CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s35D46A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s827E2BE9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }       FIRST SECTION Application no. 50135/09 by Zviad KOBALADZE and Others against Russia lodged on 17 September 2009   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants in the present case are: 1.     Mr Zviad Kobaladze, a Georgian national, born in 1978. The application on his behalf is lodged by the fifth applicant. 2.     Mr David Kapanadze, a Georgian national, born in 1969. The application on his behalf is lodged by the sixth applicant. 3.     Mr Demuri Chikhladze, a Georgian national, born in 1973. The application on his behalf is lodged by the seventh applicant. 4.     Mr Giorgi Archvadze, a Georgian national, born in 1992. The application on his behalf was originally lodged by the eighth applicant, but he maintained it after his release. 5.     Ms Marine Karkishvili, a Georgian national, born in 1983. She is the wife of the first applicant. 6.     Ms Mtvarisa Bestaevi, a Georgian national, born in 1975. She is the wife of the second applicant. 7.     Ms Olia Sebiskveradze, a Georgian national, born in 1940. She is the mother of the third applicant. 8.     Ms Tamazi Archvadze, a Georgian national, born in 1965. She is the mother of the fourth applicant. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr R. Lemaitre, a lawyer practising in Moscow, by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia, and lawyers of Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, an NGO based in Tbilisi The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Submissions concerning general situation in South Ossetia The applicants point out in the outset that they have very limited knowledge of the situation in South Ossetia. At the time of their latest submissions to the Court (filed in January 2011), access to its territory remains restricted. The local de facto authorities consider the only legal entry into South Ossetia to be from Russia (via the Roki Tunnel), and access is granted upon presentation of South Ossetian and Russian identity documents. Foreign nationals need at least a dual-entry Russian visa to visit South Ossetia from Russia. Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories, however, considers entry via the Roki Tunnel illegal, and stipulates that foreign nationals, including Russians, must enter South Ossetia from the Georgian-controlled territory; entering it any other way constitutes a criminal offence. Since October 2008, South Ossetia has closed the administrative boundary line, which it treats as a “state border”. Acknowledging local needs, the de facto authorities pledged to open two crossing points in 2010, possibly in Ergneti and Znauri, but have not done so. Before August 2008, South Ossetians travelled with Georgian or Soviet passports. At present, Georgian authorities state that South Ossetian residents can generally travel freely in the country provided they have residency documents. However, in practice it is difficult to cross into Georgian-controlled territory anywhere in South Ossetia, except from its region of Akhalgori; whether one is allowed to cross is often left to the discretion of the local police. Georgia has also drawn up a “black list” of persons who will be detained if they cross. Fear of detention, based on the lack of information about the procedure and the rules applied, stops many from travelling to this part of Georgia. Before August 2008, Ossetians and Georgians crossed the administrative boundary freely, but after the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Georgian-controlled “buffer zone” villages in October 2008, residents of South Ossetia who travelled there were often detained by Georgian police and charged with looting and pillage. South Ossetian and Russian forces also began detaining local ethnic Georgians for illegally crossing the “state border”. In addition, there have been numerous abductions by family members of Ossetians detained in Georgia who aspired to exchange them. Scores of people have been detained on both sides of the administrative boundary line. While most detentions were usually brief; some lasted for months. International independent bodies have expressed their concern over the absence of official crossing points and regulations concerning the crossing of the administrative boundary line. The applicants referred, in particular, to the report by Amnesty International issued in August 2009 stating that in the areas adjacent to South Ossetia local residents and returnees faced considerable safety risks and limitations on their freedom of movement due to a lack of clarity regarding the location and the requirements for crossing the administrative boundary line. While people on both sides continue to cross for various reasons, such as to access medical care, to visit graveyards or to see family on the other side, they do so at the discretion of the checkpoint guards. There is no guarantees that if a person is allowed to cross he or she will be able to cross back. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the location of the administrative boundary line in many places is unclear. There have been reported incidents where not only civilians but international monitors have been detained for alleged ‘illegal crossing’. The most recent incident of this kind reported by Amnesty International occurred on 21 April 2009, when the de facto South Ossetian authorities detained two OSCE monitors for about two-and-a-half hours for allegedly illegally crossing into the territory under their control. The Georgians and South Ossetians never implemented an informal agreement reached by their representatives to charge detainees under administrative law, entailing warnings and interrogation, but not detention. According to the applicants, eight Georgian citizens are currently in jail in Tskhinvali (presumably including the applicants in the present case), and the de facto authorities of South Ossetia have made it clear that their release is subject to the reciprocal release by Georgia of ethnic Ossetians who were detained before the war. Georgia reportedly ruled it out, arguing that those detainees have been convicted of killings, smuggling and terrorism. B.     