Ministers’ Deputies
Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/958/H46-1 10 March 20061
———————————————

958 Meeting, 15 March 2006
4 Human Rights


H46-1 Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and the Russian Federation – Judgment of 08/07/2004 (Grand Chamber)

Application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights
as amended by Protocol No. 11

Reference documents
Court judgment of 08/07/2004 (Grand Chamber)
Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42
Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)84
Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)11
———————————————

Action
To request information from the respondent states regarding the measures taken towards securing the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned.

A. Introduction

1. The case concerns events occurring in the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (“the MRT”), a region of Moldova known as Transdniestria, which declared its independence in 1991 but is not recognised by the international community. It concerns the unlawful detention of the four applicants (three of whom are now Romanian citizens), following their arrest in 1992 and subsequent trial by the “Supreme Court of the MRT”, and the ill treatment inflicted on them during their detention.

B. The Court’s findings

2. As regards the responsibility of Moldova, the Court found (paragraphs 330 to 335 of the judgment) that:

    “330. …the Moldovan Government, the only legitimate government of the Republic of Moldova under international law, does not exercise authority over part of its territory, namely that part which is under the effective control of the ‘MRT’. …

331. However, even in the absence of effective control over the Transdniestrian region, Moldova still has a positive obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to take the diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures that it is in its power to take and are in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants the rights guaranteed by the Convention. …

      335. Consequently, the Court concludes that the applicants are within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention but that its responsibility for the acts complained of, committed in the territory of the ‘MRT’, over which it exercises no effective authority, is to be assessed in the light of its positive obligations under the Convention.”

It further noted (paragraphs 348 and 352 of the judgment) that:

      348. The Court does not have any evidence that since Mr Ilascu’s release in May 2001 effective measures have been taken by the authorities to put an end to the continuing infringements of their Convention rights complained of by the other three applicants. …
      352. The Court accordingly concludes that Moldova’s responsibility is capable of being engaged under the Convention on account of its failure to discharge its positive obligations with regard to the acts complained of which occurred after May 2001.”

3. As regards the responsibility of the Russian Federation, the Court concluded (paragraph 382 of the judgment) that:

    “the authorities of the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria, which is part of the territory of the Republic of Moldova[, and] that even after the ceasefire agreement of 21 July 1992 the Russian Federation continued to provide military, political and economic support to the separatist regime…, thus enabling it to survive by strengthening itself and by acquiring a certain amount of autonomy vis-à-vis Moldova.”

It further noted (paragraphs 392 to 394 of the judgment) that both before and after 5 May 1998 (the date of the ratification of the Convention by the Russian Federation):

    “392. …the ‘MRT’… remains under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of the Russian Federation, and in any event…it survives by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support given to it by the Russian Federation.
    393. That being so, the Court considers that there is a continuous and uninterrupted link of responsibility on the part of the Russian Federation for the applicants’ fate, as the Russian Federation’s policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it continued beyond 5 May 1998, and after that date the Russian Federation made no attempt to put an end to the applicants’ situation brought about by its agents, and did not act to prevent the violations allegedly committed after 5 May 1998. …
    394. In conclusion, the applicants therefore come within the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention and its responsibility is engaged with regard to the acts complained of.”

4. The main point of the judgment is the applicants’ deprivation of liberty. The Court found that none of the applicants had been convicted by a “court” within the meaning of Article 5. Furthermore, a sentence of imprisonment passed by a judicial body such as the “Supreme Court of the MRT” at the close of proceedings like those conducted in the present case could not be regarded as “lawful detention” ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. That being so, there had been a violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention until May 2001 as regards the first applicant (violation of Article 5§1 by the Russian Federation), and there had been and continued to be a violation of that provision as regards the other applicants, still detained (violation of Article 5 § 1 by Moldova and the Russian Federation). Furthermore, the Court held, unanimously, that “the respondent states [were] to take all necessary measures to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release” (paragraph 22 of the operative part of the judgment). Moreover, it emphasised the urgency of this measure in the following terms (paragraph 490):

    “any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the…applicants would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violation of Article 5 found by the Court and a breach of the respondent states’ obligation under Article 46§1 of the Convention to abide by the Court’s judgment.”

It should further be emphasised that this is the first time that the Court has ruled on a potential breach of Article 46§1.

C. Examination of the case by the Ministers’ Deputies

5. Given the terms of the judgment, the Deputies decided at their 894th meeting (9 September 2004) to continue examining the urgent measures ordered by the Court not only at their meetings devoted mainly to supervision of the execution of judgments (“DH” meetings) but also at their regular meetings. The Committee has examined the case at most of its meetings since 9 September 2004.2

6. To date, only two of the four applicants have been released. Mr Ilaşcu was released in May 2001 (as noted by the Court) and Mr Leşco at the expiry of the sentence imposed on him by the “Supreme Court of the MRT”, on 2 June 2004. The other two applicants, Messrs Ivanţoc and Petrov-Popa, are still imprisoned.

- Adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42

7. On 22 April 2005, at its 924th meeting, the Committee of Ministers adopted, by consensus, an interim resolution concerning this case (ResDH(2005)42). In this resolution, the Committee took note of the measures taken to that date by the respondent states towards the execution of the present judgment, in particular the payment of just satisfaction by both respondent states, the publication of the full text of the judgment by the Moldovan authorities and the publication of a summary of the judgment in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (Russian edition). In addition, “stressing”, on the one hand, “that it is evident that the continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of two of the applicants for more than 9 months after the Court’s judgment failed to satisfy the Court’s demand for their immediate release”, and “noting”, on the other hand, “that the steps taken to date have not been sufficient to secure the release of Mr Ivanţoc and Mr Petrov-Popa”, the Committee “urgently invite(d) the Russian authorities to comply fully with the judgment”; “invite(d) the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts towards securing the release of the two applicants who are still imprisoned”; and “decide(d) to resume its examination of this case at each of its meetings until the applicants’ release”.

