CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6D41D5D { width:368.55pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2AD579 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s92DC78EE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:42.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.55pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39468/09 by Fredi BELERI and Others against Albania lodged on 23 June 2009   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Alfred Beleri, Mr Koço Llazari, Mr Vangjel Kolila, Ms Sofika Rapo and Mr Angjello Kokaveshi are Albanian nationals who were born in 1972, 1938, 1971, 1985 and 1959 and live in Greece. They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Ktistakis, a lawyer practising in Athens. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants come from Himara, a town located on the south-west coast of Albania. They claim to belong to the Greek-speaking minority. The fifth applicant was the president of a minority-based association called the Union of Himariotes in Greece (“the association”). He also published the periodical Himara in Greek, (“the newspaper”), which was a journal of the association. It is believed that the newspaper was distributed to Himariotes residing in Greece. The first applicant was a board member of the association. It transpires from the case file that the autumn 2003 issue of the newspaper urged Himariotes living in Greece to organise themselves and cast their votes in the October 2003 local government elections in Albania. The newspaper ran headlines and articles which were the subject of domestic legal proceedings in Albania (see Retrial section below). On 12 October 2003 local government elections for city councils and mayors were conducted in Albania, including in Himara. It was reported that a number of incidents had occurred on polling day, including some in Himara. In the evening of 12 October 2003, following reported irregularities, the applicants protested in front of the Local Government Election Commission. They carried Greek flags and shouted pro-Greek slogans, demonstrating their support for one of the candidates. It would appear that, on an unspecified date, the applicants left Albania for Greece, where they are currently living. On an unspecified date in 2003 the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicants on charges of incitement to national hatred and defamation of the Republic and its symbols. On 8 December 2003 the prosecutor committed the applicants for trial in absentia . On 24 September 2004 the Vlora District Court (“District Court”) found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced four of them to three years’ imprisonment in absentia . The fourth applicant was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment in absentia . On 13 April 2005 the Vlora Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 24 September 2004 on grounds of procedural irregularities and remitted the case for fresh examination by a different bench of the District Court. On 23 September 2005, following an appeal by the prosecutor, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Retrial On 18 July 2006, in retrial proceedings, the District Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to three years’ imprisonment in absentia . It found that, by making anti-national statements, the applicants’ actions had been capable of inciting national hatred. The incitement of a crowd posed a threat to peace and public order. This was further reflected in a number of incidents, one in which a policeman who was on duty at a polling station in Himara was injured; another in the pressure exerted upon other citizens who were casting their votes; a third in the blocking of Himara’s central street; and also in the explosion and attacks on polling stations and commissioners. The court further held that, by ignoring the Albanian flag and national anthem, by holding the Greek flag and singing the Greek national anthem, by writing press articles and issuing publications, by considering Himara to be Greek territory and by not recognising any government other than that of Greece, the applicants had publicly defied the Republic of Albania and its constitutional order. The court dismissed the arguments of the applicants’ representative that their actions should be classified as petty offences (kundërvajtje penale ) in accordance with the Freedom of Assembly Act. It held that their actions fell to be considered under the Criminal Code. Material evidence relied upon by the District Court The court examined an audio-visual tape which had recorded the applicants making the public statements on 12 October 2003. The second and third applicants had publicly shouted, “Al Qaeda” and “Albania Al Qaeda”, while sticking their tongues out and raising their middle fingers. The third applicant had addressed a crowd of people in Greek, from a podium, while displaying a cross that he was wearing around his neck. The fourth applicant had wrapped herself in a Greek flag which she was carrying in her hands. The third and fourth applicants had taken out and waved other small Greek flags. The court also examined the autumn 2003 issue of the newspaper. One of its front-page headlines read, “Fervently and in unison. The response of Himara for its own rights. Vote with dignity and not subserviently! What you never accomplished, Himariotes, you may finish off now.” The above headline led to an article which called on Himariotes “to be united against communism in