CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s373770BB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7C281E20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s687FC4CF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }       FORMER SECTION IV           CASE OF KOKY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA   (Application no. 13624/03)   JUDGMENT               STRASBOURG     12 June 2012   FINAL   12/09/2012   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Koky and Others v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (Former Section IV), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 13624/03) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Slovak nationals of Roma ethnic origin: Mr Ján Koky, Mr Martin Kočko, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Mr Rastislav Koky, Ms Renáta Kokyová, Ms Ružena Kokyová, Ms Renáta Čonková, Ms   Justina Lacková and Mr Ján Koky Jr. (“the applicants”), on 17   April 2003. The applicants’ particulars appear in the appendix to this judgment. 2.     The applicants were represented by the League of Human Rights Advocates in Bratislava and the European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest (Hungary). 3.     The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Poláčková, who was succeeded in that function by Ms Pirošíková. 4.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that – in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and several other of their Convention rights - the State authorities had failed to ensure a prompt, effective and impartial investigation into, and to   punish the perpetrators of, an   allegedly racially motivated assault on them by private individuals. 5.     By a decision of 22 September 2009, the Court declared the whole application admissible, joining to the merits a question of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as in force at the relevant time,“the CCP”) and sections 31 et seq . of the Public Prosecution Service Act ((Law no.   153/2001 Coll., as amended – “the PPS Act”). 6.     The applicants and the Government each submitted further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits, and the applicants replied in writing to the observations submitted by the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Incidents of 28 February 2002 7.     The following incidents occurred on 28 February 2002. The detailed accounts of events by the parties and those involved are at variance at times. In this section, therefore, the incidents are described only briefly. Differing details, if any, are pointed out in the subsequent sections. 1.     Argument at the bar 8.     In the evening of 28 February 2002, at around 7.30 p.m., an argument started in a bar in the village of Gánovce-Filice, when a non-Romani waitress, I.S., refused to serve a drink to a person of Roma ethnic origin, M.K. 9.     The argument developed with the tipping of a drink over M.K., in response to which he slapped or attempted to slap Ms I.S. in the face, accidentally knocking glasses over, which fell and broke. 10.     Subsequently I.S. telephoned one of her three sons, P.S., who came to the bar soon afterwards. After he had left, another of her sons, M.S., who was the owner of the bar, came to the bar and remained there, assisting I.S. in serving customers, until closing time. Around that time, the girlfriend of P.S., E.N., also came to the bar and then accompanied I.S. home. 2.     Attack at Roma settlement (a)   The attack 11.     Later that evening, at around 9.45 p.m., a group of at least twelve people went into the Roma settlement in the village where the applicants lived. Some of them were wearing balaclavas and they were armed with baseball bats and iron bars. 12.     Allegedly shouting racist language, they forcibly entered houses nos.   61, 67 and 69, damaging the interior and breaking the windows. 13.     On entering house no. 67, the attackers physically assaulted applicant Mr Ján Koky. Some of the other applicants and another person, who were also present at the house during the attack, witnessed the attack but managed to   avoid it by hiding (see paragraph 16 below). 14.     Once the attackers understood that the police had been called, they made their escape. When they had gone approximately 200 metres from the settlement, they met applicants Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky and physically assaulted them, causing them the injuries described below. Racist language is alleged to have been used during this part of the attack too. (b)   Circumstances and consequences of the attack 15.     House 61 was inhabited by applicant Ms Renáta Čonková and her partner, Z.K. They were both at home during the attack. 16.     House 67 was inhabited by applicants Mr Ján Koky, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Rastislav Koky, Ms Renáta Kokyová, Ms Ružena Kokyová and Mr Ján Koky Jr and by a certain J.K. Apart from applicant Rastislav Koky, they were all present at the house during the incident, and so were applicants Mr Milan Baláž and a certain H.B. 17.     