not appeared.   60.   In the meantime, on 20 September 1996 the investigator completed the preliminary inquiry in case No. 110/95.   On 25 October 1996 the case was sent to the Regional Prosecutor's Office with a proposal to indict the first applicant.   It appears that on 31 January 1997 case No. 110/95 was again referred back for further investigation.   61.   Throughout 1996 the first applicant and his parents continued to submit requests for release to the prosecution authorities.   Such requests were submitted on 20 February, 26 April, 4 June and 12 June 1996.   By decisions of 21 February and 17 June 1996 these requests were dismissed by district prosecutor I., who found that the danger of the applicant committing crimes if released persisted, and that the cases would soon be sent to court for trial.   Also, the prosecution authorities had already examined the arguments of the first applicant, which were the same as in previous petitions.   On 8 October 1996 the Regional Prosecutor's Office dismissed another request for release.   62.   On 4 November 1996 a judge at the District Court in case No. 366/96 (formerly investigation case No. 271/95), examined in camera the first applicant's petition for release.   The Court refused to release the first applicant taking into account the seriousness and the number of the crimes with which he had been charged and the fact that the trial would commence soon.   It appears that the first applicant remained in detention pending the hearing in case No. 366/96 scheduled for 29 May 1997 (see above para. 59).        Conditions of detention of the first applicant   63.   Between 27 July 1995 and 25 March 1996 and again between 5 July and 24 September 1996 the first applicant was detained at the Shoumen police station.   Between 25 March and 5 July 1996 he was detained at the Boychinovzi juvenile penitentiary. Since September 1996 he has been detained at the Belene prison.   64.   At the Shoumen police station there was no yard suitable for the daily walks of the detainees.   The first applicant and all other detainees could go out twice per day, during the time necessary for daily toilet.   65.   There is a dispute between the parties as regards the conditions at the Shoumen police station.   The first applicant submits that he was in a cell measuring 3/1.80 metres, which he shared at certain times with two to four other detainees, that the cell was almost entirely under the ground level, with very limited influx of light and fresh air, and that he could not exercise or engage in any activity in his cell.   The Government submit that the size of the cell was 4.60/3.50 metres and that the first applicant shared it with only one detainee.        Other events in 1995   66.   On 15 May, 23 May and 8 September 1995 two daily newspapers published articles about the present case.   Two of the articles, whose titles stated that a gipsy gambler had "put Bulgaria on trial in Strasbourg", explained inter alia that in response to questions from journalists the applicants had allegedly denied having made an application to the Commission.   The articles concluded that perhaps some gipsy activists had pushed the case and had misled Amnesty International.   67.   On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities or the police approached the applicants and asked them to declare whether they had made an application to the Commission.   On 8 September 1995 the second and the third applicants visited a notary public and signed before him a declaration in which they denied having made an application to the Commission.   They further stated that they remembered having signed, in 1992 and 1993, some documents prepared by human rights associations. However, they were not given a copy of the documents and did not know their contents.   One of the documents was in a foreign language.   68.   The declaration was apparently then submitted to the prosecution authorities. On 19 September 1995 the General Military Prosecution Office sent a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informing them about the declaration.   69.   The applicants did not mention in this declaration that in March 1995 they had signed before a notary public a statement of means, prepared in Bulgarian, referring expressly to their application to the Commission, and stating that it was done for purposes of their legal aid request to the Commission.   70.   The minutes of the first applicant's questioning after his arrest on 28 July 1995 (see above para. 44) establish that he spoke to the investigator about the events of 19 September 1992.   Since the minutes record only the words of the first applicant, it cannot be seen clearly whether his statement was made in answer to questions or on his own initiative.   It transpires nevertheless that the comments about the events of 1992 came immediately following the first applicant's allegation that at the identification parade on 27 July 1995 one of the witnesses had been manipulated by a policeman.   In this context the boy continued by saying:        <Translation>        "In 1992 ... I was beaten by policemen ... [at the bus station].   Thereafter I obtained a medical certificate and my father complained to the police.   They did not look at it seriously and he submitted it to the Military Prosecution Office.   They did not take it seriously either.   Then my father heard that there were some people from an international human rights organisation [in town].   My father brought me there and showed them how I was beaten.   