Albania, which has been persecuting them since 1941 and continues [to do so] even up to today.” Furthermore, the front page of the newspaper contained an announcement about buses being made available for anyone wishing to cast their votes in Himara during the local government elections of 12 October 2003. Another article, on page 5, by H. K, featured the following title “The battle for Hellenisation starts in Himara.” The decision quoted the following excerpts from the article, “These elections mark the most appropriate step for the Hellenisation of Vorio Epirus ... The battle of all battles will be waged in Himara. The [united] forces of Himariotes, who will witness their Hellenisation, will be tested in Himara so that it can be recognised as a Greek town, so that it can have a Greek school and enjoy all rights that other minorities have in Europe. Every Himariot who will be absent from this battle is being less than Greek. ... The vote is the only option for those who declare themselves to be Greeks and to fight against those who profess to be “socialists” or, even worse, “himariotes”. Himara is Greek and this needs to be demonstrated. I think that the sacrifice requested from the Greek Himariotes is not too great. Himara will win, Vorio Epirus will win.” The court also relied on the statements of witnesses which confirmed the statements that had been publicly made by the applicants, as a result of which they had incited the crowd, which had led to a disruption of public order and the vote-counting process. The statements included the following: “Down with Albania”, “Albania is Al Qaeda”, “Vote for Greece to be free”, “Himara is Greek”, “This is Greek land”, “Foreigners out of Himara”, “Get the hell out of Himara”, “We are Greek”, “Turkey did not invade us”, “You are Turks” and “Foreigners should leave”. On 19 July 2006 and 27 December 2007 the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively. Relying on the Freedom of Assembly Act, they asked for their actions to be classified as petty offences and their imprisonment to be commuted to a fine. They also contested the witness statements as being unreliable. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals on 26 December 2006 and 4 February 2009, respectively. In his dissenting opinion, Judge S. S. of the Supreme Court expressed the view that the applicants’ actions should have been examined as petty offences which had led to a public order disruption, as a result of which they would have been sentenced to a fine. Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Constitution of Albania Article 22 “1. Freedom of expression is guaranteed. 2. The freedom of the press ... is guaranteed. 3. Prior censorship of means of communication is prohibited.” Article 23 § 1 “1. The right to information is guaranteed.” Article 42 § 2 “In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and interests, or in defending a criminal charge, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court established by law” Article 131 “The Constitutional Court shall decide: ... (f) in a ruling that shall be final, complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted.” Relevant case-law of the Albanian Constitutional Court On 21 July 2009 the Constitutional Court examined a constitutional appeal by an appellant for breach of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as a result of the delayed enforcement of a final ruling in his favour. In a reasoned decision, the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, dismissed the appellant’s constitutional appeal, finding that there had been no breach of the right in question. 2.     Criminal Code Article 266 – Incitement to national hatred “Endangering public order by inciting national hatred against other sectors of the population, by insulting or defaming them, or by requesting the use of force or arbitrary actions against them, may result in a fine or a term of five years’ imprisonment.” Article 268 - Defamation of the Republic and its symbols “Defamation, voiced publicly or through the publication or distribution of written material, of the Republic of Albania and [its] constitutional order, flag, emblem, national anthem or martyrs of the nation, or the removal, damage or destruction of the flag or emblem of the Republic of Albania wherever displayed by official institutions, or the making indistinct or unusable of either, constitutes petty offence ( kundërvajtje penale ) and is liable to a fine or two years’ imprisonment.” 3.     Fredom of Assesmbly Act (Law no. 8773 of 23 April 2001 – “Për tubimet”) The Act governs everyone’s freedom to hold and participate in a peaceful assembly. Such a freedom is restricted on defined grounds as stipulated in section 1. Before any assembly may be held in public squares or passageways ( sheshe ose vendkalime publike ), the organisers are obliged to notify in writing, at least three days prior to the day of the assembly, the Chief of Police (section 5). When there are serious grounds that an assembly constitutes a real risk to national security, public security, the prevention of crime, or the protection of the health, rights and freedoms of others and there are no measures available which are more lenient, the Chief of Police may ban the assembly or decide when and where it may be held (section 8). Participation in a banned assembly constitutes a petty offence ( kundërvajtje penale ) and is liable to a fine (section 24). Section 9 provides for the dispersal of an assembly by the police on defined grounds. Failure to respect police orders constitutes a petty offence ( kundërvajtje penale ) and is liable to a fine (section 24). It is prohibited to possess firearms, conceal identity or use uniforms, signs or symbols which incite discrimination or violence on racial, ethnic or religious grounds (section 18-20). The use of clothes, objects, signs or symbols to conceal identity or incite violence or discrimination constitutes a petty offence ( kundërvajtje penale ) and is liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment (section 24). 