Facts concerning the applicants 1.     The first applicant’s detention, ill-treatment and prosecution Zviad Kobaladze was detained on 8 November 2008 in the vicinity of the village of Avnevi (Znauri district) by South Ossetian militia. After his apprehension he was severely beaten by the militiamen, having suffered severe bruises on his body and fractures of two fingers on his right hand. He was not informed of the grounds for his detention or the charges against him. He was also not provided with any documents in writing, he was not allowed to make a phone call to his relatives, and his relatives were not informed of his detention. For the first 13 months of his detention his family, including his wife, could not obtain any official information as to the fact of his detention. Between 8 November 2008 and July 2010 Zviad Kobaladze was held in the Tskhinvali prison. Throughout the detention he was suffering from a number of serious health conditions which he had acquired after a multiple injury in 2006 and which had aggravated since. In particular, he was susceptible to temporary losses of consciousness and extreme irritability. In October 2008 he was prescribed antidepressants and tranquilisers, which he continued to take until his arrest. During his first year in detention he was not provided with any medication other than painkillers. He frequently fainted and had disturbed sleep. Since November 2009 he was receiving antidepressants sent to him by his brother via the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and via informal contacts with prison wardens. Zviad Kobaladze also suffered from liver pain associated with tissue swelling and a constant low-grade fever; the routine check by a prison doctor revealed that he had cirrhosis of the liver, apparently caused by the antidepressants. He requested a specialist medical examination, but the prison doctors told him that they “did not have the necessary equipment in prison, and even if they had he would not be examined because he was not Ossetian”. His request to be transferred to a hospital was also refused. He was prescribed the following medication: “Veroshpiron”, “8-52”, amino acids and albumin; these medications were brought to him by his brother. On one occasion when he allegedly had a liver failure he was not even seen by the prison doctor. Zviad Kobaladze also alleged poor detention conditions, in particular the overcrowding, poor sanitary facilities, absence of adequate heating or ventilation and dismal quality of food and drinking water. He provided written statements by three witnesses, former detainees of the Tskhinvali prison, all ethnic Georgians, who confirmed the account of conditions of detention, Zviad Kobaladze’s state of health and the lack of medical assistance. On 21 December 2009 the “Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia” sent a letter to the applicants’ representatives before the Court, acknowledging his detention for the first time. The letter indicated that Zviad Kobaladze was arrested on 8 November 2008 in the vicinity of the village of Avnevi (Znauri district, South Ossetia) and detained on suspicion of having committed murder and genocide. It further stated that on 28 November 2009 he was charged with an aggravated murder and genocide under Articles 105 § 2(a),(f),(k) and 357 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; that he was represented in the criminal proceedings by Diana Sanakoyeva, a lawyer of the “Bar Association of the Republic of South Ossetia”. The letter further stated that the family of Mr. Kobaladze was not informed about his detention due to the absence of communication between South Ossetia and Georgia. In early July 2010 he was transferred to the remand prison ( изолятор временного содержания -IVS) in Tskhinvali. Apparently, the investigation in his criminal case was completed and the case was transferred to court. A trial was initially scheduled to take place on 13 July 2010 but was apparently adjourned. The conditions of detention in the remand prison were allegedly inadequate, and Zviad Kobaladze’s state of health remained poor. He was left without any medication for over two weeks after the transfer as he was not allowed to take to the remand prison any of the medicines. On one occasion he had a liver failure and was seen by the prison doctor. First aid was provided, but no further examination or treatment. On 22 July 2010 Zviad Kobaladze’s brother was allowed to visit him; the visit was facilitated by the ICRC. He brought him the prescription medicines. At the meeting the brother found that Zviad Kobaladze had swollen eyes; he explained that after the transfer he had been beaten three times. The first beating by the guards occurred on the second day after his arrival at the remand prison because he refused to sign a false statement that he was detained at a significantly later date than 8 November 2008. He was ill-treated for the second time after having refused to eat from a dirty plate, wary of food poisoning; he was beaten with batons in front of other inmates and then was taken out from the cell into the court yard, where his hands were tied with a rope and the rope was suspended from a pole, forcing him to hold his arms stretched up and was left in this position for the whole day. Zviad Kobaladze told his brother that this was a standard punishment in the remand prison, and the latter indeed saw three inmates in the court yard tied up in the same manner. The third time Zviad Kobaladze was beaten was after he refused to clean the corridor of the remand prison. According to his brother, this was confirmed by one of the wardens. It is alleged that Zviad Kobaladze was never visited by a lawyer throughout his detention. His representatives before the Court have not been able to obtain any further information regarding developments in his case. However, it appears that he was convicted of unlawful border crossing and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. 