In fact, after my release from the police my father brought me first to these people and then wrote to the police and to the prosecution authorities."   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice (translations and summaries)        a) in relation to the events of 19 September 1992   71.   The Code of Criminal Procedure (Nakazatelno-protzesualen kodeks)   Section 190        "There shall be considered to exist sufficient evidence for the institution of criminal proceedings where a reasonable supposition can be made that a crime might have been committed."        Sections 192 and 194(3)        According to these provisions when a prosecutor has refused to institute criminal proceedings, such proceedings can only be instituted by a higher prosecutor upon the petition of the interested person or ex officio.   72.   The Law on State Responsibility for Damage (Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata za vredi prichineni na grazhdani)        This law provides that a person who has suffered damage due to unlawful acts of State organs can bring a civil action against the State organ, whose officers are responsible for the damage.   73.   The Law on Obligations and Contracts (Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite)        This law provides in its Section 45 that a person who has suffered damages can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has, through his fault, caused the damage.   Under Section 49, when the damage has been caused in the process of an activity mandated by another person, this person's   responsibility is also engaged.   According to Section 110 the claim for damages is extinguished with the expiry of a five year prescription period.   74.   The Code of Civil Procedure (Grazhdansko-protzesualen kodeks)   Section 2        "The courts are obliged to examine, and to decide on, any claim submitted to them for the safeguard of, or relief as regards, personal and pecuniary rights."   Section 165        "If there exists a danger that certain evidence might be lost or its collection might become difficult, a party [to the proceedings] can request this evidence to be collected in advance."   Section 182        "The court shall suspend the proceedings:      ...        d) whenever criminal elements, the determination of which is decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute, are discovered in the course of the civil proceedings."   Section 183        "Proceedings which have been suspended shall be resumed ex officio or upon a party's petition after the respective obstacles have been removed ..."   Section 222        "The findings contained in a final judgment of a penal court and concerning the issue whether the act in question has been committed, its unlawfulness and the perpetrator's guilt, are binding on the civil court when it examines the civil consequences of the criminal act."   75.   Decision No. 12/1966 of the plenary of the Supreme Court's civil chambers (R 12-66-OSGK, Sb. 38), insofar as relevant, reads as follows:        "The decision of the prosecution to terminate the criminal prosecution based on a finding that the accused is not guilty of committing the criminal act does not bind the civil court which examines the civil consequences of this act...   [T]he civil court, on the basis of evidence [collected] in the course of the civil proceedings, can reach different factual findings, for example that the tort was in fact caused by the same person, the criminal prosecution against whom had been terminated.        If in the course of the civil proceedings, after collection of evidence, fresh criminal circumstances are discovered, the determination of which is decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in accordance with Section 182"d" of the Code of Civil Procedure."        b)    in relation to the events since 1995   76.   The Penal Code (Nakazatelen kodeks)        Crime under Section 195 paras. 1(3), 1(5) and 2 in conjunction with Section 26 para. 1 and Section 63 para. 1(3)        The offence is a continuous criminal activity of a minor consisting of burglaries committed with accomplices and involving breaking in locked premises, where the amount stolen is significant. The punishment is up to three years' imprisonment.        Crime under Section 198 para. 1 in conjunction with Section 26 para. 1 and Section 63 para. 1(2)        The offence is a continuous criminal activity of a minor, committed with accomplices, consisting of robberies, defined as stealing with the use of force or threats.   The punishment is up to five years' imprisonment.        According to Sections 23 - 25 in case of the first applicant's conviction on all charges the maximum possible punishment is six and a half years' imprisonment.   77.   The Code of Criminal Procedure (Nakazatelno-protzesualen kodeks)        According to Section 222 the investigations must be brought to an end within two months after they commenced.   A further prolongation of up to six months may be authorised by a Regional Prosecutor. In exceptional cases, the Chief Public Prosecutor may prolong the investigations up to nine months.   If the period is prolonged after two months, the Prosecutor will decide on the detention on remand.        It follows from Sections 152, 172, 201 - 203 and 377 - 378 that an accused, including a minor, can be detained on remand by decision of an investigator or of a prosecutor.   In cases where the decision to detain has been taken by an investigator without the prior consent of a prosecutor it has to be approved by the prosecutor within 24 hours.        There is no legal obstacle for a prosecutor, having taken a decision to detain an accus