When the attack took place in his house, applicant Mr Ján Koky sustained no physical injuries. 18.     House 69 was owned and inhabited by applicant Ms Justína Lacková. 19.     The overall damage to the applicants’ property was estimated at the equivalent of at least 310 euros (EUR). 20.     The parties are not united over the extent of the physical injuries sustained by Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky (see paragraph 14 above). 21.     The applicants claim that Mr Rastislav Koky suffered a skull fracture, a cut to the left side of the back of the head, a crushed left arm, a   pressure injury to the left side of the back and bruises to the left knee, which required him to stay in hospital for ten to fourteen days. 22.     As regards Mr Martin Kočko, the applicants claim that he had sustained a scraped elbow and a crushed arm, which required a recovery time of seven to ten days. In that respect the applicants relied on the decisions of 26   April and 22 May 2002 (see paragraphs 73 and 81 below). 23.     In contrast, the Government submit that Mr Martin Kočko’s injuries necessitated no stay in hospital, while those of Mr Rastislav Koky only required him to stay in hospital for four days. 3.     Attack at I.S.’s family’s house 24.     After I.S. had come home from her shift, an   unknown person broke the window of her house by throwing a stone at it and also broke the windows of a car parked in her yard. 25.     It is not entirely clear what relation this attack bore to the argument at the bar and the attack at the settlement, both in terms of time and of cause. 26.     It appears that those present during the attack at I.S.’s house included I.S., P.S., E.N., her brother: M.N., and a certain M.L. B.     Initial response by the police 27.     The police arrived at the Roma settlement about half an hour after the incident. That night and in the early hours of the following day, that is to   say 1 March 2002, the police carried out inspections and interviews, as summarised below on the basis of official records. 1.     Inspections 28.     Between 10.30 and 11 p.m. house no. 67 was inspected in connection with a   suspected offence, which was referred to as “damage to family house”. Applicant Mr Ján Koky, who lived in the house, was present. Broken windows were found in various parts of the house, and two biological traces were identified (bloodstains on a door and on a   baseball bat) and sent for further analysis. 29.     Between 0.15 and 1.00 a.m. house no. 61 was inspected in connection with a suspected offence, which was referred to as “damage to windows and door of a house”. Z.K., whose house it was, was present. Damage to the latch and casing of the front door were identified, as well as broken panes in two of the windows. Inside the house, on the floor in the kitchen and a room where the windows had been broken, two stones of 8 and 20 cm diameter were found. 30.     Between 1 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. the following day house no 69 was inspected in connection with a suspected offence, which was referred to as “damage to a window pane of a house”. Applicant Ms Justína Lacková, whose house it was, was present. Broken panes in three windows were identified, and one biological trace was sampled for further analysis. 2.     Interviews 31.     Applicant Mr Ján Koky, Z.K. and applicant Ms Justína Lacková were interviewed: the interviews started at 2.25 a.m., 3.45 a.m. and 4.30 a.m. respectively. 32.     Mr Ján Koky submitted, inter alia , that earlier that evening a group of approximately five attackers had entered his house, no. 67. They had been armed with batons and had tried to hit him. He managed to fend them off and other occupants of his house had managed to hide, so the attackers had mainly been hitting the kitchen furnishings. Four of the attackers were wearing balaclavas to conceal their faces. The remaining one, whom he did not know, had no balaclava. They had not uttered a word. 33.     Z.K. described how the attackers had broken windows in his house, no.   61, had forcibly entered and had made their escape after learning that the police were on their way. According to the transcript, the interview ended at 4.20 a.m. Z.K. then added that when they entered his house the attackers were shouting: “Gypsies, we’re going to strike you down today”. 34.     Ms Justína Lacková submitted that she had been at home with her three minor children during the attack and that her husband had not been there. She had witnessed the turmoil outside her house through a window. Two of her house windows had subsequently been broken, probably with sticks, because no stones or other foreign objects had been found inside. In her submission, the attackers had pounded at her entrance door but had not succeeded in getting in. Ms Lacková assessed the damage to her house and submitted a   claim for compensation to the proceedings. The interview was concluded at 5.15 a.m. and then reopened to pose a direct question to the applicant, in response to which she retorted that, on the part of the attackers, she had only heard indistinct shouting. The interview was finally concluded at 5.30 a.m. C.     