- Development of the case following the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42

8. Following the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42, the delegation of Moldova continued to regularly provide information regarding the steps its authorities have taken to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned.

9. As to the delegation of the Russian Federation, it recalled the official position of the Russian Federation concerning this case, as it had already been expressed in a press statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires of 8 July 2004, i.e.: the European Court’s judgment is based on affirmations that were not proved concerning the authority that the Russian Federation exercised in Transdniestria; the European Court’s judgment was delivered in breach of international law, as, first, Russia and Moldova were not bound by the Convention “at the time of the facts” and, secondly, the intervention of the Russian Federation that was expected would infringe the principle of non-interference in a state’s internal affairs. The Russian Federation considers that it has fully executed the judgment by paying the just satisfaction and, from its point of view, the case is closed.

10. Furthermore, several delegations regularly underlined that the state of health of the applicants who are still detained is serious and deteriorating, which further adds to the urgency of their release.

- Adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)84

11. At the 935th meeting (13 July 2005), in view of the absence of any progress regarding the applicant’s release, the Committee of Ministers adopted a second Interim Resolution regarding this case (ResDH(2005)84). In this resolution, the Committee, on the one hand, “not(ed) with interest” that since the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42, “the Moldovan authorities have regularly provided information regarding the steps they have taken to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned”.

On the other hand, the Committee “deplore(d) that, since the adoption of this Resolution, the Russian authorities have again called into question the validity of the judgment and have insisted that, by paying the just satisfaction awarded, they consider that they have fully executed the judgment”; it “deplore(d) further that they have provided no new information regarding any efforts they may have initiated to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned”. Having in particular “stress(ed) that it is evident that such an excessive prolongation of their unlawful and arbitrary detention” of these applicants, more than one year after the Court’s judgment was delivered, “fails entirely to satisfy the requirements of the Court’s judgment”, the Committee “encourage(d) the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and securing their immediate release”; “insist(ed) that the Russian authorities take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release”; and “decide(d) to resume its examination of this case at each of its meetings until the applicants have been released”.

12. The Russian Federation did not take part to the preparation of this interim resolution and opposed its adoption. Moreover, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation had stated (933rd meeting (DH), 5-6 July 2005), even before the adoption of this resolution that his authorities would not participate in its implementation either.

13. Finally, it is recalled that at the 928th meeting (6-7 June 2005), a delegation asked when the full text of the judgment would be published in Russian. The Director General of Human Rights returned to this question at the 933rd meeting (5-6 July 2005). In response, the Russian delegation indicated in a letter of 14 July 2005 that it considers that the publication that was made of the summary of the judgment is sufficient and corresponds to the Committee’s practice. As for the Secretariat, it drew the delegation’s attention to the case’s importance and Russia’s practice with regard to other important judgments that were published in full in the Rossijskaia Gazeta. On that subject, it also drew attention to Recommendation Rec(2002)13 “on the publication and dissemination in the member states of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”.

- Observations of the respondent states regarding the steps taken since the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)84 to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned

14. At the 936th meeting (7 September 2005), the delegation of Moldova referred to a letter sent on 22 August 2005 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, Mr. Andrei Stratan, to the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mr. Jakob Kellenberger. In this letter, inter alia, the ICRC is asked to intervene with the Russian authorities in order to call on them to respect the obligations deriving from the judgment, in particular as regards the release of the applicants who are still detained.

15. Following a question raised on this issue by a delegation, the delegation of Moldova also recalled that the state of health of the applicants who are still detained is serious.

16. At the 937th meeting (14 September 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova informed the Committee of Ministers that on 28 August 2005, the Minister of Integration of Moldova (in charge of Transdniestria and of the settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict) sent a letter to the “Minister of Foreign Affairs” of the “MRT”, asking the Transdniestrian authorities to make everything so that the applicants be released, while the judgment was delivered more than one year ago. The “Minister of Foreign Affairs” of the “MRT” stated that the Transdniestrian authorities’ answer to this request was negative. The Permanent Representative of Moldova subsequently sent a copy of this letter from the Transdniestrian authorities to the Secretariat.

17. Furthermore, the Permanent Representative of Moldova stated that his Minister of Foreign Affairs transmitted a circular letter to all the Moldavian diplomatic missions, instructing them to use all the possible diplomatic contacts with their interlocutors abroad to raise the question of the release of the applicants who are still detained. Moreover, a general mandate is being elaborated for all State agents who are going abroad, regardless on which State institution they are dependent (not only the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), asking them to raise this issue with agents of other states, when appropriate. Indeed, the President of Moldova himself raised this issue at his recent meeting with the President of the Russian Federation in Kazan.

18. However, the Permanent Representative of Moldova concluded that to date the result of these efforts is not satisfactory.

19. At the 938th meeting (21 September 2005), the Representative of Moldova reaffirmed that his authorities were doing their best to ensure the release of the applicants still detained. His authorities raise this issue with all the relevant interlocutors and will do so at a conference which will take place at the end of September in Chisinau, concerning the settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict.

20. He recalled the humanitarian aspect of the case and underlined that the modalities of the applicants’ release are not important, if this release can be achieved.

21. Acknowledging that his authorities’ capacities in this case are limited, the Representative ensured the Committee of their continued efforts.

