CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA (Application no. 48787/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 July 2004 ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT i Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................. 2 1. The admissibility proceedings .................................................... 2 2. The proceedings on the merits .................................................... 3 (a) Written observations of the parties ................................................. 3 (b) The witness hearings ................................................................... 4 (c) The documentary evidence ........................................................... 5 THE FACTS ................................................................................................ 6 I. THE APPLICANTS .................................................................................... 6 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................ 6 III. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CASE................................................. 8 A. The dissolution of the USSR and the Moldovan- Transdniestrian conflict over the break-away of Transdniestria .... 8 1. The dissolution of the USSR, the break-away of Transdniestria and Moldovan independence ............................... 8 2. The armed conflict (1991-92) ................................................... 11 3. Events after the armed conflict ................................................. 22 B. The presence of the army of the Russian Federation and its personnel in Transdniestria after the agreement of 21 July 1992 .............................................................................................. 26 1. ROG troops and equipment in Transdniestria .......................... 26 (a) Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation ........... 26 (b) After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation .......... 30 2. Relations between the ROG and the “MRT” ............................ 32 C. Economic, political and other relations between the Russian Federation and Transdniestria ...................................................... 33 1. Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation, on 5 May 1998 ....................................................... 33 2. After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation ................................................................................. 35 ii ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT D. Moldovan-Transdniestrian relations ............................................. 37 1. Before ratification of the Convention by Moldova, on 12 September 1997 .................................................................... 37 2. After ratification of the Convention by Moldova ..................... 38 IV. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE .............................. 41 A. The applicants' arrest, pre-trial detention and conviction ............. 41 1. The applicants' arrest ................................................................ 41 2. Detention of the first three applicants on the premises of the 14th Army ................................................................................. 43 3. Detention in the remand centre of Tiraspol police headquarters and transfer to prison during the trial .................. 45 4. The applicants' trial and conviction .......................................... 46 B. Events subsequent to the applicants' conviction; Mr Ilaşcu's release ........................................................................................... 47 C. The applicants' detention after conviction .................................... 49 1. The conditions of detention ...................................................... 50 2. Ill-treatment .............................................................................. 54 D. Steps taken up to May 2001 to secure the applicants' release ...... 55 E. Mr Ilaşcu's release on 5 May 2001 ................................................ 56 F. Steps taken after May 2001 to secure the other applicants' release ........................................................................................... 57 G. International reactions to the applicants' conviction and detention ....................................................................................... 58 V. INTERNATIONAL LAW, DOMESTIC LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT AGREEMENTS .................................................................................... 59 THE LAW ................................................................................................. 69 I. WHETHER THE APPLICANTS COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ...................................................................... 69 ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT iii A. Arguments submitted to the Court ................................................ 69 1. The Moldovan Government ...................................................... 69 2. The Government of the Russian Federation ............................. 71 3. The applicants ........................................................................... 71 4. The Romanian Government, third-party intervener ................. 72 B. The Court's assessment ................................................................. 72 1. General principles ..................................................................... 72 (a) The concept of “jurisdiction” ...................................................... 72 (b) State responsibility for a wrongful act ........................................... 75 2. Application of the above principles .......................................... 75 3. The concept of positive obligations .......................................... 77 4. Whether Moldova discharged its positive obligations .............. 78 II. WHETHER THE APPLICANTS COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ............................................................................ 82 A. Arguments submitted to the Court ................................................ 82 1. The Government of the Russian Federation ............................. 82 2. The Moldovan Government ...................................................... 85 3. The applicants ........................................................................... 86 4. The Romanian Government, third-party intervener ................. 87 B. The Court's assessment ................................................................. 88 1. General principles ..................................................................... 88 2. Application of the above principles .......................................... 88 (a) Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation ........ 88 (b) After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation .......... 90 III. THE COURT'S JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS ...................................... 92 A. The complaint under Article 6 of the Convention ........................ 93 B. The complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention ....... 93 C. The complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ......................... 93 D. Mr Ilaşcu's complaint under Article 2 of the Convention ............ 93 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION ..................... 94 A. Arguments submitted to the Court ................................................ 94 B. The Court's assessment ................................................................. 95 iv ILAŞCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ...................... 96 A. Arguments submitted to the Court ................................................ 96 B. The Court's assessment ................................................................. 96 1. General principles ..................................................................... 96 2. Application of the above principles in the present case ............ 99 (a) Mr Ilaşcu ................................................................................ 99 (b) The other three applicants: conditions of detention and treatment during detention ...................................................................... 101 (i) Mr Ivanţoc ........................................................................ 101 (ii) Mr Leşco and Mr Petrov-Popa ............................................. 102 VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION ................... 103 VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION ................. 106 VIII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 .................. 107 IX. ALLEGED FAILURE TO OBSERVE ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION ..... 107 X. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION .............................. 110 A. Damage ....................................................................................... 110 B. Costs and expenses ..................................................................... 113 C. Default interest ............................................................................ 113 OPERATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................... 114 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CASADEVALL JOINED BY JUDGES