CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF ILASCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA (Application no. 48787/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 July 2004 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. i TABLE OF 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 ..................................................................................................5 I. THE APPLICANTS ..............................................................................5 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS.................................................6 III. THE 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 to 1992) .............................................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 ........27 1. ROG troops and equipment in Transdniestria ............................27 (a) Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation.....................................................................................27 (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 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 former Fourteenth 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 Ilascu’s release...................................................................................................48 C. The applicants’ detention after conviction.....................................50 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 Ilascu’s release on 5 May 2001 ................................................56 F. Steps taken after May 2001 to secure the other applicants’ release57 G. International reactions to the applicants’ conviction and detention...............................................................................................58 V. INTERNATIONAL LAW, DOMESTIC LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT AGREEMENTS.................................................................60 THE LAW....................................................................................................69 I. WHETHER THE APPLICANTS COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA........................69 A. Arguments submitted to the Court .................................................69 1. The Moldovan Government.........................................................69 2. The Government of the Russian Federation...............................71 3. The applicants .............................................................................71 iii 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 ...........................83 A. Arguments submitted to the Court .................................................83 1. The Government of the Russian Federation...............................83 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-mentioned principles..........................89 (a) Before ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation.....................................................................................89 (b) After ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation.....................................................................................91 III. THE COURT’S JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS ...............93 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 to the Convention...........................................................................................94 D. Mr Ilascu’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.............94 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION .......................................................................................94 iv A. Arguments submitted to the Court .................................................95 B. The Court’s assessment..................................................................95 V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION .......................................................................................96 A. Arguments submitted to the Court .................................................96 B. The Court’s assessment..................................................................97 1. General principles .......................................................................97 2. Application of the above principles in the present case..............99 (a) Mr Ilascu................................................................................99 (b) The other three applicants: conditions of detention and treatment during detention.........................................................101 (i) Mr Ivantoc........................................................................101 (ii) Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa........................................103 VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION .....................................................................................104 VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION .....................................................................................106 VIII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ............................................................107 IX. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION .....................................................................................108 X. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION ........110 A. Damage ........................................................................................111 B. Costs and expenses.......................................................................113 C. Default interest.............................................................................114