22. At the 939th meeting (28 September 2005), the delegation of Moldova referred to a letter sent on 25 August 2005 by the Minister of Reintegration of Moldova, Mr. Vasile Sova, to the Head of Mission of the OSCE to Moldova, Mr. William Hill, asking him to reinforce the efforts with a view to the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned. In his response of 20 September 2005, Mr. Hill cited several actions taken by the OSCE and himself to facilitate the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned. He also assured the Minister that this question will remain a top priority for the OSCE Mission, which will continue to raise the issue with the high-ranking representatives of the Transdniestrian region, and transmit their reactions to the Moldovan authorities. The Moldovan delegation has disseminated Mr. Hill’s response to all delegations.

23. The delegation of Moldova referred also to a letter sent on 20 September 2005 by the Moldovan Ombudsman for Human Rights, Mr. Iurii Perevoznic, to his Russian counterpart, Mr. Vladimir Lukin, asking him to give his assistance and to use his authority as well as his powers in order to make the applicants’ release possible. The Moldovan delegation has disseminated Mr. Perevoznic’s letter to all delegations.

24. Finally, as concerns the question posed earlier on the current state of health of the applicants who are still imprisoned, the Moldovan delegation stated that it did not have any news. On the other hand, the Minister of Reintegration of Moldova, Mr. Vasile Sova, has addressed a letter to the Representative of Transdniestria in charge of the settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict, Mr. V. A. Litcai, asking for his assistance in ensuring that the medical personnel and the representatives of the health organs of the Republic of Moldova could proceed with the medical examinations of Mr. Ivanţoc and Mr. Petrov-Popa. The Moldovan delegation has also disseminated Mr. Sova’s letter to all delegations.

25. At the 940th meeting DH (11-12 October 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova referred to a meeting taking place at the same moment in Chisinau between the Moldovan authorities and senior representatives of the Russian Federation, including especially Mr. Yury Zoubakov, the Vice-President of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, during which the question of the Transdniestrian conflict would discussed among other things. The Permanent Representative assured the Committee of Ministers that his authorities, and especially the President of Moldova, would insist that the humanitarian aspects are taken into account in the context of the obligation to release the applicants who are still detained. The exact content of these discussions is however not yet known.

26. Insisting on the humanitarian aspect of the case, the Permanent Representative stated that it was not a question of punishing anyone and recalled once more that the only important issue was the release of the applicants still detained.

27. In reply to several delegations, the Permanent Representative stated that at this stage no reply had been received to the letters written by the Moldovan authorities to the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mr. Kellenberger, and to the Russian Ombudsman, Mr. Lukin (see paragraphs 14 and 23, above), but that as soon as these replies are received, they will be submitted to the Committee of Ministers.

28. Finally, like several other delegations, the Permanent Representative expressed his concerns as to the implications of this case for the general functioning of the Convention system insofar as states condemned by the Court must execute the judgments in all circumstances.

29. At the 941st meeting (13 October 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova again assured the Committee that his authorities would pursue their efforts concerning this case. Moreover, he repeated the declarations made at the 940th DH meeting (11-12 October 2005) concerning the meeting between the Moldovan authorities and the Russians in Chisinau and the sole importance of releasing the applicants.

30. At the 943rd meeting (19 October 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova recalled the contacts between his authorities and the ICRC and, in particular the request made to this organisation to assess the medical situation of the applicants who are still detained.

31. At the 944th meeting (2 November 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova, welcoming the letter of the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, assured the Committee of the continuous efforts of his authorities who would not fail to inform it of any developments.

32. At the 945th meeting (9 November 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova repeated his authorities’ position and their determination to find means of releasing the applicants.

33. At the 947th meeting (23 November 2005), the Moldovan delegation indicated that his authorities continued to search for ways and means of securing the release of the applicants. It also referred to a declaration adopted by the General Assembly of the Helsinki Committee meeting in Budapest on 21 November 2005, in which the Transdniestrian issue was touched upon. The declaration referred to the severe restrictions on civil society, and especially on human rights activists.

34. At the 948th meeting (DH) (29-30 November 2005) the Moldovan delegation once more indicated that its authorities were still continuing to look for ways and means of securing the applicants’ liberation. It also informed the Committee that the “Representative of Transdniestria” in charge of the settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict, Mr V. A. Litcai, had replied to the letter in which the Minister of Reintegration of Moldova, Mr Vasile Sova, had requested access to the applicant by a Moldovan medical team. The Transdniestrian side refused this request on the grounds that a medical examination of the applicants and an analysis of their medical records showed that their state of health was satisfactory. The text of Mr Litcai’s letter was distributed to delegations.

35. At the 949th meeting (1 December 2005) the Moldovan delegation declared that to free the applicants still detained was one of its authorities’ major priorities. It noted that no reply had been received from the ICRC in reply to the request it had addressed to it.

36. At the 950th meeting (7 December 2005), the Permanent Representative of Moldova insisted on the fact that his authorities are taking measures with a view to the release of the applicants who are still detained, but that their possibilities were limited because they do not control Transdniestria. Concerning the answer of the ICRC to the Moldovan authorities’ request, the Permanent Representative added that, according to the contacts taken by his authorities with the ICRC, it had examined the applicants and made a report on their state of health, but that this kind of reports cannot be made public.

37. At the 951st meeting (14 December 2005) the Permanent representative of Moldova informed the Committee of Ministers that his authorities had received the ICRC’s reply to its requests concerning first, the possible intervention of the latter to facilitate the release of the applicants still detained and secondly, the ICRC’s evaluation of these applicants’ state of health. The Permanent Representative read out this letter, which may be obtained from the Secretariat. It indicates in particular that the ICRC carried out annual examinations of the applicants’ health during visits which are strictly humanitarian in nature and following which the ICRC may make confidential recommendations. However, the ICRC does not consider that it is in a position to intervene to procure the applicants’ release. The Permanent Representative of Moldova nonetheless informed the Committee of new demarches undertaken by his authorities, in particular a letter of 1 December to the ICRC requesting a copy of its report on the applicants’ health.