2.     The second and the third applicants’ arrest and detention On 27 February 2009 at about 4 p.m. David Kapanadze and Demur Chighladze, together with two other persons, D.S. and I.K., left for Chvrinisi village in the Kareli district to visit their relative. They drove David Kapanadze’s Opel Astra car, which had the number plate YWY ‑ 08746. All of them were dressed in civilian clothes. They did not meet Georgian, Russian or Ossetian militaries on their way. At about 6 p.m. they arrived in the centre of Chvrinisi and saw six men in military uniforms. The men wore camouflage uniforms and were armed with machineguns; they were on foot. There were no signs or military equipment indicating a checkpoint. The armed men immediately pointed their guns at their car. David Kapanadze stopped the car and all four of them stepped out. The men approached them and ordered them to take everything out of their pockets. The applicants and their two fellow passengers gave their money and mobile phones to the men, after which their car was searched, although nothing was found. The armed men were ethnic Ossetians; they spoke Georgian with a distinct accent. They did not ask the applicants for any explanations, nor did they give any, stating only that “Saakashvili started the war”. They ordered the four detainees to follow them. Five of the armed men accompanied them on foot, while the sixth drove David Kapanadze’s car. They walked for about a hundred meters and reached the forest at the end of the village. When the sixth man arrived with the car the Ossetians started a conversation, demanding a ransom. They first asked what sum would their detainees be able to bring in return for their release. When they were unable to answer they demanded 6,000 Euros. The four detainees said they would bring it. After that the armed men released D.S. and I.K., and the two applicants remained in custody until they bring the money, which they never did. On 1 March 2009 they were taken to the Tskhinvali prison and David Kapanadze called his wife, the sixth applicant. She had already seen the news about his detention on the television. He told her that in the prison they were being beaten by the Ossetian militaries almost every hour and that he had multiple bruises and injuries on his head and body, which lead to headaches. On 24 September 2009 the “Ministry of the Interior of South Ossetia” issued a letter stating that David Kapanadze and Demur Chighladze were detained on 27 February 2009 in the vicinity of the village of Kalet (Znauri district) by the representatives of the “Ministry of Defence” of South Ossetia; that a hand grenade was found on each of them and that a plastic bag with explosives (later identified by an expert as a TNT explosive) was found in the boot of their car. The letter further indicated that they were both arrested and detained in the remand prison of the “Ministry of the Interior of South Ossetia”; that on 28 February the court of Tskhinvali ordered their pre-trial detention on the basis of Article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; that on 9 March 2009 they were charged with illegal purchase and possession of firearms under Article   222 § 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and that from the moment of their detention and throughout the criminal proceedings they were represented by Albina Gazyaeva, a lawyer of the “Bar Association of the Republic of South Ossetia”; on 30 April 2009 the case was transferred to the court for trial. On 10 December 2009 Ms Varvara Pakhomenko, an expert working for the Russian Justice Initiative, the NGO representing the applicants, visited the Tskhinvali court and found out that the trial of Kapanadze and Chighladze was scheduled for the same day. However, she was informed by the judge that the case had been adjourned for the fourth time, apparently on the grounds of the failure to summon witnesses. On 12 December 2009 Ms Pakhomenko visited David Kapanadze and Demur Chighladze in prison. She was granted access to them by a judge of the Tskhinvali District Court who was then in charge of their criminal case. She found out that the applicants had never been visited by a lawyer or taken to a courtroom, and that they had not seen the investigator “since last spring”. The applicants told her that they were probably held for the purpose of exchanging them for the Ossetians held in Georgian prisons. On the same day Ms Pakhomenko met Albina Gazayeva, the lawyer appointed to represent the two applicants, who told her that the reasons for the adjournment of the hearing were unknown. On an unidentified day in December 2009 or January 2010, the trial took place, and both applicants were convicted of illegal entry into the country and the illegal possession of arms; they were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. When they received a written judgment several days later they discovered that their sentence was three years of imprisonment. In March 2010, during another visit to Tskhinvali, Ms Pakhomenko attempted to obtain a copy of the judgment in the applicants’ case, but was refused on the grounds that she was not their lawyer. Her request to be allowed to visit the applicants in prison was also refused. According to David Kapanadze’s wife, his state of health deteriorated after his detention. He suffered from a nervous breakdown, insomnia, irritability, hyper-agitation and weight loss. The sedatives prescrived by the prison doctors are given to him only sporadically. He had repeatedly requested her to send him sedatives; however, the ICRC refused to deliver the medication without a medical prescription. She could not obtain a prescription in Georgia as her husband had never been prescribed sedatives when seen by doctors in person. David Kapanadze also suffers from hypertension, and on several occasions an ambulance was called in to render him first aid. He has never been taken to a hospital. 