CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECGRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 4 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBBEE0DBE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:38.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sABCE4D64 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s831874A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD86912C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s75B0DD28 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s8DD60BDA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7EC82F94 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s385C1FAF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s219DD19E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31CA8E2D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s292CCFD { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sFDAC8F87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2861851F { width:15.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5E8D2AFB { width:11.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3C863F58 { width:8.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAF98D1B { width:7.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE2BBF8D3 { width:10.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1AAC210B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sED04838E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1B53193A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:28.95pt; font-size:10pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB5C2B09B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s82EA1BC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s3FAD7F67 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sA88AA7F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9F0E602C { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.45pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5D40ED98 { width:28.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3A7B88C7 { width:286.5pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8BD45248 { width:318.86pt; display:inline-block } GRAND CHAMBER DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 48787/99 by Ilie Ilaşcu and Others against Moldova and the Russian Federation The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 4 July 2001 as a Grand Chamber composed of   Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   C.L. Rozakis ,   Mr   G. Ress ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa ,   Mr   L. Ferrari Bravo ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   T. Panţîru ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler , judges , and Mr P.J. Mahoney , Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 5 April 1999 and registered on 14   June 1999, Having regard to the decision of 20 March 2001 by which the Chamber of the First   Section to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention), Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Romanian Government, intervening, Having regard to the oral submissions of the parties and of the Romanian Government at the hearing on 2 June 2001, Having deliberated on 6 June and 4 July 2001, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1952, 1955, 1961 and 1963 respectively and live in Chişinău, except for the fourth applicant, who lives in Tiraspol (Transdniestria, Moldova). The first and third applicants also have Romanian nationality. The applicants are currently held in custody in Tiraspol, except for the first applicant, who was released on 5   May 2001. The application was lodged by the applicants’ spouses, Nina Ilaşcu, Tatiana Leşco, Eudochia Ivanţoc and Raisa Popa-Petrov. The second applicant is represented before the Court by Mr Alexandru Tănase, of the Chişinău Bar, and the other applicants are represented by Mr Corneliu Dinu, of the Bucharest Bar. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   1.     General background: events connected with the secession of Transdniestria and Moldova’s independence declaration   Created by a decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 2 August 1940, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic consisted of part of Bessarabia and a strip of land on the left bank of the river Dniester called Transdniestria, inhabited mainly by speakers of Slavonic languages. In June 1990 the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic took the name of Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova. It proclaimed its sovereignty on 23 June 1990. On 2 September 1990 the “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“the ‘MRT’”) was proclaimed. On 23 May 1991 the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova changed its name to Republic of Moldova. On 25 August 1991 the “Supreme Council of the MRT” adopted the declaration of the “MRT”‘s independence. On 27 August 1991 the Moldovan parliament adopted the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova. As the Fourteenth Army of the military district of Odessa of the USSR’s Ministry of Defence (“the Fourteenth Army”), whose headquarters had been in Chişinău since 1956, had been kept on Moldovan territory, the Moldovan parliament asked the USSR Government to “enter into negotiations with the Moldovan Government in order to put an end to the unlawful occupation of the Republic of Moldova and withdraw Soviet troops from Moldovan territory”. On 1 December 1991 presidential elections were held in the counties ( raioane) on the left bank of the Dniester (Transdniestria) and were declared illegal by the Moldovan authorities. Mr Igor Smirnov was elected “President of the MRT”. In late 1991 and early 1992 there were violent clashes between separatist forces and Moldovan Government security forces, in which several