38. The Representative of Moldova, referring to intervention by the acting Director General of human rights (see paragraph 92 below) recalled the outcome of the letter sent on 20 September 2005 by the Moldovan Human Rights Ombudsman, Mr Iurii Perevzonic, to his Russian counterpart, Mr Vladimir Lukin (see paragraph 23 above). After considering initially that he could not intervene in this case, Mr Lukin finally agreed, at the meting with the enlarged Bureau on 26 October 2005 to examine whether he could do so within the scope of his terms of reference. Further information is awaited on this question. The Permanent Representative of Moldova raised the possibility that the Chair of the Committee might invite Mr Lukin to share his thoughts on the subject with the Deputies or their Bureau.

39. At the 952nd meeting (11 January 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova declared that his authorities will continue their efforts in order to release the applicants still detained or at least to improve their conditions.

40. The Moldovan authorities have been able to obtain further information from the President of the ICRC, Mr Kellenberger, in the form of a letter dated 20 December 2005. It emerges from the letter, which has been distributed to the delegations, that the ICRC will next visit the detainees in spring 2006 and that regular contacts are maintained with the “penitentiary authorities” of Transdniestria, the OSCE and the families of the detainees. Contacts with the OSCE indicate that the applicants had the benefit of a doctors’ visit at the end of October and that the doctors have been authorised to continue their medical supervision of the detainees. However, the President of the ICRC confirmed that the reports made following the visits, inter alia on the state of health of the applicants still detained, are confidential.

41. Assuring the Committee of Ministers of his authorities’ will fully to execute the judgment, the Permanent Representative of Moldova welcomed the proposal made in the name of the European Union (see below, paragraph 97).

42. At the 953rd meeting (18 January 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova declared that his authorities were exploring different possibilities in order to achieve the release of the applicants still detained.

43. He confirmed that his authorities welcomed the proposal made in the name of the European Union concerning the organisation of informal contacts with the parties concerned (see paragraph 97 below). The Permanent Representative concluded by appealing to all to do their best to find a solution as quickly as possible.

44. At the 954th meeting (1 February 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova, in response to the declaration made at the same meeting on behalf of the European Union, assured the Committee that his authorities bear their share of responsibility and were doing their best with a view to securing the applicants’ release, in particular by raising this question in all relevant contacts.

45. The Permanent Representative reiterated that every effort must be made in order to find a solution as soon as possible and that only the release of the applicants is important.

46. At the 955th meeting (DH) (7-8 February 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova, following the request made at the same meeting (see § 111) that the Secretariat begin preparing a new draft interim resolution, expressed the hope that this would serve as an incentive to execute the judgment. He once again assured the Committee of Ministers of the efforts made by his authorities to this end.

47. At the 956th meeting (15 February 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova confirmed the efforts made by his authorities with a view to the release of the applicants who are still detained.

48. At the 957th meeting (1 March 2006), the Permanent Representative of Moldova informed the Committee of Ministers that the Minister of Reintegration of Moldova, Mr V. Sova, wrote, at the end of February 2006, to the Ambassador for special missions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr V. M. Nesteruskin, and to the Representative of Transnistria in charge of the settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict, Mr V. A. Litcai, asking for their cooperation to secure the release of the applicants still detained. Copies of these letters are available with the Secretariat.

49. The Permanent Representative also stated that his authorities had no objection to either the wording of the draft Interim resolution submitted to the Deputies for examination at this meeting, or its immediate adoption (concerning the adoption of this text, see below points 130-132).

50. At the 939th meeting (28 September 2005), the delegation of the Russian Federation stated, following the intervention of the Moldovan delegation, that as far as the Russian Ombudsman is an independent authority, it cannot be prejudged what response he will give to the above-mentioned letter of his Moldovan counterpart. However, he highlighted that, according to the law, this authority is competent to protect the human rights only within the Russian Federation.

51. Concerning the state of health of the applicants, the delegation of the Russian Federation stated that their authorities have taken note of the proposal that the Red Cross could intervene in order to proceed with an independent examination, and that they have nothing against it.

52. At the 940th (DH) meeting (11-12 October 2005), the delegation of the Russian Federation said that it was conscious of the fact that the credibility of the system was at stake in this case.

53. In reply to certain delegations, the delegation of the Russian Federation also declared itself aware that, after Romania, the Russian Federation is scheduled to take over the Chair of the Committee of Ministers.

54. Finally, this delegation recalled the position of its authorities, as stated previously by their Ambassador, last time at the 935th meeting (13 July 2005, the date of the adoption of the second interim resolution).

55. At the 943rd meeting (19 October 2005), in response to a request made by several delegations, the delegation of the Russian Federation declared not to be in a position to make any comment, as the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers was at that time discussing the case with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs in Moscow.

56. At the 945th meeting (9 November 2005), the delegation of the Russian Federation referred to the reply the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Serguei Lavrov, had sent on 7 November 2005 to his Portuguese colleague, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. This letter had been distributed to delegations by the Chair at the same meeting. Mr Lavrov among other things repeated that, having paid the just satisfaction, the Russian Federation had satisfied its obligations under the Court’s judgment in this case, called on the Moldovan authorities to take urgent measures with a view to freeing the applicants still detained and emphasised that the Russian Federation could not be held to be responsible alone for their fate, expressed readiness to continue within the Committee of Ministers, patiently to look for mutually acceptable ways to arrive at the effective implementation of the judgments of the European Court.