3.     The fourth applicant’s arrest and detention and his subsequent release Giorgi Archuadze was last seen by his family on 5 July 2009. At the time, he was a juvenile. On that day he decided to go to the village of Beloti to see his family’s burnt house. He travelled alone from Gori and arrived at the house in Beloti at about 7 p.m. The house was entirely burnt, and so were other houses in the Beloti village. As it was already dark, he decided to visit an acquaintance of his family, an ethnic Ossetian, K.S., and stay overnight at his house in Eltura, a predominantly Ossetian village two kilometres away. K.S. and his wife were surprised to see him but invited him to stay over. On the following morning, Giorgi Archuadze saw an UAZ vehicle from the balcony when it pulled in; five men stepped out of it. They wore camouflage uniforms and were armed with machine guns. As they were coming in he removed money, a torch and a pocket knife from his pockets and put them on the table. Nevertheless the armed men began by searching him and while doing so planted a grenade in his pocket. He was then asked in Georgian if he had anything in his pocket and replied that he had just seen a grenade being planted. He was then questioned about the grenade. The armed men spoke Georgian with a distinct Ossetian accent. They took Giorgi Archuadze to a military base in Dmenisi, another predominantly Ossetian village. There were a lot of men in military uniforms at the base; some wore uniforms with Russian flags. They stayed at the base for about 15 minutes and then left for Tskhinvali. In Tskhinvali he was taken to two different venues, where several men in civilian clothes questioned him about his visit to Beloti and his identity. No record of the questioning was being kept. Giorgi Archuadze was then taken to the prison in Tskhinvali. He spent five months and 12 days there. He has not been ill-treated at any point of his detention. There were six detainees in his cell, five of whom were ethnic Georgians, including the first, the second and the third applicants. One detainee was ethnic Chechen. He described the Tskhinvali prison as a three-storey building where prisoners are held on the two upper floors (the first and the second) while the basement is being used for high security prisoners. There are 21 cells in total, of which nine are located on the third floor and the rest on the second floor. The size of the cells is about 14   square meters. The cells at the end of the corridors on the second and third floors measure about 12 square meters. Convicted prisoners and those in the pre-trial detention were held together until October 2009, when a new policy was introduced and they were separated. Since that time, convicted prisoners have been held on the second floor and the rest on the third floor. All four applicants were placed together for several months in a cell located on the top (second) floor at the end of the corridor. There were two three ‑ storey beds in the cell. The beds had no linen. Inmates were provided only with one blanket which was insufficient in the winter months. There was no adequate heating or ventilation, and it was cold in the winter and stiflingly hot in the summer. There was a little window in the cell, but it was not glazed; the inmates sealed it with a sheet of cellophane. The toilet was located in the cell, 1.5 metres from the beds. The prisoners used to hang a sheet to separate it from the rest of the cell. There was a tap with running water, unsuitable for drinking as it was salty and of bad quality, but the inmates had no choice but to drink it. There was a shower area in the corridor; hot water was provided, but the room was not heated making it impossible to take a shower in the winter. Food was provided once a day in the afternoon. The ration consisted of some buckwheat boiled in water, soup or potatoes. The food tasted bad and caused heartburn. Each prisoner was given one and a half slices of bread every other day On an unidentified date about one and a half months after his arrest Giorgi Archuadze was taken to the court where he was charged with illegal entry into the country and the illegal carrying of firearms. At the same hearing his trial began. Giorgi Archuadze claims that he has never been visited by the appointed lawyer before the court hearing, and when they met she did not speak to him about the case. He submits that there have been four court hearings. They were conducted in Russian and in Ossetian; questions to him were addressed in Georgian. No interpreter was present. The applicant was asked about the reason for his visit to Beloti village and the reason he had been carrying grenades. On 24 September 2009 the “Ministry of the Interior of South Ossetia” issued a letter (referred to above in subsection 2 “The second and the third applicants’ arrest and detention”) stating that Giorgi Archuadze was detained on 6 July 2009 in the village of Eltura, Tskhinvali district, by representatives of Dmenisi department of the “Ministry of the