First investigation into the incidents of 28 February 2002 1.     Initial stage 35.     On 1 March 2002 the Poprad District Police Investigator (“the DPI”) initiated a criminal investigation into the offences of causing bodily harm, violating the privacy of a home and criminal damage within the meaning of Articles 221 § 1, 238 §§ 1 and 3 and 257 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at that time) respectively. 36.     It was suspected that a group of at least twelve individuals had unlawfully entered houses nos. 61, 67 and 69, and that they had damaged these houses, as well as house no. 69. It was also suspected that while at his house the attackers had tried to hit applicant Mr Ján Koky with baseball bats and that while making their escape from the scene of crime, they had assaulted applicants Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky by hitting them with baseball bats and kicking them, thus causing them bodily injuries on account of which, according to a preliminary estimate, they would need recovery time and would be unfit for work for seven to ten days and ten to fourteen days respectively. 37.     The injuries to the applicants Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky were also assessed in an expert medical report procured by the DPI, in which their recovery time was assessed at four weeks and thirteen days respectively. 38.     On 1 and 4 March 2002 respectively, an official note was made in the investigation file summarising the applicants’ submissions and a   document was included in it outlining the investigation strategy. 39.     On 5 March 2002 at 10.00 and 10.50 a.m. respectively, the DPI interviewed I.S. and P.S. They described their involvement in the incident at the pub and the subsequent attack which took place at I.S.’s house and on his car. I.S. submitted, inter alia, that she had closed the bar and had gone home at around 9.50 p.m. P.S. submitted that the closing time of the bar was 10 p.m. and that his mother had arrived home after that time. 40.     On 7 March 2002 the DPI reported to the Ministry of the Interior on the status of the investigation. It was mentioned, inter alia, that the applicants’ legal representative had been obstructing the investigation, in that he had instructed the applicants not to accept summonses to interviews if handed to them in person, and not to take part in any interviews unless he was present. The qualification of the representative to appear on the applicants’ behalf in criminal proceedings in Slovakia was also called into question. 2.     Interviews on 12 March 2002 41.     In the morning of 12 March 2002, the DPI interviewed applicant Mr   Rastislav Koky, T.K. and M.K. and applicants Mr Ján Koky Jr. and Mr   Martin Kočko. These interviews started at 8.20, 9.15, 9.45, 10.10 and 10.40 respectively. 42.     Mr Rastislav Koky described the pub incident between I.S. and M.K. According to him, following the altercation I.S. had called P.S., who had arrived within five minutes, and who had warned Mr Koky that another son of I.S. would come round and there would be trouble. He also submitted that, later that evening, about thirty men had caught and beaten him, that he had subsequently had to be taken to hospital by ambulance, that he had been hospitalised for three to four days and that due to his injuries he was still unfit for work. In response to a direct question, Mr Rastislav Koky submitted that “during the attack, none of the attackers uttered a word”. 43.     T.K. and M.K. submitted that on the evening of the incident they had seen I.S. with a group of forty to fifty men approaching the Roma settlement. 44.     Mr Ján Koky Jr. described the pub incident, including the remark that P.S. had told him and others to go away because his brother would come and there would be trouble. Mr Ján Koky Jr. also submitted that, after he had seen his brother, applicant Mr Rastislav Koky, and his injuries, he had been convinced that P.S. was responsible. He had therefore gone to I.S.’s house, where he had had a   verbal exchange with E.N. and M.N. However, he had gone away after the latter had produced a   handgun and threatened to shoot him. 45.     Mr Martin Kočko described the pub incident, the arrival of P.S. in the pub, the departure of about forty-five men and the assault on him by four individuals wearing balaclavas to conceal their faces and two without, accompanied with a cry “Negroes, gypsies, we’re going to kill you”. After receiving medical care in hospital, he had gone home and had not been hospitalised. 3.     Interviews of 13 March 2002 46.     