57. Insisting on the fact that the obligation to execute the judgment concerns not only the Russian Federation but also Moldova, the delegation of the Russian Federation added that the “President” of the “MRT”, Mr. Smirnov, had not to date been contacted directly by the Moldovan authorities. He also underlined that the Russian Federation is favourable to the idea that a humanitarian organisation, such as the Red Cross, could lead action there.

58. At the 949th meeting (1 December 2005) the delegation of the Russian Federation emphasised that there could be no serious doubt as to the objectivity of the evaluation of the applicants’ state of health provided by the “RMT” authorities and alluded to by the Moldovan delegation before the Committee of Ministers. It also asked the Moldovan delegation whether there had been a reply to the letter sent by its authorities to the ICRC.

59. At the 950th meeting (7 December 2005), the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the Russian Federation had nothing against the applicants’ being freed, but that both applicants were on the territory of another state and that Russia could do nothing to release them without breaching the basic principles of international law. The Permanent Representative stated that the Russian federation is entirely in favour of the intervention of a third person, if there is a possibility of mediation. On this point, he said he was surprised to hear that Moldova could not get an answer from the ICRC.
60. At the 952nd meeting (11 January 2006), the Representative of the Russian Federation declared that he could accept the proposal made on behalf of the European Union concerning the organisation of informal contacts with a view to finding a solution (see below, paragraph 101).

61. At the 953rd meeting (18 January 2006), the Representative of the Russian Federation reiterated his delegation’s support for the proposal made on behalf of the European Union concerning the organisation of informal contacts with a view to finding a solution.

62. At the 957th meeting (1 March 2006), in the context of the examination by the Committee of Ministers of a draft third Interim Resolution (concerning the adoption of this text, see points 130-132 below), the Permanent Representative of Russia made a statement included in the record of this meeting. In this statement, after having recalled the position of his authorities as already set out inter alia in a letter from the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (see above, point 56), the Permanent Representative underlined, in particular, that the third Interim Resolution was of no purpose for the Russian Federation.

- Observations of other delegations

63. At the 936th meeting (7 September 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union, recalled the request, already made regularly at previous meetings, to the parties to execute as quickly as possible the judgment. Several delegations supported this statement.

64. The Permanent Representative of Romania, whose authorities have contacts with the families of the applicants who are still detained, confirmed the information provided by the delegation of Moldova regarding the preoccupying state of health of the applicants.

65. At the 937th meeting (14 September 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union, requested both respondent states to make everything that is possible in view of an urgent execution of the judgment. He also requested that the Committee of Ministers be informed of every development in this case.

66. Other delegations, referring to the statements made at the 936th meeting (7 September 2005) regarding the preoccupying state of health of the applicants who are still detained, asked whether initiatives were taken at a humanitarian level, for example by an international organization.

67. At the 938th meeting (21 September 2005), the Representative of United Kingdom, on behalf of the presidency of European Union, repeated his request to both respondent states to execute this judgment. He stressed the political, legal and humanitarian importance of the case, which could question the credibility of both the Committee of Ministers and of the Council of Europe as a whole.

68. Several delegations subscribed to this declaration. One of these delegations recalled the possibility, already mentioned before, of searching for a humanitarian solution to this case, in particular through a third party, who might take charge of the applicants who are still detained. This delegation strongly invited the Russian Federation to examine this suggestion.

69. Another delegation underlined that the manner in which the judgment is executed is not important and that it is only the release of the applicants who are still detained that counts. This delegation added that if the power of releasing the applicant is not directly in the hands of the authorities concerned, they should nevertheless use all their influence, be it economic, financial, political, social etc., so that this goal is achieved.

70. At the 939th meeting (28 September 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union, recalled again the request to the respondent states to execute the judgment. He also thanked Moldova for the steps it has taken.

71. Furthermore, the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom stated that one should go beyond the simple repetition, every week, of the wish that the judgment should be executed and to keep constantly in mind the humanitarian situation of the applicants who are still imprisoned. Therefore, in the name of the European Union, he stated that he was very favourable to the idea, that, as soon possible, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers would send a letter to his counterpart, the Minister of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, insisting on the legal and especially humanitarian aspects of the case.

72. Several delegations subscribed to the declaration of the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom and in particular to the proposal of sending a Chairman’s letter insisting on the two above-mentioned aspects.

73. Moreover, a delegation drew the attention to the context of this step and shared the worry that the future Presidency of the Russian Federation would proceed in the best conditions.

74. After the debate, the Chairman noted that the Committee welcomed the proposal that his Minister should write to his Russian colleague, drawing his attention among other things to the legal and humanitarian dimensions of the situation.

75. At the 940th meeting DH (11-12 October 2005), the delegation of United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the latest information provided by the Moldovan delegation. In this regard, several delegations asked details, in particular, on the content of the discussions taking place in Chisinau between the Moldovan authorities and the Russian delegation (see paragraph 25 above). The delegation of United Kingdom once more recalled its request that the respondent states should execute the judgment fully, and highlighted that the state of health of the applicants was of highest concern. It also noted the growing interest of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in this case and drew the attention to the wording of the reply that the Chairman had given to the question asked by Mr. Ilaşcu the preceding week. Moreover, the delegation asked whether there was a reply to the letters sent recently by the Moldavian authorities to the President of ICRC, Mr Kellenberger, and to the Russian Ombudsman, Mr. Lukin (see paragraphs 14, 23 and 27 above).

