Practical guide on admissibility criteria

identification and punishment of those responsible. Secondly, an award of compensation to the

applicant is required where appropriate or, at least, the possibility of seeking and obtaining
compensation for the damage which the applicant sustained as a result of the ill-treatment (Gäfgen
v. Germany [GC], §§ 116-118).
47. In cases of willful ill-treatment by State agents, the breach of Article 3 cannot be remedied only
by an award of compensation to the victim (ibid., § 119; Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, §§ 397-
401). These principles are not only applicable to cases of ill-treatment by State agents but also to
cases of ill-treatment inflicted by private individuals (Beganović v. Croatia, § 56; Škorjanec v. Croatia,
§ 47). In particular, in cases of domestic and/or gender-based violence the acknowledgment of a
violation may imply the need to conduct a meaningful investigation into the response of law
enforcement and their inaction, which might have been motivated by gender-based discrimination,
in the face of the victim’s complaints (A. and B. v. Georgia, § 44).
48. When domestic courts afford appropriate and sufficient redress for an alleged violation of
Article 3 (conditions of detention) to applicants who are no longer in detention, these applicants lose
their victim status. This is the case, for instance, where domestic authorities have compensated for
the poor conditions of detention in which the applicants were held by a specific and measurable
reduction in their sentences leading to their early release (Dîrjan and Ștefan v. Romania (dec.),
§§ 23-34).
However, if domestic courts compensate individuals who are still detained, the compensation does
not enable these individuals to obtain direct and appropriate redress for their rights under Article 3,
namely the cessation or improvement of their conditions of detention (J.M.B. and Others v. France,
§§ 167-169).
49. Where a breach of Article 5 § 1 had been expressly acknowledged at domestic level, which
opened up the possibility for the applicant of claiming compensation in a separate set of
proceedings and of obtaining an adequate amount of compensation, the applicant could reasonably
have been expected to turn to the domestic courts to obtain compensation, rather than turning to
the Court to seek confirmation of the unlawfulness of his detention which had already been
recognised (Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), §§ 89-90; for an acknowledgment of the
unlawfulness of the detention in the context of disciplinary proceedings against the judges who had
authorised the applicants’ detention and the payment of the compensation awarded in separate civil
proceedings, see Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, §§ 57-66). As regards Article 5 § 5, an applicant
might lose his victim status when national authorities grant redress by reducing the sentence
imposed on the applicant in an express and measurable manner instead of granting the applicant a
financial benefit (Porchet v. Switzerland (dec.), §§ 14-26). The mitigation of a sentence may also be
relevant for removing victim status in respect of the length of a detention on remand in breach of
Article 5 § 3 (ibid, § 20; Ščensnovičius v. Lithuania, §§ 88-93; compare and contrast Malkov
v. Estonia, §§ 40-41).
50. Also, a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6
of the Convention which, according to him, took place in the course of proceedings in which he was
acquitted or which were discontinued (Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], § 77; Oleksy v. Poland (dec.); Koç
and Tambaş v. Turkey (dec.); Bouglame v. Belgium (dec.)), except for the complaint pertaining to the
length of the proceedings in question (Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.)). By contrast, for
Article 10 complaints, an acquittal may not be relevant for removing victim status (Döner and Others
v. Turkey, § 89).
If an applicant is finally convicted in proceedings which breached Article 6 and therefore acquires
victim status, it is then for the State to provide him or her with adequate and sufficient redress in
respect of that complaint in a timely manner. The Court would then assess whether those
subsequent proceedings deprived the applicant of victim status because he or she had been

European Court of Human Rights 17/110 Last update: 31.08.2022