hundred people were killed. In an appeal to the international community and the United Nations Security Council on 6   December 1991 the Moldovan President, the Speaker of the Moldovan parliament and the Prime Minister protested against the occupation on 3 December 1991 of the Moldovan towns and villages of Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Slobozia, Tiraspol and Ribniţa, on the left bank of the Dniester, by the Fourteenth Army under the command of Lieutenant-General Iakovlev. They accused the USSR authorities, in particular the Ministry of Defence, of being behind these actions. The soldiers of the Fourteenth Army were accused of distributing military equipment to the Transdniestrian separatists and of having organised the separatists into military detachments which were terrorising the civilian population. On 5 March 1992 the Moldovan parliament protested against the Russian authorities’ silence – which it described as complicity – as to the support allegedly given to the Transdniestrian separatists by armed groups of Cossacks from Russia, organised in the Cossacks’ Union, an association recognised by the Russian authorities. The Moldovan parliament asked the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation to intervene to secure the immediate withdrawal of the Russian Cossacks from Moldovan territory. On 24 March 1992 the Moldovan parliament protested at the Russian Federation’s interference in Moldovan affairs as manifested in a statement by the presidency of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation on 20 March 1992 indicating to Moldova ways of settling the Transdniestrian conflict that would respect the rights of the “Transdniestrian people”. On 28 March 1992 the President of Moldova decreed a state of emergency. In Decree no. 320 of 1 April 1992 the President of the Russian Federation placed the ex-USSR’s military units stationed on Moldovan territory under the Russian Federation’s jurisdiction, the Fourteenth Army thereby becoming the Russian Operational Group in the Dniestrian Region of the Republic of Moldova (“the ROG” or “the former Fourteenth Army”). On 20 May 1992 the office of the Speaker of the Moldovan parliament protested at the occupation on 19 May 1992 of other regions of Transdniestria, an integral part of Moldova’s territory, by the forces of the former Fourteenth Army of the Russian Federation, supported by Cossack and Russian mercenaries and by Transdniestrian paramilitary forces. According to the Speaker’s office, this military aggression on the part of the Russian Federation violated the Moldovan State’s sovereignty and all the rules of international law, rendering illusory the negotiations that were under way at the time to find a solution to the conflict in Transdniestria. Accusing the Russian Federation of having armed the Transdniestrian separatists, the office of the Speaker of the Moldovan parliament asked the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation to halt the aggression and withdraw the Russian Federation’s military forces from Moldovan territory. That protest was also directed at speeches regarded as displaying aggressiveness towards Moldova that had been made by Mr Rutskoi, the Vice-President of the Russian Federation, in Moscow and in Tiraspol, and at a statement made on 19 May 1992 by the Military Council of the ROG. On 26 May 1992 the Moldovan parliament sent a letter to the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine about the occupation of 19 May 1992, expressing the Moldovan parliament’s gratitude to the Ukrainian authorities, who had not seen fit to join that occupation. On 22 June 1992 the Moldovan parliament appealed to the international community and protested at a fresh attack in Transdniestria on 21 June 1992 by the forces of the former Fourteenth Army of the Russian Federation, which through its acts of destruction and pillage had prompted a large number of civilians to flee their homes. The parliament asked the international community to send experts to the spot to halt the “genocide” of the local population. On 21 July 1992 a ceasefire agreement was signed by the President of Moldova, Mr   Snegur, and the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Yeltsin, and co-signed by Mr   Smirnov. On 29 July 1994 Moldova adopted a new Constitution that provided, among other things, that the country was neutral and prohibited the stationing of foreign troops on its territory. On 21 October 1994 Moldova and the Russian Federation signed an agreement on the legal status of the Russian Federation’s military units temporarily stationed on Moldovan territory and the arrangements and timetable for their withdrawal. That agreement provided that the military units of the former Fourteenth Army would be withdrawn from Moldovan territory and that the installations vacated by the troops would be handed over to the local authorities of the Republic of Moldova, within three years of the agreement’s taking effect. On 9 November 1994 the Moldovan Government adopted the decision to implement that agreement. At an unknown date the Government of the Russian Federation decided to submit the agreement to the State Duma for ratification. On 20 March 1998 agreements on issues concerning the property of the former Fourteenth Army were signed by Mr Chernomyrdin, on behalf of the Russian Federation, and Mr   Smirnov, “the President of the MRT”. Under the agreements, the proceeds of the sale of surplus arms, munitions and assets which could be disposed of where they were stocked would be divided between the two parties, 50% of the proceeds going to the Russian Federation and 50% to Transdniestria. The agreements also provided that the military quarters evacuated by the Russian Federation’s forces could be handed over to the Transdniestrian local authorities on the basis of official documents indicating the sites’ real value. On 17 November 1998, as the agreement of 21 October 1994 had still not been ratified by the Duma, the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the Duma to withdraw it from its order of business, on the ground that “any future decision by the Ministry to return to this issue [would] depend on the development of relations with the Republic of Moldova and the Transdniestrian Region and on the political settlement in the region”. In January 1999 the agreement was withdrawn from the Duma’s order of business and it has still not taken effect. At the OSCE Istanbul summit meeting in 1999 the Russian Federation undertook to complete the withdrawal of its military forces from Moldovan territory by the end of 2002. The Russian Government have submitted to the Court the timetable which the headquarters of the Russian Federation army drew up for the dates and stages of the withdrawal of Russian forces and equipment from Transdniestrian territory. On 16 April 2001 the President of the Republic of Moldova, Mr Voronin, and the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Putin, signed a joint statement, point 5 of which read:   “The presidents declared that they were in favour of a rapid and fair settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict by exclusively peaceful means, based on respect for the principle of the Republic of Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and on international human-rights standards.”   2.     The support allegedly given to the Transdniestrian separatists by the Russian Federation: position of the applicants   The applicants relied on the following facts, which, in their submission, made clear the support given to the Transdniestrian separatists by the Russian Federation: (a)     during confrontations with Moldovan Government forces, military units belonging to the Russian Federation had gone over to the separatists, as had been the case with the Parcani engineers battalion under General Butkevich, which had destroyed the bridges at Dubăsari, Gura Bâcului-Bâcioc and Coşniţa; (b)     the transfer of Russian military units to the Transdniestrian forces; (c)     the participation of senior officers from the former Fourteenth Army in public affairs in Transdniestria: General Bergman, commander of the Tiraspol garrison of the former Fourteenth Army, had acted as the town’s mayor for several months; and the Russian military commander of the town of Bender had been the authority on whom the release and work programme of prisoners depended; (d)     the participation of soldiers from the former Fourteenth Army in elections in Transdniestria, military processions of the Transdniestrian forces and other public events; (e)     the presence of Cossacks who had come from Russia to fight alongside the separatists on the basis of an agreement with the Russian authorities; (f)     in statements he had made to the press, the Vice-President of the Russian Federation at the time, Mr Rutskoi, had recognised the “legitimacy of the entity created on the left bank of the Dniester”; (g)     the television broadcast by the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Yeltsin, which was also reported in the press, in which he had stated: “Russia has given, is giving and will continue to give its economic and political support to the Transdniestrian region”; (h)     the State Duma’s Resolution no. 1334-I of 17 November 1995 declaring the Transdniestrian region an “area of special strategic interest to the Russian Federation”; (i)     the agreements concluded on 20 March 1998 between Mr Chernomyrdin, on behalf of the Russian Federation, and Mr Smirnov, on behalf of the “MRT”, on the division of the former Fourteenth Army’s property; (j)     the issuing of Russian passports to Transdniestrian leaders, including Mr Smirnov, Mr   Maracuta and Mr Caraman.   3.     Applicants’ arrest and conviction: position of the applicants   The applicants were arrested from 2 to 4 June 1992 by individuals claiming to represent the “MRT” authorities. Ilie Ilaşcu, who was at the material time a local leader of the Popular Front (a party represented in the Moldovan parliament) and a campaigner for the unification of Moldova and Romania, was arrested on 2 June 1992 at about 4.30 a.m., when ten to twelve individuals armed with automatic pistols forcibly entered his house in Tiraspol. These individuals carried out a search and seized certain items. The latter included a pistol which, according to the applicant, had been placed in his house by the people who searched it. The applicant alleged that his arrest and the search took place without any warrant. The applicant was informed that he was being arrested because as a member of the Popular Front he represented a danger to the stability of the “MRT”, which was at war with Moldova. The applicant Alexandru Ilaşcu was arrested during the night of 2   June 1992, at 2.45 a.m. The following day his house was searched, with neighbours present. Andrei Ivanţoc was arrested at his home on 2 June 1992 at 8 a.m. by several armed individuals who struck him with the butts of their weapons and kicked him. According to the applicant, several carpets, 50,000 roubles and a “fine” watch were confiscated during the search that followed. Tudor Petrov-Popa was arrested on 4 June 1992 at 6.45 a.m. by two people, one of whom was a police officer, Victor Gusan. At about 11 a.m. two prosecutors known by the names of Starojouk and Glazyrin carried out a search, in the applicant’s absence. In a 140-page indictment drawn up by, among others, Mr Starojouk, the applicants were accused of anti-Soviet activities and of having fought by illegal means against the legitimate State of Transdniestria, under the control of the Popular Front of Moldova and of Romania. They were also charged with a number of offences under either the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova or the Criminal Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova. The applicants were brought before the “Supreme Court of the Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria”, sitting successively in the recreation hall of the Kirov State undertaking and in the hall of the Tiraspol cultural centre. During the trial, which began on 21   April   1993 and ended on 9 December 1993, only Moldovan nationals with a visa allowing them to reside in Transdniestria were allowed into the courtroom. Armed police and soldiers were present in the room and on the dais where the judges were sitting. The applicants attended their trial in metal cages. The witnesses who gave evidence were able to remain in the room throughout the proceedings, not being required to leave it while other witnesses gave evidence. On numerous occasions during the trial the applicants could only speak with their lawyers in the presence of armed policemen. The hearings took place in a tense atmosphere, with members of the public holding placards hostile to the defendants. A photo that was taken in the hearing room and which appeared in a Moldovan newspaper and was subsequently filed with the Registry by the applicants shows one of these placards bearing the words “Terrorists must be called to account!” ( “Teрpopиcтoв – k   oтвeту!” ). The applicants were tried by a bench of three judges presided over by Ms O. Ivanova, a former judge of the Moldovan Supreme Court, who had been dismissed by the Moldovan parliament on 5 February 1992. Another member of the court was Mr A. Myazin, who was 28 at the time of the trial and had worked for a year in the office of the Moldovan Procurator-General, and Mr A.M. Zenin. The court delivered its judgment on 9 December 1993. It found the first applicant guilty of several offences under the Criminal Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova, including incitement to crime against the security of the State (Article 67), the organisation of activities intended to bring about the commission of offences extremely dangerous to the State (Article 69), the murder of a State representative with the aim of spreading terror (Article 63), murder (Article 88), unlawful requisition of means of transport (Article 182), deliberate destruction of the property of others (Article 127) and unlawful or unauthorised use of munitions or explosives (Article 227), and convicted him and sentenced him to death; it also ordered the confiscation of his property. The court found the second applicant guilty of the murder of a State representative with the aim of spreading terror (Article 63), deliberate destruction of the property of others (Article   127) and unauthorised use of munitions or explosives (Article 227 § 2) and convicted him and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment, to be served in a labour camp with a harsh regime, and an order was made for the confiscation of his property. The third applicant was found guilty of the murder of a State representative with the aim of spreading terror (Article 63), unauthorised use and theft of munitions or explosives (Articles   227 and 227 1 § 2), unlawful requisition of animal-drawn means of transport (Article   182 § 3), deliberate destruction of the property of others (Article 127) and assault (Article 96 § 2) and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, to be served in a labour camp with a harsh regime, and an order was made for the confiscation of his property. The fourth applicant was found guilty of the murder of a State representative with the aim of spreading terror (Article 63), assault (Article 96 § 2), unlawful use of animal-drawn means of transport (Article 182 § 3), deliberate destruction of the property of others (Article 127) and unauthorised use and theft of munitions or explosives (Articles 227 and 227 1 § 2) and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, and an order was made for the confiscation of his property. On the same day (9 December 1993) the President of the Republic of Moldova decreed that the applicants’ conviction was unlawful, on the ground that they had been convicted by a court that was unconstitutional. On 28 December 1993 the Deputy Procurator-General of the Republic of Moldova ordered a criminal investigation concerning the “judges”, “prosecutors” and others involved in the prosecution and conviction of the applicants in Transdniestria, on a charge of unlawful arrest under Articles 190 and 192 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. On 3 February 1994 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Moldova examined the judgment of 9 December 1993 of the “Supreme Court of the MRT” of its own motion, quashed it on the ground that the court that had delivered it was unconstitutional and ordered the case to be sent to the Moldovan public prosecutor for a fresh investigation under Article   93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court has not been informed of the outcome of that investigation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Moldova quashed the order for the applicants’ detention pending trial, ordered their release and asked the public prosecutor to consider whether it was appropriate to prosecute the judges of the “so-called” Supreme Court of Transdniestria for having deliberately rendered an unlawful decision, an offence punishable under Articles 190-192 of the Criminal Code. The authorities of the “MRT” took no action on the judgment of 3 February 1994. In a decree of 4 August 1995 the President of the Republic of Moldova promulgated an amnesty to mark the first anniversary of the adoption of the Moldovan Constitution. The amnesty covered, inter alia , convictions or offences until Articles 227, 227 1 and 227 2 of the Criminal Code that had been committed from 2 January 1990 onwards in several counties on the left bank of the Dniester. On 3 October 1995 the Moldovan parliament adopted a decision whereby it asked, firstly, the Moldovan Government to deal as a matter of priority with the problem of the applicants’ detention as political detainees and to inform Parliament regularly about progress and measures taken in this connection and, secondly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to seek firm support for the release of the applicants (“the Ilaşcu Group”) from the countries in which Moldova had diplomatic missions. The first applicant, although in custody, was elected to the Moldovan parliament on 25   February 1994 and again on 22 March 1998, but was never able to take his seat. On 16 August 2000 the public prosecutor quashed the order of 28   December   1993 on the ground that unlawful deprivation of liberty was punishable under Articles 190 and 192 of the Criminal Code only if the offence had been committed by judges and prosecutors appointed in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Moldova, and in the instant case they had not been. On the same occasion the public prosecutor decided that it was inappropriate to open an investigation in respect of unlawful deprivation of liberty or illegal use of the powers or title of an official, which were offences under Article 116 and Article 207 respectively of the Criminal Code, on the ground that any offence was now time-barred. On the same day the prosecutor ordered a criminal investigation in respect of the governor of Hlinaia Prison for unlawful deprivation of liberty and illegal use of the powers or title of an official, under Articles 116 and 207 of the Criminal Code. On 4 October 2000, on an application by Mr Ilaşcu, the Romanian authorities granted him Romanian nationality under the Romanian Nationality Act (Law no. 21/1991). In December 2000 Mr Ilaşcu was elected to the Romanian parliament. On 10 April 2001 Mr Ivanţoc likewise obtained Romanian nationality. On 5 May 2001 Mr Ilaşcu was released. He indicated that in the morning of 5 May 2001 he was taken to Chişinău in a car together with Vladimir Şefţov, known as Antiufeev, the Transdniestrian “Minister of Security”. When they arrived in Chişinău, Mr   Şefţov read out in front of the head of the Moldovan secret service, Vladimir Păsat, the document recording the transfer, which read: “ The prisoner Ilaşcu, who has been sentenced to death, is transferred to the appropriate authorities of the Republic of Moldova ”. After handing over the document, Mr Şefţov said that the conviction still stood and that the sentence would be carried out if Mr   Ilaşcu returned to Transdniestria.   4.     The applicants’ conditions of detention: position of the applicants   According to the first applicant, he was taken immediately after his arrest to the office of the “MRT”‘s Ministry of Security, where he found five other people, who were introduced to him as being colonels from the Russian counter-espionage service. The latter asked him, in exchange for his release, to use on behalf of Transdniestria the skills he had acquired during his military service with USSR special troops and to pass himself off as an agent working for the Romanian secret service. The applicant claimed that when he refused this proposal, he was threatened with having no other choice but the grave. The other applicants were taken to Tiraspol police station. After a few days all the applicants were imprisoned in cells belonging to the command of the former Fourteenth Army, where they stayed for nearly two months. During that time the applicants had not been able to wash or change their clothes, they received no letters and they were allowed only fifteen minutes’ exercise each day in a closed space. They were not able to see a lawyer. Mr Ilaşcu was able to see his lawyer for the first time several months after his arrest, in September 1992. On an unspecified date the applicants were transferred to Tiraspol Prison in preparation for their trial. During their detention pending trial the applicants were subjected to various kinds of inhuman and degrading treatment: they were savagely beaten, Alsatian dogs were set on them, they were isolated and brainwashed with false information about the political situation and the health of their families, were subsequently promised release on condition that they signed confessions and were threatened with execution. Ilie Ilaşcu was subjected to mock execution on numerous occasions: a death sentence was read out to him; on another occasion the warders put a bulletproof vest on him and then fired at him; and he was blindfolded and taken to a field, where the warders fired at him with blanks until he fainted. Andrei Ivanţoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa were subjected to treatment with psychotropic drugs. After being drugged, Mr Ivanţoc was taken before a television journalist and made to confess in front of him. As a result of that treatment the applicant began to suffer from psychiatric problems and tried to hang himself with strips of material from his T-shirt but failed. After that incident he was completely undressed and left naked for twenty-four hours. He was sent for examination to a hospital in Odessa (Ukraine), where he was examined by a doctor who recommended that he should be interned in a psychiatric hospital. He was nevertheless taken back to Tiraspol, where another doctor decided that he was in good health. The applicants remained in Tiraspol Prison after their conviction. In 1994 the first applicant was transferred to Hlinaia Prison, where he remained until 1998, when he was transferred back to Tiraspol. In a letter to the Moldovan parliament in March 1999 concerning the government crisis in Moldova Mr Ilaşcu declared his support for Ion Sturdza, who was a candidate for the post of Prime Minister. The letter was read out by the Speaker and enabled Parliament to achieve the necessary majority to appoint Mr Sturdza as Prime Minister. In a letter of 14   May   1999 Andrei Ivanţoc indicated that since Ilie Ilaşcu had written that letter, the applicants’ conditions of detention, particularly Ilie Ilaşcu’s, had become worse. The applicants were forbidden to have any visitors from outside the prison or any correspondence. Given the conditions of their detention, their state of health worsened. Ilie Ilaşcu, although suffering from acute arthritis and a dental abscess, was not allowed a visit from a doctor for treatment. His eyesight also deteriorated. Despite their state of health, none of the applicants was able to see a doctor, and requests made by the International Red Cross to be allowed to visit them were refused. In a letter of 14 May 1999 Andrei Ivanţoc indicated that on 13 May 1999 civilians wearing balaclavas entered his cell, beat him about the head, on the back and in the liver with a stick and punched him in the chest. They then dragged him into the corridor, where he saw one Colonel Gusarov banging Ilie Ilaşcu’s head against a wall and kicking him. Mr   Gusarov subsequently put a pistol into Mr Ilaşcu’s mouth and threatened to kill him. Colonel Gusarov indicated to the applicants that the reason for the assault was their application to the European Court of Human Rights. After those events the applicants were deprived of food for two days and of light for three days. In the same letter Andrei Ivanţoc exhorted the Moldovan parliament and Government, the international media and human-rights organisations to intervene to halt the torture to which he and the other three applicants were being subjected. In a written statement dated 29 July 1999 Andrei Ivanţoc, who was on the 77th day of a hunger strike he had begun in protest against the conditions in which he was being held, accused the leaders in Chişinău of doing nothing to protect human rights in Moldova and of “living it up” with the Transdniestrian separatist leaders. He also complained of the refusal by the Tiraspol Prison authorities to allow him and Ilie Ilaşcu access to a doctor and indicated that Ilie Ilaşcu, who had been held in solitary confinement for some time, was being ill-treated. All the furniture had been removed from his cell, his clothes had been taken away except for a vest and he was beaten by people from the “special forces”, who suggested he should commit suicide. He had allegedly once been given a ready-made noose. In a letter of 10 May 2000 the first applicant reported that he had not been able to see a doctor since 1997, when doctors from Chişinău had examined him and had made a thorough assessment of his state of health. In the same letter the applicant accused the authorities of the Republic of Moldova of hypocrisy since, despite their statements in support of the applicants’ release, they were in reality doing “everything” to ensure that the applicants did not regain their freedom.   5.     Position of the Moldovan Government   In their written observations of 24 October 2000 the Moldovan Government said they agreed with the applicants’ account of the background to their arrest, conviction and detention. In the same observations they indicated that the applicants had certainly been arrested without any warrant, that they had remained for two months on the premises of the former Fourteenth Army and that the searches and seizures had likewise been made without any warrant. As to the applicants’ allegations about the conditions in which they were being held, the Moldovan Government said that they were very plausible. At the hearing on 6 June 2001 the Moldovan Government indicated that they wished to retract the views they had expressed earlier in the observations of 24 October 2000, but did not, however, give any indication of their new position as to the facts set out by the applicants. On 22 June 2001 the Government informed the Court that the Moldovan authorities were not in possession of any document granting a pardon or amnesty to Mr Ilaşcu or of one certifying his transfer to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova. The President of the Republic of Moldova, Mr Voronin, had been told of Mr Ilaşcu’s release in a letter Mr   Smirnov had sent him on 5 May 2001.   6.     Position of the Government of the Russian Federation   As regards the facts, the Government of the Russian Federation confined themselves to setting out the following. The former Fourteenth Army had been in Moldova when the Transdniestrian conflict had broken out. Russian military forces had not taken part in any way in the conflict and had not been involved in the events complained of. However, when there had been unlawful armed action against soldiers from the former Fourteenth Army, appropriate measures had been taken in accordance with international law. The ceasefire agreement of 21 July 1992 had been signed on behalf of the Republic of Moldova not only by the President of that State, Mr   Snegur, but also by Mr Smirnov. The Russian Government had lodged the certified text of that agreement, which bore Mr   Smirnov’s handwritten signature, without any indication of his position, although the position held by Mr Snegur and Mr   Yeltsin had been indicated. The Russian Government alleged that the Russian Federation had been a signatory to the agreement not as a party to the conflict but as a peacemaker. The Government disputed that the applicants had been detained on the premises of the former Fourteenth Army and that that army had taken part in their arrest. In particular, they maintained that Colonel Gusarov had not served in the Russian military units stationed on the territory of Transdniestria but had done his service in the “Ministry of the Interior of the MRT”. They could imagine, however, that individuals claiming to be from Russia’s former Fourteenth Army could have taken part in the events complained of, but pointed out that if that had been the case, such action would have grossly breached Russian legislation and the individuals would have been punished for their actions. The Government added that they had remained neutral and, in particular, had not in any way supported, either militarily or financially, any party to the conflict, and neither had the members of the former Fourteenth Army.   7.     International reactions to the applicants’ conviction and detention   On 28 September 1999 the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General appealed to the separatist authorities of Transdniestria to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit the applicants and demanded an immediate improvement in the conditions of their detention. B.     Declarations and reservations made by the Republic of Moldova The instrument of ratification of the Convention deposited by the Republic of Moldova on 12 September 1997 contains several declarations and reservations, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “1.     The Republic of Moldova declares that it will be unable to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Convention in respect of omissions and acts committed by the organs of the self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester republic within the territory actually controlled by such organs, until the conflict in the region is finally definitively resolved.   2.     In accordance with Article 64 [now Article 57] of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova formulates a reservation to Article 4...   3.     In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova formulates a reservation to Article 5, paragraph 3, ...   4.     In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova formulates a reservation to Article 5...   5.     The Republic of Moldova interprets the provisions set out in the second sentence of Article 2 of the first Additional Protocol...” C.     Relevant domestic law Article 11 of the Moldovan Constitution of 29 July 1994 provides:   “(1)     The Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality.   (2)     The Republic of Moldova does not authorise the stationing of foreign troops on its territory.”   Article 116 of the Criminal Code provides:   “Unlawful deprivation of liberty shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.   Unlawful deprivation of liberty which has endangered the victim’s life or health or during which physical suffering has been inflicted on him shall be punishable with one to five years’ imprisonment.”   Article 207 of the Criminal Code provides:   “The illegal use of the powers or title of an official, where it has provided the basis for the commission of an offence, shall be punishable with a fine of at most thirty times the minimum monthly remuneration or with a maximum of two years’ hard labour or a maximum of two years’ imprisonment.” COMPLAINTS The applicants alleged the following violations of the Convention by Moldova and the Russian Federation. 1.     The applicants complained that they were being detained in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. They alleged that their detention was not lawful and that the court that had convicted them, namely “the Supreme Court of the MRT”, was not competent. They considered that they were political prisoners and submitted also that although their conviction had been quashed in the decision of 3 February 1994 of the Supreme Court of Moldova, which had also ordered their release, the Moldovan Government had not taken any measures to implement that decision. 2.     The applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial in the “Supreme Court of the MRT”. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention. 3.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, Mr Ilaşcu complained that he had been sentenced to death unlawfully. He alleged that he was at risk of being executed at any time. 4.     Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the conditions in which they were being held. Apart from the treatment meted out to them by the Tiraspol Prison warders in breach of that Article, living conditions in Tiraspol Prison were such that they amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Lastly, they complained that they had no access to a doctor despite their precarious state of health. Mr Ilaşcu also complained of the conditions of his detention pending his execution. He stated that before his release he had been held on his own in a cell without any natural light; that he had not been able to correspond with the outside world; that he had not been allowed to speak to other prisoners; that he had not seen his lawyer since 1993; and that he had not had access to a doctor. 5.     Relying in substance on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the Tiraspol authorities did not allow them to correspond freely or to receive visits from their families. In particular, they complained that the prison authorities had not allowed them to apply to the Court, with the result that the present application had had to be lodged by their spouses. 6.     Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they complained of the confiscation of their possessions after a trial which had contravened Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants alleged that the Moldovan authorities were responsible for the foregoing violations, since they had taken no measures to put an end to them. They also maintained that the Russian Federation shared that responsibility, on the ground that the territory of Transdniestria was de facto under the Russian Federation’s control. Lastly, in the applicants’ submission, the alleged violations were continuing. PROCEDURE The application was lodged with the Court on 14 June 1999. On 4 July 2000 the Court (First Section) decided to communicate the application to the respondent governments for observations on its admissibility and merits. The Court also decided to give priority to the case, under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 25 September 2000 the Moldovan Government sought an extension of time. That application was allowed by the President, who set a new deadline of 25 October 2000 for both governments. The Moldovan Government submitted their observations on 24   October   2000 and the Russian Government submitted theirs on 16 October 2000. The applicants submitted their observations on 2 January 2001. On 4 December 2000 the Permanent Representative of Romania to the Council of Europe informed the Court that the application for Romanian nationality made by the applicant Ilie   Ilaşcu and his wife Nina had been granted by the Romanian authorities on 4   October   2000, under the Romanian Nationality Act (Law no. 21/1991). On 16 February 2000, under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention, the President of the Chamber invited the Romanian Government to submit written comments on the case. Those comments were submitted on 27 April 2001. On 20 March 2001, in the absence of any objections from the parties, the First Section decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. In a decision of 4 May 2001 the Grand Chamber confirmed that priority should be given to the application and that the Romanian Government should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. A public hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 6 June 2001 (Rule 54 § 4). After consulting the Grand Chamber, the President had invited the Romanian Government to take part in the hearing (Article 36 of the Convention). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Moldovan Government Mr Vitalie Pârlog, Agent. (b)     for the Russian Government Mr Pavel Laptev, the Russian Federation’s representative at the Court, Mr Yuri Berestnev, Mr Sergey Volkovsky, Mr Alexander Novozhilov and Mr Vladimir Kulakov, Advisers. (c)     for the Romanian Government Ms Roxana Rizoiu, Agent (d)     for the applicants Mr Corneliu Dinu and Mr Alexandru Tănase, Counsel. The applicant Ilie Ilaşcu and Tatiana Leşco, the wife of the applicant Alexandru Leşco, also attended the hearing. The Court heard addresses by Mr Pârlog on behalf of the Moldovan Government, Mr   Laptev on behalf of the Russian Government, Ms Rizoiu on behalf of the Romanian Government and Mr Dinu and Mr Tănase on behalf of the applicants. On 8 June 2001 the President of the Grand Chamber requested the parties and the Romanian Government to submit additional information and documents. These were filed by the Romanian Government on 14 June 2001, by the Moldovan Government on 22 June 2001, by the Russian Government on 25 June 2001 and by the applicants on 2 July 2001. THE LAW In their written and oral observations the respondent governments raised a number of objections to the admissibility of the application. The Court will examine those objections in the following order: I.   jurisdiction and responsibility of the respondent governments for the acts complaints of; II.   the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis ; III.   whether Mr Ilaşcu can claim to be a victim; IV.   exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicants; V.   merits of the application.   I.     JURISDICTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MOLDOVAN AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS FOR THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF   1.     Submissions of those appearing before the Court   (a)     The Moldovan Government’s arguments   The Moldovan Government maintained that the organs of the Republic of Moldova did not control the territory on the left bank of the Dniester, where the acts complained of had been committed, and that de facto the applicants accordingly did not come under the jurisdiction of the Moldovan authorities. Referring to the declaration made by Moldova in the instrument of ratification of the Convention deposited on 12 September 1997, the Government pointed out that when Moldova had ratified the Convention, that State did not control the territory on the left bank of the Dniester. Moldova would not have been in a position to ratify the Convention if it had not been able to make that declaration, since for the Convention to apply, it must be possible for the State in question to grant and implement the rights recognised in the Convention. Consequently, the Moldovan Government had no choice but to make a declaration in order to disclaim responsibility for acts committed by persons and bodies not under its authority. In the Government’s view, it was a reservation that satisfied the requirements of Article 57 of the Convention. The reservation should be interpreted as a negative declaration under former Article 25 of the Convention and, from 1 November 1998 onwards, under Article 34 of the Convention, in the sense that Moldova did not recognise the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of individual applications directed against the Republic of Moldova concerning acts and omissions by the organs of the “MRT” on the territory actually controlled by those organs, until the conflict in the region was finally settled. The Government admitted that the reservation did not concern a specific law, but argued that the lac