76. Several delegations strongly supported this statement and recalled, as did also the Director General of human rights (see below), that it is indisputable that the humanitarian aspect in this case is very important, but that the obligation to execute the judgment follows from the wording of the European Court’s judgment itself.

77. The Portuguese delegation stated for its part that its authorities, who are exercising the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers, have noted the Committee’s wish to send a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; this delegation assured the Committee that this undertaking and the details that it could entail were taken into consideration at the highest level by their authorities.

78. Finally, several delegations underlined that this case is a very serious source of concern for the Committee of Ministers, not least with regard to the credibility it needs to supervise the execution of the European Court’s judgments. It was also noted that a question arose in view of the fact that the Russian Federation was shortly scheduled to assume the Chair of the Committee of Ministers.

79. At the 941st meeting (13 October 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union and with the support of the countries which are in the process of acceding to the European Union (Bulgaria and Romania), of the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), and of the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). Recalling the outstanding questions concerning measures taken or to be taken (letter of the President of the Committee recalling the deep concern over the applicant’s continued illegal detention; waiting for an answer to the letters sent by the Moldavian authorities – see paragraphs 14, 23 and 27 above), he noted that three months had passed since the second interim resolution in this case, and that the most recent reports concerning the applicants’ health condition were deeply worrying. Once again, he asked the respondent states to make everything that is possible in view of an execution of the judgment.

80. Several delegations strongly supported this statement. One of these delegations suggested that the Commissioner for Human Rights could be asked to engage in this case.

81. Answering a question in this regard, the Chairman of the Deputies stated that the Committee’s invitation to the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs to write to his Russian counterpart should be followed up shortly. He also invited the member states to make use of their bilateral contacts at a very high level with the Russian Federation to raise this case.

82. At the 943rd meeting (19 October 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union and with the support of the countries which are in the process of acceding to the European Union (Bulgaria and Romania), of the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), and of the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). On the one hand, he welcomed the meeting taking place in Moscow, during the course of which the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers would hand over, in accordance with the Committee’s request, a letter to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning this case. On the other hand, repeating his request to the respondent states to do everything possible with the view to the implementation of the judgment, he asked the Russian delegation to comment.

83. Several delegations supported this statement and stressed the importance of the letter from the Committee’s Chair to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

84. At the 944th meeting (2 November 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom once again made a statement on behalf of the European Union and with the support of the countries which are in the process of acceding to the European Union (Bulgaria and Romania), of the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), and of the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). Referring to the letter of the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, he pointed out that a reply to this letter as well as to the letters sent to the ICRC and to Mr Lukin is still awaited. Noting that more than three months had passed since the second interim resolution was adopted, he recalled that the health of the applicants still detained was deeply worrying and, once again, asked the respondent states to make everything that is possible with a view to implementing the judgment.

85. These states' concern was heightened by the impending Russian Chairmanship in the Committee of Ministers. They wanted the Russian Chairmanship to be a success for Russia and the Council of Europe, but noted that the non-execution of this judgment would undermine that prospect.

86. At the 945th meeting (9 November 2005), the Permanent Representative of United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union and with the support of the countries which are in the process of acceding to the European Union (Bulgaria and Romania), of the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), and of the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). Taking note of the reply by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (letter distributed to the delegations by the Chair, see for a short summary of this letter, paragraph 56 above), he stated that this reply called for careful examination. He then reiterated all the points of his declaration at the 944th meeting.

87. Several delegations supported this statement (Iceland, Norway, Monaco, Switzerland). One of them, commenting on the wording of the letter of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, observed in particular that it was not the duty of the Committee of Ministers but of the respondent states to execute the judgment of the Court and that the action of the member states within the Committee of Ministers in the context of Article 46 is purely jurisdictional.

88. At the 947th meeting (23 November 2005), the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the countries which are in the process of acceding to the European Union (Bulgaria and Romania), of the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), and of the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). Recalling that the Committee now had response by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the letter of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, he noted that the responses to the letters addressed to Mr Lukin and to the ICRC were still awaited. He then reiterated the points of his statement at the 944th meeting and noted that the non-execution of this judgment would undermine the success of the Russian Chairmanship in the Committee of Ministers.

89. Several delegations associated themselves with this statement (Iceland, Norway, Monaco, Switzerland). One delegation, commenting on the letter of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, observed in particular that it was clearly stated in the judgment that the applicants came within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Another delegation referred to the statement of his Minister at the 115th session (16-17 November 2005), emphasising that all judgments must be executed over and above the payment of just satisfaction.

90. At the 948th meeting (DH) (29-30 November 2005), the United Kingdom delegation, speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted with regret the continued detention of the applicants and once more called upon the respondent states to do everything in their power to ensure the execution of the judgment.

91. Two delegations (Norway and Romania) associated themselves with this declaration.

92. At the 949th meeting (1 December 2005) the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). Recalling the terms of the second Interim Resolution of July 2005, which encouraged the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts aimed at securing the release of Mr Ivantoc and Mr Petrov-Popa and called on the Russian authorities to take all the necessary steps to put an end to their arbitrary detention, the abovementioned states urged Russia to take those necessary steps.
Moldova and the Russian Federation must do all in their power to bring about the release of the detainees as soon as possible.

93. Several delegations (Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) associated themselves with this declaration.

94. At the 950th meeting (7 December 2005) the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro). The Permanent Representative recalled that the second interim resolution encouraged the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still detained, and insisted that the Russian authorities take all necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release.