4.     The Electoral Code (Law no. 9087 of 19 June 2003) Article 104 of the Electoral Code, as in force at the material time, provides for the maintenance of public order in polling stations ( ruajtja e rendit në qendrën e votimit ). When there is a risk to the disruption of public order and the conduct of elections, the Polling Station Commission ( Komisioni i Qendrës së Votimit ) may decide to suspend the elections and seek the assistance of the police. The request is submitted in writing and should contain a brief description of the facts and reasons for the intervention of the police. D.     Relevant international documents 1.     Election Observation Mission (“EOM”) reports of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe / Office for Democratic Institutional and Human Rights (“the OSCE/ODIHR”) in respect of Albania (a)     The OSCE/ODIHR report of 11 December 2000 On 1 and 15 October 2000 the local government elections were conducted in Albania. On 11 December 2000 the OSCE/ODIHR released its report on the overall conduct of the local government elections, the most relevant parts of which read as follows. “IX. Observation of voting and counting in the second round A. Himara case After the first round, the candidate of the Union for Human Rights Party (“UHRP”) notified the EOM that the Socialist Party (“SP”) and the Democratic Party (“DP”) chairs of the Qeparo polling station, constituency of Himara, disappeared with the ballot box after the vote count and fixed the protocols in order to force a second round. On 4   October, the Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Greece issued a statement complaining of widespread violations against the Greek-speaking minority during the first round. No evidence of such widespread fraud was uncovered by the EOM at that stage, although blocks of identical signatures in the voter lists were observed in one polling station after the second round election. In the run up to the second round, high-level SP representatives actively campaigned in Himara and the Prime Minister visited the municipality two days before polling day. More importantly, leading politicians resorted to nationalist rhetoric and inflammatory language. In contrast, the UHRP ran a low-key campaign and did not resort to any such language. Though the campaign of the “Alliance for the Nation” was widely covered in the national media, local party representatives in Himara confirmed that the Alliance was not a local initiative and that despite the DP mayor’s personal declaration of support for the SP candidate, there had been no joint campaign. On the eve of the election, tension in Himara was exacerbated when thirteen buses with approximately 500 Albanian emigrants coming from Greece were stopped at the border for lack of proper vehicle documentation to enter Albania. After discussion, the emigrants were let through and picked up on the other side of the border by Albanian busses and escorted by the police and two Members of the Hellenic Parliament. In addition, two UHRP representatives were detained for two hours on the eve of the second round, and emigrants were taken to the police station for questioning about their military obligations. Accusations of Greek interference in Albanian internal affairs surfaced on 14 and 15   October, following the arrival in Himara of ten Members of the Hellenic Parliament and four staff. The SP and the CEC [Central Election Commission] issued official statements of protest against Greek interference and violation of the Electoral Code, which specifically prohibits foreigners from campaigning or from entering polling stations unless duly accredited. In a letter also addressed to the OSCE, the Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament refuted those accusations and stressed that the presence of ten independent MPs did not constitute an official representation of the Hellenic Parliament. Throughout polling day, the EOM received information from observers deployed in Himara on behalf of a number of organisations, including the Council of Europe, OSCE Presence, Embassy of the United States and European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM). They reported that Greek parliamentarians were seen addressing voters in front of polling stations and in the presence of journalists. The Electoral Code prohibits any campaign activity within 150 meters of polling stations and on polling day. It is, however, difficult to distinguish between campaigning and the usual visits of foreign dignitaries and Members of Parliament (MPs) on polling day. Observers did not indicate that the MPs had held any public rallies or entered any polling stations. With the exception of three members of one polling station, who stated that two Greek MPs entered the polling station for a few minutes, all other interlocutors also stressed that the MPs had not entered any polling stations. On polling day, the EOM also visited the polling station in Dhermi (Himara), where a dispute between