During the morning of 13 March 2002 the DPI interviewed applicants Mr Milan Baláž, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Ružena Kokyová and Mr Ján Koky. They also interviewed H.B., the respective interviews having commenced at 8.50, 9.20, At 9.50, 10.25 and at 10.55. 47.     Mr Milan Baláž submitted his account of the assault at house no.   67, where he had been present at the relevant time, visiting his girlfriend. In his submission, the assault had been accompanied by a   shout of “Gypsies get out, we’re going to kill you!” 48.     Ms Žaneta Kokyová, who lived in house no. 67, gave an account of the assault at their house and settlement, submitting that it had been accompanied by shouts of “Get out!”, “[religious expletive], gypsy whores, gypsy gang, get out, or else we are going to kill you all!” and “Gypsy whores, today you are dead, you are going to get a kicking today!”. 49.     Ms Ružena Kokyová gave an account of the attack at her house, no.   67, submitting that it had been accompanied by a male voice shouting “Gypsies, black muzzles, today you are going to get killed, get out!”. 50.     Mr Ján Koky gave an account of the attack at house no. 67, where he lived, submitting that it had been accompanied by shouts of “Gypsies, today you are going to be burned”. 51.     H.B., who was in house no. 67 during the attack, gave an account of it and submitted that it had been accompanied by shouts of “Gypsies, black muzzles, get out!” 4.     Extension of the investigations 52.     On 13 March 2002 the DPI initiated a criminal investigation into a   further offence, namely that of violence against an individual or a   group of individuals within the meaning of Article 196 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code. 53.     The decision was based on the suspicion that, in the incident described above, several unidentified individuals had entered the Roma settlement shouting “Gypsies, come out or we will kill you”, while some of them had gone into houses 61 and 67 shouting “Gypsies, come out or we will kill you”. 54.     The decision refers to the charges of 1 March 2002 and to subsequent statements from H.B., T.K., M.K. and applicants Mr Ján Koky, Mr Martin Kočko, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Mr Rastislav Koky, Ms Ružena Kokyová and Mr Ján Koky Jr. 55.     The decision also refers to the assault on applicant Mr Martin Kočko being accompanied by shouts of “Negroes, gypsies, we will kill you!”. 5.     Interviews of 14 March 2002 56.     The series of interviews started at 8 a.m. with P.J., continued at 8.35 a.m. with Ms E.N., and at 9.10 a.m. with the last son of I.S.: M.S. 57.     P.J. said that he could see that I.S. was distressed when he arrived at the bar. E.N. described her arrival at the bar and what happened while she was there, that she went with I.S. to her house, and the subsequent incident there. The deposition of M.S. was fully in line with those of his family members. 6.     Interviews of 20 March and 10 April 2002 58.     In the morning of 20 March 2002 the DPI interviewed applicant Ms Renáta Čonková, J.K. and applicant Ms Renáta Kokyová, whose interviews began at 9.10, 9.45 and 10 a.m. respectively. 59.     Ms Renáta Čonková gave an account of the attack at the house of applicant Ján Koky, which she had observed through the window of her own house. In her submission, the attack at the house of the applicant Ján Koky was accompanied by a shout of “Black whores, today we’re going to kill you!”. As to Ms Čonková’s own house, five windows had been broken by thrown stones which were found inside. The attackers had only got as far as a corridor in the house before they made their escape. 60.     J.K. gave an account of the attack at house no. 67, in which she lived. In her submission, the attack was accompanied by a shout of “Gypsy whores, today you will kick the bucket”. 61.     Ms Renáta Kokyová gave an account of the attack at house no 67, where she lived. In her submission, the attack was accompanied by a shout of “Gypsy whores, today we’re going to kill you”. 7.     Interviews of 27 March and 10 April 2002 62.     The morning of 27 March 2002 saw a long series of short interviews, starting at 8 with applicant Mr Ján Koky, at 8.10 with applicant Ms Ružena Kokyová, at 9 with H.B., at 9.30 with J,K,, at 9.35 with applicant Mr Rastislav Koky, at 9.40 with applicant Ms Renáta Kokyová, at 9.45 with applicant Mr Milan Baláž, at 9.50 with applicant Ms Žaneta Kokyová, at 9.55 with Z.K., at 10.05 with applicant Ms Renata Čonková, at 10.10 with applicant Ms Justína Lacková, and at 10.25 with applicant Mr Martin Kočko. 63.     Mr Ján Koky, Z.K. and J.K. completed their respective depositions of 1   and 20 March 2002 in so far as the extent of the material damage they had sustained was concerned, and added a   claim for compensation to the proceedings. 64.     Ms Justína Lacková specified the damage she stated she had sustained and for which she was seeking compensation. 65.     Ms Ružena Kokyová, HB, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Ms Renáta Kokyová and Ms Renáta Čonková completed their respective depositions of 13 and 20 March 2002 and declared that they had no compensation claim to join to the proceedings, as they themselves had not sustained any material damage. Ms Renáta Kokyová added that compensation for any damage sustained by their family would be claimed by her husband. 66.     Mr Rastislav Koky and Mr Martin Kočko completed their respective depositions of 12 March 2002 in that they specified that, as a result of the injuries sustained in the attack, Mr Rastislav Koky had been incapable of work for fourteen days, from 28 February to 14 March 2002, and Mr   Martin Kočko was still unable to work. 67.     At 8 a.m. on 10 April 2002 the DPI started interviewing applicant Mr Ján Koky Jr, who completed his depositions of 1 March 2002 in so far as the extent of the material damage he had sustained was concerned, and added a   claim for compensation to the proceedings. 8.     Further investigative actions 68.     Without providing any details the Government submitted that “[the authorities] had requested records of incoming and outgoing communication to and from mobile phones of [I.S.], [M.S.], [P.S.] and [E.N.]”. 9.     Identity exercise on 10 April 2002 69.     On 10 April 2002 the DPI held an identity exercise, in the course of which the participants were to identify presumed perpetrators from photographs in albums. It produced the following results: -     applicant Mr Ján Koky identified one person, with a subjectively perceived probability of seventy to eighty percent, as one of the people who had been attacking him in his house; -     applicant Mr Martin Kočko recognised one individual, who had been present at the pub during the argument, but had not been among those who had beaten him. He also identified one individual who had been among those who had beaten him, of which he was sixty percent sure. -     applicant Ms Žaneta Kokyová identified one individual, with a   subjectively perceived probability of fifteen to twenty percent, as an   intruder in their house and an attacker of her father; -     applicant Mr Rastislav Koky recognised two individuals who had been present at the pub during the argument but had not been among those who had beaten him. He also identified one individual who had been present at the settlement during the attack but was not sure whether that individual had beaten him; and -     applicants Mr Milan Baláž, Ms Renáta Kokyová and Mr Ján Koky Jr. did not identify anyone. 70.     In what may appear to be a follow-up to the identity exercise, on 19   April 2002, the DPI requested the Police Institute of Forensic Analysis to   examine buccal mucus samples of three individuals, B.B., V.P. and E.K. and to compare biological material thus obtained with other biological evidence taken from the scene of crime. 10.     Conclusion of the first investigation 71.     On 26 April 2002 the DPI suspended the above-mentioned criminal investigations. The decision stated that the police had taken several investigative measures and had carried out a search with a view to establishing the identity of the perpetrators of the assault of 28   February   2002. Until then, however, no evidence could be established which would have made it possible to bring charges against a specific person. 72.     The decision of 26 April 2002 also stated that it was established that the incident at the Roma settlement “had been preceded by an assault on a   waitress, I.S., by a Roma, M.K., and subsequent damage to the property of the family of I.S. by a hitherto unidentified Roma and so the actions of the unidentified perpetrators [could] not be considered or qualified as a   criminal offence with a racial motive, because it [had come] down only to an act of retribution”. 73.     As to the injuries sustained by applicants Mr Rastislav Koky and Mr   Martin Kočko, the decision refers to the decision of 1 March 2002 and its contents (see paragraph 36 above). D.     Second investigation into the incidents of 28 February 2002 1.     Opening of the second investigation and initial steps taken 74.     On 3 May 2002 applicants Mr Ján Koky and Mr Rastislav Koky lodged an   interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) against the decision to suspend the investigation. Referring to the facts of the case, they submitted that the assault had been racially motivated and that it had been organised by people who were close to the family of the waitress concerned. Citing, inter alia , Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, they sought resumption of the investigation. 75.     On the same day, namely 3 May 2002, the Poprad District Prosecutor ( Okresná prokuratúra ) (“the District Prosecutor”) issued a   written instruction to the DPI specifying the measures to be taken and lines of inquiry to be pursued in order to establish the identity of the perpetrators and highlight the alleged racial motive. 76.     Still on 3 May 2002, the DPI took a decision to resume the investigation. That decision contains a summary of the previous procedural developments, followed by a plain statement, without further elucidation, that “during further investigation it [had been] established that a racially motivated criminal offence [was] implicated and therefore it [was] necessary to take further investigative steps and resume the investigation ...”. 77.     On 14 May 2002 the Police Forensic Analysis Institute filed a   report with the DPI concluding that, having examined the biological material of B.B., V.P. and E.K. (see paragraph 70 above) and having compared it with the material taken from the crime scene, no link could be established. 2.     Interviews of 20 and 21 May 2002 78.     In the morning of 20 May 2002, at 8.40, 8.50, 9 and 9.15 respectively, the DPI commenced interviewing M.S., P.S. and F.S., as well as M.N. They completed their respective submissions of 14 March, 19   March, 17 April and 3 May 2002 and agreed to provide buccal mucus samples for the purposes of DNA testing and comparison with the biological material taken from the crime scene. 79.     On 21 May 2002 at 8 am the DPI commenced interviewing M.L., who gave an account of his arrival in the village and at the bar and also of his perception of the incident at the house of I.S. He stated that he had not been at the Roma settlement. 80.     The following day the DPI again requested the Police Forensic Analysis Institute to analyse and compare biological material obtained from the three sons of I.S., M.N. and M.L. with the material taken from the scene of crime. 3.     Decision on the first interlocutory appeal 81.     On 22 May 2002 the District Prosecutor declared the interlocutory appeal of applicants Mr Ján Koky and Mr Rastislav Koky of 3 May 2002 (see paragraph 74 above) inadmissible, replying on Articles 43, 124 § 1, 148 § 1 (b) and 173 § 4 of the CCP, and holding that as victims of the alleged offences the appellants had no standing to   challenge the decision in question. 82.     In its concluding part, which under the applicable procedural rules (see paragraph 125 below) contains information concerning available remedies, the decision provided that: “An interlocutory appeal against this decision is not permissible.” 83.     However, in a letter of the same date, namely 22 May 2002, the District Prosecutor informed the applicants that she had reviewed the matter on her own authority, that on 3 May 2002 (see paragraph 75 above) she had quashed the decision, and that she had instructed the DPI to   carry on the investigation so as to clarify the events without leaving any doubt as to the identity and motive of the alleged perpetrators. 4.     Investigative actions taken between 23 May and 18 June 2002 84.     At 8 a.m. on 23 May 2002 the DPI commenced interviewing E.K. During the morning of 4 June 2002 they interviewed R.S. (at 8.30), I.K. (8.45), J.H. (9.00) and M.K. (9.10). On 6, 7 and 18 June 2002 respectively the DPI interviewed J.K. (at 10 a.m.), P.P. (at 10 a.m.) and B.P. (before 9 a.m.). 85.     They all had either already provided or agreed to provide buccal mucus samples for the purposes of DNA testing and comparison with the biological material taken from the scene of crime. 86.     In addition, E.K. submitted that he had not been at the Roma settlement and that he had no explanation of how he could have been identified as someone involved in the attack. 87.     R.S. acknowledged having been at the bar with B.P. and J.K. (see paragraphs 91 and 93 below) during the incident, which however he had not seen, and he had no information concerning the event investigated. 88.     I.K. stated that he had no knowledge of the incident, of which he had learned from the media, and that he had not been at the Roma settlement. 89.     J.H. had been away on a skiing trip from 28 February until 1   March   2002. 90.     M.K. had been away on business in the week in question and had only returned on 1 March 2002. 91.     J.K. had been at the bar during the incident, but had not witnessed it directly. He had not been at the Roma settlement and had no knowledge of who had been there. 92.     P.P. acknowledged knowing M.S. However, he had not been at the Roma settlement, remembered nothing useful and had no explanation of why one of the victims had identified him as someone involved in the attack which took place in their house. 93.     B.P. acknowledged having been at the bar with R.S. and J.K. (see paragraphs 87 above and 91 above), but he had not directly witnessed the incident. He had not been at the Roma settlement, nor did he have any knowledge of anyone who had been there. 94.     On 18 June 2002 the Police Forensic Analysis Institute reported to the DPI that, having examined the biological samples taken from F.S., P.S., M.S., M.N. and M.L. (see paragraph 80 above) and having compared it with the material taken from the scene of crime, no link could be established. 5.     Conclusion of the second investigation 95.     