95. The concern of the above-mentioned states over the continuing detention of Mr Ivantoc and Mr Petrov-Popa was heightened for two reasons. First, the impending Russian Chairmanship in the Committee of Ministers: the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the states concerned wished the Russian Chairmanship to be a success for Russia and the Council of Europe, but considered that the non-execution of this judgment had implications for that prospect. Secondly, for the first time the Court had found that any continuation of the applicants’ unlawful and arbitrary detention “would necessarily entail (…) a breach of the respondent States’ obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the Court’s judgment”. The states concerned accordingly appealed to Moldova and the Russian Federation to do all in their power to bring about the release of the detainees as soon as possible.

96. Several delegations (Norway, Monaco, Iceland and Switzerland) associated themselves with this declaration. One of them noted a certain evolution in the Russian Federation’s position, as it had declared that it had nothing against the release of the applicants still detained.

97. At the 951st meeting (14 December 2005) the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro), repeated the statement he had made at the 950th meeting (7 December).

98. Several delegations (Norway, Monaco, Iceland, Switzerland, the Russian Federation) associated themselves with this declaration. One of them noted that whilst it was regrettable that the appeal addressed to the ICRC could not help with the applicants’ release, this obligation was actually incumbent upon the respondent states.

99. At the 952nd meeting (11 January 2006), the Permanent Representative of Austria made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro), as well as Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) and of the European Economic Area (EEA). The text of this statement was circulated to all Delegations.

100. Underlining that this case remains for the European Union a highly charged and high-profile issue which must be resolved, the Permanent Representative recalled that the Court's judgments have to be implemented by states and that the implementation of the Court's decisions is of utmost priority for all member states of the Council of Europe.

101. In order to facilitate the implementation of this judgment, the above-mentioned states suggested that all possibilities should be used to find a successful solution. In this sense, these states proposed informal contacts with those concerned. Such contacts should provide the framework for all parties to work for a solution to the matter as soon as possible.

102. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland).

103. At the 953rd meeting (18 January 2006), the Permanent Representative of Austria made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“ and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro), as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) and of the European Economic Area (EEA). The text of this statement was circulated to all Delegations.

104. Reiterating his statement made at the 952nd meeting (11 January 2006) concerning the necessity of executing this judgment, the Permanent Representative of Austria welcomed the readiness of the Russian Federation and Moldova to participate in informal contacts and to work for a solution as soon as possible. He added that the above-mentioned states are convinced that with good will, the release of the two applicants can be achieved.

105. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland).

106. At the 954th meeting (1 February 2006), the Permanent Representative of Austria made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the same states as at the 953rd meeting (18 January 2006). The text of this statement was circulated to all delegations.

107. After having reiterated his statements made at the 952nd (11 January 2006) and 953rd (18 January 2006) meetings concerning the need to execute of this judgment, the Permanent Representative also recalled that he had welcomed the readiness of the Russian Federation and Moldova to participate in informal contacts to work for a solution to the matter as soon as possible. At the same time he emphasised that such informal meetings can only be meaningful if the parties concerned bear their share of responsibility and make the necessary efforts to achieve the release of the applicants. The Permanent Representative added that if no progress was made, the European Union would press for a further Interim Resolution.

108. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland).

109. Asked by one of these delegations, the Permanent Representative of Austria informed the Committee that the informal contacts have not, so far, lead to solutions.

110. At the 955th meeting (DH) (7-8 February 2006), the Permanent Representative of Austria made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the same states as those mentioned at the 953rd meeting (18 January 2006). The text of this statement was circulated to all delegations.

111. After reiterating his previous statements concerning the need to execute the judgment, the Permanent Representative recalled that he had welcomed the readiness of the Russian Federation and Moldova to participate in informal contacts to work for a solution to the matter as soon as possible. However, he informed the Committee that these contacts could not at this stage lead to the expected results; thus, he expressed the wish that the Secretariat should begin preparation of a further draft interim resolution. The decision adopted by the Deputies following the debates took up this proposal.

112. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland).

113. At the 956th meeting (15 February 2006), the Representative of Austria, on behalf of the European Union and with the support of the same states, reiterated the statement made by his delegation at the 955th meeting (DH) (7-8 February 2006). He concluded by expressing the wish that the Secretariat should distribute as soon as possible a text of a draft Interim Resolution. The text of this statement was circulated to all delegations.

114. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland).

115. The Chairman noted that the Secretariat would, on the first occasion, disseminate a draft prepared by the Secretariat to all delegations, with a view to its examination at the next meeting.

116. At the 957th meeting (1 March 2006), the Permanent Representative of Austria made a statement on behalf of the European Union with the support of the acceding countries (Bulgaria and Romania), the candidate countries (Croatia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey), the countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro), Iceland and Norway, members of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) and of the European Economic Area (EEA) as well as Ukraine. The text of this statement was circulated to all Delegations.

117. After having reiterated his previous statements concerning the necessity of executing this judgment, the Permanent Representative regretted, in particular given the forthcoming Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, that the informal contacts with the Russian Federation and Moldova have not led to the expected results.

118. He also expressed his hope that the third Interim Resolution, the adoption of which the States enumerated above supported, would serve as a new incentive to secure the release of the detainees still detained (concerning the adoption of this text, see below the paragraphs 130-132).

119. Two delegations associated themselves with this declaration (Monaco and Switzerland). Following the statement made by the Russian Federation at this meeting (paragraph 62), one of these delegations referred to the conclusions of the European Court as concerns the responsibility of the Russian Federation in this case.

120. At the same meeting, the Representative of Romania informed the Committee that one of the applicants still detained, Mr. Ivanţoc, had started a hunger strike on 27 February 2006, in order to protest against the ”abusive, inhuman and degrading” treatment of which he claims to be the object by the “penitentiary authorities” of Transdniestria (among others the refusal to give him urgent medical assistance). The Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs published a press release on 1 March 2006, the English translation of which was disseminated by the Romanian delegation to all delegations at this meeting.