commission members broke out and the UHRP member destroyed the ballot box in an attempt to prevent a voter from casting a vote. One person was armed with a gun. The box was subsequently thrown out of the window, collected, replaced with a new ballot box provided by the LGEC and polling resumed. Observers noted that many ballot papers were not folded and all marked in favour of the SP candidate. Others reported that the voter lists contained blocks of identical signatures in the same handwriting. A number of UHRP commission members indicated to observers that they had been intimidated and asked to leave the polling stations. During the counting of votes, observers in two polling stations reported seeing a number of ballot papers still attached to each other at the stub, indicating that irregular voting had taken place. In Himara, the total of 4,634 votes cast in the second round was higher than the 3,440 cast in the first round, leading the UHRP to claim that this was evidence of manipulation. Moreover, VCCs in Himara did not receive sufficient numbers of protocols, making it impossible for party representatives on the commissions to receive copies and adequate documentation in support of their complaints. In addition, in Himara, polling station members, and even chairpersons, were changed without reason by the LGEC a day before the second round, in clear violation of the law. However, it seems that UHRP members left the polling stations before the count On 19 October, the CEC decided not to uphold the UHRP complaint asking for elections in Himara to be invalidated, on the grounds that the results of the contested polling stations could not have had an impact on the overall outcome. On the same day, UHRP chairman, Vasil Melo, indicated that, because they were part of the ruling coalition, the UHRP would not lodge a complaint in court. In view of the above, the EOM continued to monitor the situation in Himara after the second round and concluded that no effective measures to address the irregularities had been taken by the CEC.” (b)     The OSCE/ODIHR report of 25 February 2004 On 25 February 2004 the OSCE/ODIHR released the final report of their EOM, covering the period between 12 October 2003 and 25 January 2004 of the local government elections in Albania. The report is organised in various chapters, the most relevant parts of which, read as follows. “VII. Election Campaign There was a marked improvement in the campaign atmosphere for the local government elections in comparison to previous elections in Albania. In an important development, there was an absence of heated rhetoric between candidates and political parties and a sharp reduction in the number of complaints relating to intimidation and other undue pressure. The campaign was generally conducted in a calm and orderly manner, with an increase in the level of substantive debate on political issues rather than personal attacks. ... XI. Participation of national minorities in the electoral process While there are several distinct groups of national minorities in Albania, their level of participation in the electoral process has not been an issue of general contention. At those elections, no reports were received of direct discrimination against recognised minority groups or obstacles harming their participation. ... Political tension remains in the area surrounding Himara, where some politicians based their campaigns around Greek minority issues. That tension escalated into violent incidents on 12 October and during repeat voting on 16 November. XIII. Observation of voting and counting Voting Voting on polling day was assessed positively by ... observers in 88 per cent of the polling stations visited. While polling proceeded in a generally calm manner, there were reports of tension and unrest in 9 per cent of polling stations, although this was often caused by confusion owing to voters being unable to find their names in the voter registers, which was noted in over 70 per cent of polling stations visited by ... observers. Regrettably, a small number of violent incidents occurred, especially in Himara where election-related disturbances included the detonation of an explosive device at a polling station, resulting in minor injuries to a policeman. ... XIV. Repeated elections 16 November repeat elections On 16 November ... partial re-runs took place in Himara ..., in accordance with decisions of the Central Election Commission (“CEC”) and Electoral College. ... there were widespread violations and conflict in polling stations in Himara ..., including proxy and multiple voting and ballot stuffing. In some Himara polling stations, unauthorised persons were involved in directing the process and in one polling station police were present without the required identification. Although police witnessed a stabbing incident outside a polling station in Himara village, they took no action to arrest the assailant. The vote count and tabulation in Himara was tense and marked by violent incidents and blatant fraud. Without examining the original protocols in ballot boxes, the Socialist Party (“SP”)-led Local Government Election Commission (“LGEC”) declared the SP the winner. Based on a complaint by the Union for Human Rights Party (UHRP), the CEC decided to open the ballot boxes and re-examine the ballots, ultimately declaring the UHRP the winner. ...” 2.     