The Assembly, in particular, urges the following states to
give priority to specific problems:
7.1 Bulgaria must now adopt outstanding measures in order
to avoid, in the future, cases similar to those reported in the
past with respect to deaths and ill-treatment of persons placed
under the responsibility of law-enforcement officials. Progress
is also needed to complete the reform aimed at ensuring that procedures
for the deportation of foreigners fully comply with the Convention
(inter alia, the Court’s judgment
in Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria of
20 June 2002). Moreover, Bulgaria
must also pursue its efforts to solve the problem of excessive length
of court proceedings;
7.2 the excessive length of judicial proceedings, especially
before administrative courts, and abusive use of force by police
officers remain key issues that Greece must tackle;
7.3 Italy must now take measures to address the excessive
length of judicial proceedings. This has been a problem for decades,
despite various interim resolutions adopted by the Committee of
Ministers. A further issue of concern is the policy of non-respect
of Court interim measures in a number of cases concerning foreigners;
7.4 Moldova must promptly take measures to ensure the enforcement
of domestic final judgments, in particular in so-called social housing
cases (the Court’s pilot judgment in Olaru
and Others v. Moldova of 28 July 2009). Moreover, it
should also strengthen its efforts in order to avoid further cases
of ill-treatment in police custody and ensure effective investigations
into such abuses. Additional measures should also be taken with
a view to improving conditions in detention facilities and filling
lacunae in procedures concerning arrest and detention on remand,
revealed by the Court’s judgments. Lastly, it is essential that
an effective domestic remedy is introduced in response to the pilot
judgment in Olaru and Others;
7.5 the excessive length of procedures before courts and administrative
authorities, as well as that of detention on remand, are key issues
that Poland must tackle;
7.6 the issue of restitution of – or compensation for – nationalised
property has to remain a priority for Romania (see the Court’s pilot
judgment in Maria Atanasiu and Others
v. Romania of12
October 2010). The problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings
and non-enforcement of final court decisions must now also be tackled.
As regards the case of Rotaru v. Romania (judgment
of 4 May 2000), concerning abuses in holding and making use of private
information by the Romanian Intelligence Service, despite the Committee
of Ministers’ insistence, legislative reform is still outstanding,
more than ten years after the Court’s judgment;
7.7 the Russian Federation must tackle pressing issues, in
particular:
7.7.1 relating to the functioning of the administration
of justice and the prison system: the authorities must ensure that
the reform adopted in May 2010 to address the non-enforcement of domestic
judicial court decisions (see the Court’s pilot judgment in Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) of 15 January
2009) is finally implemented and is effective, seven years after
the original Burdov v. Russia judgment
of 7 May 2002. The Assembly notes, in this context, the coming into
effect of Federal Law No. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010, which provides
for compensation for the violation of the right to trial within
a reasonable time or the right to the execution of the decision
within a reasonable time. Regarding the quashing of final judgments
through the supervisory review procedure (the so-called “nadzor”
system, see the judgment in Ryabykh v.
Russia of 24 July 2003), a third attempt at effective
reform to limit the use of this procedure must now be ensured. Continuing
efforts to solve the major issues of poor conditions and overcrowding
in remand centres, ill-treatment in police custody, excessive length
of detention on remand and several procedural deficiencies related
to the latter, are insufficient and must be increased in order to bring
Russian practice into line with Convention requirements;
7.7.2 related to the action of security forces in the Chechen
Republic: the greatest concern relates to repetitive grave human
rights violations in this region. Regrettably, the alleged recent structural
improvements of domestic investigation procedures have not as yet
led to any tangible results; it is understood that the President
of the Russian Federation has recently submitted to the Federal
Assembly draft legislation on an integrated reform of the Ministry
of the Interior. The actual elucidation of at least a significant
part of these cases is indispensable in order to end the climate
of impunity in this region;
7.7.3 related to the numerous judgments of the Court finding
grave and repeated violations of human rights in the North Caucasus
region: the Assembly reiterates that the Russian Federation must,
just like the other States Parties to the Convention, implement
the individual measures required to put an end to the violations
found, address their consequences, and take the necessary general
measures to effectively prevent similar violations in the future;
7.8 the most prevalent problems in Turkey currently concern,
in addition to the urgent need to ensure the proper functioning
of the judicial system, the failure to re-open proceedings after
a Court judgment that declared the initial proceedings to be in
violation of the Convention in the case of Hulki
Güneş v. Turkey (judgment of 19 June 2003), and the repeated
imprisonment of Mr Osman Murat Ülke for conscientious objection
to military service (see Ülke v. Turkey,
judgment of 24 January 2006). Concerning the former, significant
pressure from the Committee of Ministers – including three interim resolutions
– has still not borne fruit;
7.9 as a matter of urgency, Ukraine must adopt a comprehensive
strategy to tackle the situation in which a considerable number
of domestic final judgments remain unenforced, despite significant pressure
from the Committee of Ministers, and to implement an effective domestic
remedy in response to the pilot judgment in Yuriy
Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (15 October 2009). Ukraine
must also accelerate domestic judicial proceedings, reform criminal
procedure and ensure the full independence and impartiality of judges.
In addition, measures are needed to combat the abuse of force by
police officers and ensure effective investigation into allegations
of such ill-treatment. The continued impunity of the instigators
and organisers of the murder of the journalist Georgiy Gongadze
(Gongadze v. Ukraine,judgment of 8 February 2006) is
still a matter of great concern (see the Assembly’s Resolution 1466
(2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine,
and Resolution 1645 (2009) andRecommendation
1856 (2009) on the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by
high officials during the Kuchma rule in Ukraine – the Gongadze
case as an emblematic example);
7.10 the United Kingdom must put an end to the practice of
delaying full implementation of Court judgments with respect to
politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners’ voting rights (see,
on this subject, the Court’s judgment in Greens
and M.T. v. the United Kingdom of 23 November 2010).