- Action of the Chair

121. At the 943rd meeting (19 October 2005), the Chairman of the Deputies stated that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, was at the same moment in Moscow, that the question of the Ilaşcu case was on the agenda of the meetings with his Russian colleague, Mr. Serguei Lavrov, and that he would hand over to the latter the letter prepared in accordance with the Committee’s request.

122. At the 944th meeting (2 November 2005), the Chairman of the Deputies confirmed that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers had handed over the letter to his Russian colleague.

123. At the 945th meeting (9 November 2005), the Chairman of the Deputies stated that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers had received a reply, dated 7 November 2005, from his Russian colleague Mr. Lavrov and that this answer had been distributed to delegations (see below paragraph 56 for a short summary of the letter).

- Observations of the Secretariat

124. At the 940th meeting (DH) (11-12 October 2005), the Director General of human rights recalled certain basic ideas. On the one hand, the demands made and the pressure exerted by member states towards a state condemned by the Court do not constitute “unfriendly acts” or “interference in their internal affairs”, in the meaning of international law; these states are just assuming their responsibilities as Parties to the ECHR. On the other hand, the Director General insisted on the fact that much has been made quite rightly of the humanitarian aspect of this case, but nevertheless stressed that the obligation to free the applicants comes out from the judgment’s wording. He expressed the hope that the determination of the members of the Committee of Ministers will be reinforced, but above all find expression in concrete and effective measures in such a way to maintain the pressure. Finally, he underlined that it is not just the Ilaşcu case, but the Committee of Ministers’ practice and its consistency. The full text of the Director General’s intervention was distributed to the Deputies at the 941st meeting (13 October 2005).

125. Several delegations subscribed to these observations.

126. At the 948th meeting (DH) (29-30 November 2005), the acting Director General of human rights, emphasising the amount of time which had passed since the adoption of the second interim resolution without the applicants’ being freed, recalled the terms of the judgment, in which the European Court stated that “any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the (…) applicants would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violation of Article 5 found by the Court and a breach of the respondent States’ obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the Court’s judgment”. In addition, she recalled that, for the purposes of executing this judgment, all that was needed was that the Committee of Ministers could note that the applicants had been freed, without going into the ways and means of their liberation.

127. At the 950th meeting (7 December 2005), the acting Director General of human rights recalled the successive statements made by the former Director General of human rights at several meetings in response to arguments developed by the Russian delegation regarding the general principles of international law. She recalled that, for the purposes of executing this judgment, all that was needed was that the Committee of Ministers could note that the applicants had been freed, without going into the ways and means of their liberation.

128. At the 951st meeting (14 December 2005), the acting Director General of human rights, noting that the ICRC had not considered itself competent to facilitate the applicants’ release, underlined once more that it was for the respondent states to ensure execution of the judgment. In addition, she mentioned that other possible humanitarian interventions had been mentioned at various meetings.

129. At the 955th meeting (DH) (7-8 February 2006), the acting Director General of human rights, referring to the request made at the same meeting (see § 111), that the Secretariat begin preparing a new draft interim resolution, underlined that this should in no way dissuade the parties from actively pursuing all avenues capable of securing the release of the applicants. On the contrary, she declared that the fact that a new text would be in preparation should provide a further incentive in this regard. Furthermore, she once again recalled that, for the purposes of executing this judgment, all that was needed was that the Committee of Ministers could note that the applicants had been freed, without going into the ways and means of their liberation.

- Adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)11

130. At the 957th meeting (1 March 2006), deeply deploring the fact that, more than one and a half years after the Court’s judgment was delivered, two applicants are still imprisoned and stressing that the excessive prolongation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of Mr Ivanţoc and Mr Petrov-Popa fails entirely to satisfy the requirements of the Court’s judgment and the obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention”, the Committee of Ministers adopted a third Interim Resolution concerning this case (ResDH(2006)11).

131. In this Resolution, the Committee “not(ed) however that the Moldovan authorities have regularly informed the Committee of the steps they have taken to secure the applicants’ release” and “that the Russian authorities have recently declared themselves in favour of the search for a solution in the present case”.

132. The Committee “encourage(d) the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and securing their immediate release”, “strongly urge(d) the Russian authorities to pursue actively all effective avenues capable of putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and of securing their immediate release”, and “insiste(d) that the results required by the Court’s judgment be attained without any further delay”.

Financing assured: Not applicable

DRAFT DECISION

958th meeting – 15 March 2006

Item H46-1

Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and the Russian Federation –
Judgment of 08/07/2004 – Grand Chamber - Application of Article 46, paragraph 2,
of the European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocol No. 11

(Court judgment of 08/07/2004 (Grand Chamber), Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)42, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)84) and Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)11)

Decision

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the measures taken towards the execution of the Court’s judgment at their 959th meeting (22 March 2006).

Note 1 This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue. Unless the Committee of Ministers decides otherwise, it will be declassified according to the rules set up in Resolution Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents.
Note 2 The Committee has previously examined this case at its 894th, 895th, 896th, 897th, 899th, 900th, 902nd, 904th, 907th, 906th, 909th, 911th, 912th, 913th, 914th, 916th, 917th, 919th, 920th, 921st, 922nd, 924th, 925th, 926th, 927th, 928th, 929th, 930th, 933rd, 935th, 936th, 937th, 938th, 939th, 940th, 941s, 943rd, 944th, 945th, 947th, 948th, 949th , 950th, 951st, 952nd, 953rd, 954th, 955th, 956th and 957th meetings.


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents
 
   External links