Election observation reports of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (“CLRAE”) in respect of Albania (a)     CLRAE’s report of 10 November 2000 The CLRAE monitored the local government elections in Albania in 2000 alongside the OSCE/ODIHR. On 10 November 2000 its Standing Committee adopted its report (CG/CP (7) 13), the most relevant excerpts of which read as follows. “IV. Polling day, vote count and first round results IV. 1 The Himara case The CLRAE teams have not covered the Dropull and Himara areas during the first round, where serious problems have been reported by the Greek-speaking minority, including “psychological violence” against voters and representatives of the Union of Human Rights Party. According to the results published by the CEC, the Union for Human Rights Party lost the elections in the Ksamil commune, in one of the two communes in Dropull, and was facing run-offs in the other Dropull commune and in the Himara coastal municipality. (It is a municipality composed of seven villages, four of which are Albanian-speaking and the rest Greek-speaking. In general terms, most of the Albanian politicians, except the Union for Human Rights Party, do not recognise the existence of a Greek-speaking minority in Himara, whereas most Greek officials want to defend such a minority.) Since that disastrous election performance, the Greek minority Omonia organisation has charged the government with “vote rigging”. Greek and foreign observers have reported cases of irregularities and cheating in some areas. The Albanian authorities have also come under pressure from Greece to call new elections in the recognised Greek minority areas and in Himara. The CLRAE, whilst unable to take a position on those reports on the basis of the first round monitoring, decided to send a team to observe the second round in Himara (see below.) V. Election environment before the second round ... The second round was further overshadowed by polarisation in the small municipality of Himara, which had been the subject of serious shortcomings in the first round. The tension has been aggravated following interference by many officials in Tirana, but also by Greek parliamentarians and members of Government. Despite their bitter rivalry, the Socialists and Democrats have joined forces here to defeat a candidate from the Union for Human Rights Party. The end of the campaign at local and national level was marred by nationalistic rhetoric, pitting the Albanian community against the Greek community, and reported at length in the press even on polling day, in an environment of increased tension with the neighbouring country. There were reports that Albanian measures had hampered traffic to and from Greece, for instance, buses were being stopped at the border for various administrative reasons and military manoeuvres were being organised in the Ionian Sea, which stopped the ferries from Korfu to Himara and to Sarranda. A police presence was highly visible in Sarranda, as was the presence of a large number of Greek parliamentarians. Although this question of the minority is certainly an important issue, it is somewhat strange to see how this issue overshadowed the whole second round: Himara is a small municipality with only 8,615 voters inscribed on the voter lists, many of whom do not regularly reside in Himara but work in Greece. As during the first round, a broad spectrum of media reported on the elections. Overall, the time given to candidates and the campaign was limited, as the media preferred to concentrate on broader political issues such as the threat of a DP boycott and the situation in Himara. For its part, the public television broadcaster, TVSH, gave overwhelming coverage to the SP, reflecting the unilateral character of the campaign; overall, the tone of this information, however, was balanced. ... V.1 Polling day and vote count in the second round ... In Himara, the situation was marked by some serious irregularities ranging from intimidation of commission members, to one case of violence in which a ballot box was destroyed, to verified evidence of fraud at a minimum of three polling stations. Congress observers confirmed that there had been cases where UHRP representatives with valid accreditation had been refused entry or forced out of polling stations, and they had also met cases of forged signatures and ballot stuffing in several polling stations. A more detailed account of the second round of elections in Himara can be found in the Appendix. The Albanian authorities should ensure that those irregularities are fully investigated in accordance with the rule of law. Following the second round, Albania’s ruling party accused Greece of meddling in the local elections by encouraging voters in Himara to vote for candidates defending the rights of the Greek minority. The SP said the Greek action amounted to a violation of Albanian national sovereignty.” (b) CLRAE’s report of 26 November 2003 The CLRAE observed the local government elections in Albania in 2003 alongside the OSCE/ODIHR. On 26 November 2003 its Standing Committee adopted its report (CG/CP (10) 16) which was released on 8   December 2003. The most relevant excerpts of the report read as follows. “5. Administrative preparations for the elections, polling day and vote count ... 