Interior”; that two hand grenades were found on him; that he was arrested and detained on the basis of Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; that he was charged under Articles 222 § 2 and 322 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with illegal crossing of the state border and illegal purchase and possession of firearm ammunition; that from the moment of his detention and throughout the criminal proceedings he was represented by Albina Gazayeva, a lawyer of the “Bar Association of the Republic of South Ossetia”. The letter further stated that on 18   August 2009 his criminal case file no. 930912 was transferred to court for trial. On an unidentified day in November 2009 the judge found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, but the applicant left the courtroom unaware if he had been convicted or acquitted and he had not received the judicial decision. On 10 December 2009 Ms Pakhomenko, during her visit to Tskhinvali referred to above in relation to the second and the third applicants, requested the Tskhlnvali court to provide her with a copy of the decision in the case of Giorgi Archuadze. Her request was registered, but she was told that there was no decision in his case yet. Ms Pakhomenko also requested access to Giorgi Archuadze, but it was also refused. In March 2010 during her follow ‑ up visit to Tskhinvali, she requested a copy of his judgment again but received no reply. On 19 December 2009, following the intervention of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, several ethnic Georgians, including Giorgi Archuadze, were released from detention in South Ossetia and handed over to the Georgian authorities. 4.     Complaints to the Russian and de facto South Ossetian authorities On 17 September 2009 the SRJI on behalf of the applicants sent a request to a number of authorities in Russia and South Ossetia requesting information relating to their detention and the criminal proceedings against them. On 9 October 2009 the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation replied that their request concerning the illegal detention of Messrs Kobaladze, Chighladze, Kapanadze and Archuadze had been forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor General of South Ossetia. On 19 October 2009 the Investigative Committee at the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation replied that their request fell outside the competence of the Investigative Committee. The same letter informed them of a case file no.   201/374108-08 investigated by their Main Investigative Division which concerned facts of genocide and mass killings of inhabitants of the Republic of South Ossetia (criminal offences under Articles 105 §   2( б ), ( e ) and ( л ) and 357 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), committed against citizens of the Russian Federation and Russian peacekeepers. On 7 December 2009 the Russian Ministry of the Interior replied that Messrs Kobaladze, Chighladze, Kapanadze and Archuadze had not been placed at any time in any of the detention facilities under the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation. On 10 December 2009 the SRJI wrote to the de facto Prosecutor General of South Ossetia asking for detailed information about Mr Kobaladze’s detention, criminal charges against him and the stage of criminal proceedings. No reply followed. On 9 March 2010 the SRJI sent two letters to the Tskhinvali District Court requesting copies of the judicial decisions delivered in the criminal cases of Kapanadze, Chighladze and Archuadze. No reply has been received to date. On 11 March 2010 the SRJI sent a request to the de facto General Prosecutor of South Ossetia asking about the stage of criminal proceedings in the case of Kobaladze. On 25 March 2010 his office replied that the case was at the stage of pre-trial investigation. On 23 April 2010 the SRJI sent a letter to the de facto Minister of Justice of South Ossetia with a copy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Tskhinvali District Court, requesting information about the outcome of the trials in the criminal cases of Kapanadze, Chighladze and Kobaladze. No reply has been received to date. On 19 November 2010 the SRJI wrote to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the de facto Prosecutor General of South Ossetia requesting details on the state of health of the first, the second and the third applicants and the copies of their medical documents, if any; the SRJI also requested information about the developments in the criminal cases pending against Messrs Kobaladze, Kapanadze and Chighladze and copies of the court decisions in their cases. On 6 and 24 December 2010 the Office of Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation replied it had no jurisdiction in the territory of another state. Therefore, the request was forwarded to the Prosecutor General of South Ossetia for reply. The SRJI was requested to direct their enquiries to the authorities of the relevant country in future. COMPLAINTS The applicants refer to Article 1 of the Convention claiming that the Russian Federation exercises jurisdiction over the territory of South Ossetia and is responsible for the following violations of their Convention rights. The first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of detention in the Tskhinvali prison. The first applicant extends this complaint also to the Tskhinvali remand prison. The first, the second and the third applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill-treatment following their arrests. They submit that they have been repeatedly beaten while in detention. The second and the third applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in the detention facilities in South Ossetia. The first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their detention was ordered and implemented by the authorities that were not functioning in accordance with international law and there was no legitimate reason to detain them. Their detention pursued an illegitimate goal, namely to demand ransom and/or to exchange them against prisoners held by the Georgian authorities. Further, their detention did not follow a procedure established by law, as required by Article 5 § 1, no one was informed of their detention, and they were not brought promptly before a judge. The first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they have been denied the fundamental aspects of a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against them. In particular, they faced charges based on fabricated evidence, they were not properly informed of the charges, had no opportunity to prepare their defence, did not have an impartial and unbiased judge, were not able to follow the proceedings in a language they understand, were not adequately represented by a lawyer and did not receive the judicial decisions. All applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that there has been a violation of their right to private and family life, as the four detained applicants were denied the opportunity to make phone calls and their family were not allowed to visit them in detention, thus preventing communication and contacts between close family members and thus disrupting the very essence of family life. All applicants complain that no effective domestic remedies are available at the national level to contest the interference with their Convention rights. The first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants rely in Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention. The fifth, the sixth, the seventh and the eighth applicants rely on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. All applicants allege that they became victims of violation of their Convention rights because of their Georgian ethnic origin and citizenship. The first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants rely in Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention. The fifth, the sixth, the seventh and the eighth applicants rely on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. All Applicants submit that there has been a violation by the Respondent State of its duty not to limit Convention rights, particularly the right to liberty and security, for any purpose other than those prescribed in the Convention, as four of the applicants have been arrested and kept in detention for a purpose not recognized by the Convention, namely to exchange them for individuals detained by another member state. They rely on Article 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As to the compatibility ratione personae and ratione loci (i)     Are the applicants’ complaints compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione loci , in so far as that complaint relates to facts which occurred in the Georgian region of South Ossetia? In particular, did Russia have jurisdiction in respect of that territory within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, regard had to the criteria established in the Court’s case law (see Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001 ‑ IV and Ilaşcu   and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ VII)?   (ii)     Are the applicants’ complaints against Russia compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae , in so far as that complaint relates to acts of the de facto authorities of South Ossetia?   (iii)     Are the acts and omissions of which the applicants complain in the present case imputable to Russia, within the meaning of Article 34 in conjunction with Article 1 of the Convention?   2.     As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of each complaint, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     As to the substance of the applicants’ complaints (i)     Were the conditions of the first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants’ detention in Tskhinvali prison and the conditions of the first applicant’s detention in Tskhinvali remand prison compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   (ii)     Have the first, the second and the third applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, as they allege?   (iii)     Were the second and the third applicants provided, while in detention, with adequate medical assistance? If not, did the authorities’ conduct in this respect attain the level of severity proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention?   (iv)     Were the first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Were they brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Was the length of their pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   (v)     Did the first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Convention?   (vi)     Were the first, the second, the third and the fourth applicants able to maintain contact with their respective families while in detention? If not, was it compatible with the right to family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants?   (vii)     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their respective complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   (viii)     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their ethnic origin and citizenship, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention ?   (ix)     Were the restrictions imposed in the present case, purportedly under Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   (x)     The Government are requested to provide information on the developments in the present case, in particular the current situation of the first, the second and the third applicants.