On 26 June 2002 the DPI again suspended the investigation, relying on Article 173 § 1 (e) of the CCP, and referring to similar considerations to those in the decision of 26 April 2002. It summarised previous procedural developments and observed that, despite additional information taken from H.B., T.K., M.K. and applicants Mr Ján Koky, Mr Martin Kočko, Ms   Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Mr Rastislav Koky, Ms Ružena Koky and Mr Ján Koky Jr., it had not been possible to establish any evidence allowing charges to be brought against any specific person. However, it was considered established that the attack at the Roma settlement had been preceded by the incident at the bar and had been followed by the attack at the house of the family of Ms I.S. 6.     Interlocutory appeal and submission to the Prosecutor General 96.     On 3 July 2002 applicants Mr Ján Koky and Mr Rastislav Koky lodged an   interlocutory appeal against the decision of 26 June 2002, requesting that the criminal proceedings be resumed with a view to establishing the relevant facts of the case. 97.     The appellants relied on Articles 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 15 and 21 of the Constitution and referred to the results of the identity exercise on 10 April 2002. In particular, they emphasised that, on that occasion, applicant Mr Martin Kočko had recognised one person; applicant Mr Rastislav Koky had recognised F.S. and submitted that the organisation of the attack had had a   connection with the family of I.S.; and applicants Mr Ján Koky and Ms Žaneta Kokyová had recognised one person each. 98.     On 11 July 2002 the applicants’ representative wrote to the Prosecutor General to inform him that they had lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 26 June 2002 with the District Prosecutor and that they suspected that the investigation had been tampered with in order to   downplay the racial motive for the assault. He requested that the applicants be informed of the Prosecutor General’s office’s actions in the matter. 99.     The applicants have not received any answer to their letter of 11   July   2002, and it appears that it has not given rise to any specific action or decision. According to an official statement of the Office of the Prosecutor General the letter is not a part of their case file. 100.     On 17 July 2002 the District Prosecutor declared the interlocutory appeal inadmissible on similar grounds to those in the decision of 22   May   2002, relying on Articles 43, 142 § 1 a 173 of the CCP. 101.     The decision contains information as to the available remedies, to the effect that: “An interlocutory appeal against this decision is not permissible.” 102.     Nevertheless, the District Prosecutor reviewed the decision on her own initiative and, by a letter of the same day, namely 17 July 2002, informed the appellants that the DPI had taken all the actions necessary to   carry out a successful prosecution. 103.     According to the letter, it was true that applicant Mr Rastislav Koky had recognised P.S., F.S. and M.N., but he had submitted either that they had not beaten him or that he was not sure whether they had beaten him. Applicant Mr Ján Koky had recognised F.S. and had submitted that it was the latter who had beaten him in his house. This submission however contradicted a previous submission by applicant Mr Ján Koky (see paragraph 32 above) to the effect that, of the five attackers in his house, four were wearing balaclavas and one, whom he did not know, was not. It was also observed that Ms Žaneta Kokyová had not recognised any of the attackers. 104.     The letter further states that additional action had been taken with a   view to identifying those responsible, such as a comparison of the traces found at the scene of the incident with buccal mucus samples from the suspects, but the available evidence did not permit the bringing of charges against any particular person. 7.     Further investigative steps 105.     Meanwhile, on 11 July 2002 and again on 19 August and 8   November 2002, the DPI interviewed seven other individuals. These interviews however produced no useful new information. 106.     On an unspecified date, in response to a request of 20 August 2002, the Police Institute of Forensic Analysis reported to the DPI that, having examined buccal mucus samples from P.G., M.S. and M.A. and compared it with the biological material taken from the scene of crime, no link could be established. 107.     On 13 January 2003, in response to a request, the DPI reported to the District Prosecutor that hitherto “no perpetrator had been identified and that tasks were continuously being carried out under an integrated investigation plan”. 108.     No information has been made available in respect of any further investigative actions and their outcome. E.     Constitutional complaint 109.     On 17 September 2002 all ten applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. Represented by a lawyer, they contended that the events of 28 February 2002 had not been sufficiently thoroughly and efficiently investigated to ensure that those responsible were identified and punished. In particular, they submitted that the authorities had failed to draw adequate conclusions from the oral evidence and from the information concerning the identity of the alleged perpetrators, as obtained from the identity exercise of 10 April 2002. In   addition, the authorities should have taken and assessed further evidence, such as records of mobile telephone communications between those involved, but had not done so. The applicants also contended that the assault had not been motivated by revenge but was racially motivated, to which the authorities had failed to pay adequate attention. 110.     In the text of their complaint the applicants made reference to Article 1 § 2 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended), in conjunction with a principle of “general acceptance and observance of human rights and basic freedoms for everybody”, Articles 5 §   1 and 13 of the Convention and the Court’s judgment in the case of Aksoy v. Turkey (18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ VI). 111.     In the standardised prescribed form containing a summary of their claim, the applicants applied for a ruling declaring a violation of their right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and to judicial and other legal protection under Article 46 § 1 of the Constitution by actions of the DPI in the investigation referred to above. 112.     On 23 October 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had failed to   exhaust all remedies as required by section 53(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 38/1993 Coll., as amended). 113.     In particular, the Constitutional Court held that it had been open to the applicants to ask the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”), under Articles 167 and 174 § 2 (a) and (c) of the CCP, to instruct the DPI to   proceed with the case. Had such a request been dismissed, the applicants could have used further remedies available to them under sections 31 et seq . of the PPS Act. No appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court was available. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution 114.     Article 1 § 2 provides that: “The Slovak Republic acknowledges and adheres to general rules of international law, international treaties by which it is bound, and its other international obligations.” 115.     In so far as relevant, Article 15 stipulates that: “1.     Everyone has the right to life. [...] 2.     No one shall be deprived of life. ... 3.     No infringement of rights according to this Article shall occur if a person has been deprived of life in connection with an action not defined as unlawful under the law.” 116.     Article 21 § 1 provides that: “The home shall be inviolable. Entry without the consent of the person living there is not permitted.” 117.     Article 46 § 1 of the Constitution reads as follows: “Everyone may claim his or her right by procedures laid down by an act of parliament before an independent and impartial court of law or, in cases provided for by an act of parliament, before another organ of the Slovak Republic.” 118.     Pursuant to Article 127: “1.     The Constitutional Court shall decide complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court. 2.     If the Constitutional Court finds a complaint justified, it shall deliver a decision stating that a person’s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph 1 have been violated by a final decision, specific measure or other act, and shall quash such a decision, measure or act. If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act, the Constitutional Court may order [the authority] which has violated the rights or freedoms to take the necessary action. At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings, order that authority to refrain from violating the fundamental rights and freedoms ... or, where appropriate, order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation. 3.     In its decision on a complaint the Constitutional Court may grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph 1 have been violated.” B.     The Constitutional Court Act 119.     Article 31a reads as follows: “Unless this Act provides otherwise or it is excluded by the nature of the matter, the proceedings before the Constitutional Court shall be subject to application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 120.     Under the relevant part of section 53(1) and (2): “1.     A[n] [individual] complaint is not admissible if the complainant has not exhausted legal remedies or other legal means, which a statute effectively provides to [the complainant] with a view to protecting [the complainant’s] fundamental rights or freedoms, and which the complainant is entitled to use under special statute [such as the Civil Procedure Code and the Administrative Procedure Code]. 2.     The Constitutional Court shall not declare a[n] [individual] complaint inadmissible