5.3 Himara In the October 2000 local elections, the second round was overshadowed by polarisation in the small municipality of Himara between the Greek-speaking minority and (in the Albanian political context) an unlikely coalition between the SP and Democratic Party (“DP”) against the UHRP, which is considered to represent the Greek-speaking minority in Albania. In general terms, most Albanian politicians, except those from the UHRP, do not recognise the existence of a Greek-speaking minority in Himara. The tension in the 2000 elections was aggravated following interference by many officials in Tirana, but also by Greek parliamentarians and members of Government. The end of the campaign at local and national level was marred by nationalistic rhetoric, pitting the Albanian community against the Greek community, in an environment of increased tension between Albania and Greece. Also in the October 2003 elections there were busloads of Albanians working in Greece, but originating in the Greek-speaking areas of Albania, who came to Himara and other Greek-speaking areas to vote. According to OSCE sources, by midday on Saturday 11 October, seventy-two such buses had crossed into Albania from Greece with an estimated 4,000 people in them. In Himara the CLRAE observers registered eight such buses. However, this time there were no Greek parliamentarians to be seen and notwithstanding a few Greek media teams who reportedly entered some polling stations in Himara unauthorised, there was no unlawful interference from Greece. Compared with the October 2000 elections the tensions this time were minor. This time there was another alliance in Himara, namely, the DP had teamed up with the UHRP against the socialist candidate. This meant that there was a different alliance at local level than at national level, because the UHRP is included in the socialist-led government at national level, whereas the DP is the main opposition party at national level. Nonetheless, some tension occurred at some polling stations in Himara where some voters, mostly self-proclaimed supporters of the UHRP, claimed that their names had been excluded from the voter list, or their data had been manipulated on the last version of the voter list. While not being able to judge whether any intentional manipulation had taken place, the CLRAE observers witnessed a relatively large number of cases in which slight errors regarding dates of birth or spelling of names prevented the voters concerned from voting. Many of these excluded voters claimed that their data had been correct on the previous version of the voter list and that the last version had only arrived the day before the elections. They also claimed that the members of the VCCs, in their capacity of co-residents in the relatively small town of Himara, knew the voters personally and should have let them vote despite any technical errors in the voter lists. If the claims about manipulation of the voter lists were true, it would naturally constitute a very serious violation but would not have influenced the election result, because the DP/Human Rights alliance won the election in Himara. The SP asked that the results be invalidated. The CEC refused the request but ordered repeat elections in two polling stations (see below). Moreover, there was a regrettable incident outside a polling station in Himara around closing time, when a bomb exploded, injuring several people. One of the CLRAE teams visited the polling station in question a few hours before the explosion at which time several representatives of the Greek-speaking minority addressed them with their grievances, but in a non-aggressive way, in an atmosphere which appeared relaxed. Finally, a ballot box was stolen from a polling station in the Himara area. The CEC ordered a rerun in four polling stations in the Himara area where the elections had for one reason or another not been carried out correctly, including the polling station from which the ballot box had been stolen in the first round. According to information from ODIHR and from the OSCE Presence in Albania, who were present to observe, the rerun saw some serious fraud which finally forced the CEC to invalidate the rerun results and to declare the candidate of the UHRP/DP alliance the winner, based on the results from all other polling stations in the first round. In the Congress delegation’s view, the result is correct as it is, based on the result of the first round of the elections in those polling stations where no serious irregularities were observed. Nevertheless, it is hard to see on what basis the CEC ruled that the results of the first round should remain any more valid after the failed rerun than before it. The irregularities observed in Himara in the October 2003 election must be considered as serious and it is with regret that the delegation notes that, after the October 2003 elections, the small town of Himara will remain associated with electoral shortcomings and controversy.” COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were too long. Under Article 10 they complain of a breach of their right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaints? In particular:   a. Is there an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the length of criminal proceedings? The Government are asked to provide relevant domestic case-law in support of their position. b. Did the applicants invoke before the domestic courts, at least in substance, their right under Article 10, on which they now wish to rely before the Court? 2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the retrial proceedings before the Supreme Court examined timeously? 3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, in particular, with their right to impart information and ideas? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 §   2? 4. Did the applicants have an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings?