EHRM, 07-01-2010, nr. 25965/04

Under the Cypriot Constitution the right to life and corporal integrity is protected by Article 7.

Article 8 provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.

Article 9 guarantees that:

Article 10 provides, in so far as relevant, that:

Article 11(1) provides that every person has the right to liberty and security of person. Article 11(2) prohibits deprivation of liberty except in cases permitted under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and as provided by law.

The holding of inquests in Cyprus is governed by the Coroners Law of 1959, Cap. 153. Under section 3, every district judge and magistrate may hold inquests within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Section 3(3) provides that any inquest commenced by a coroner may be continued, resumed, or reopened in the manner provided by the Law.

Section 14 sets out the procedure at the inquest and provides as follows (all quotes to Cypriot legislation are translated):

Section 16 governs the extent of the coroner's powers and provides that:

Under section 24, where the coroner is of the opinion that sufficient grounds are disclosed for making a charge against any person in connection with the death, he may issue a summons or warrant to secure the attendance of such person before any court having jurisdiction.

Section 25 provides that following the hearing of evidence, the coroner shall give his verdict and certify it in writing, showing, so far as such particulars have been proved to him, who the deceased was, and how, when and where the deceased came by his death. Under section 26, if at the close of the inquest the coroner is of the opinion that there are grounds for suspecting that some person is guilty of an offence in respect of the matter inquired into, but cannot ascertain who such person is, he shall certify his opinion to that effect and transmit a copy of the proceedings to the police officer in charge of the district in which the inquest is held.

Section 30 allows the President of the District Court, upon the application of the Attorney-General, to order the holding, re-opening or quashing of an inquest or verdict. It provides that:

Legislation on human trafficking was introduced in Cyprus under Law No. 3(1) of 2000 on the Combating of Trafficking in Persons and Sexual Exploitation of Children. Section 3(1) prohibits:

Section 6 provides that the consent of the victim is not a defence to the offence of trafficking.

Under section 5(1), persons found guilty of trafficking adults for the purposes of sexual exploitation may be imprisoned for up to ten years or fined CYP 10,000, or both. In the case of a child, the potential prison sentence is increased to fifteen years and the fine to CYP 15,000. Section 3(2) provides for a greater penalty in certain cases:

Section 7 imposes a duty on the State to protect victims of trafficking by providing them with support, including accommodation, medical care and psychiatric support.

Under sections 10 and 11, the Council of Ministers may appoint a ‘guardian of victims’ to advise, counsel, and guide victims of exploitation; to hear and investigate complaints of exploitation; to provide victims with treatment and safe residence; to take the necessary steps to prosecute offenders; to take measures aimed at rehabilitating, re-employing or repatriating victims; and to identify any deficiencies in the law to combat trafficking. Although a custodian was appointed, at the time of the Cypriot Ombudsman's 2003 Report (see paragraphs 80 to 90 above), the role remained theoretical and no programme to ensure protection of victims had been prepared.

Articles 11 and 12 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation set out the territorial application of Russian criminal law. Article 11 establishes Russian jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of the Russian Federation. Article 12(3) provides for limited jurisdiction in respect of non-Russian nationals who commit crimes outside Russian territory where the crimes run counter to the interests of the Russian Federation and in cases provided for by international agreement.

Article 105 of the Russian Criminal Code provides that murder shall be punishable with a prison term.

Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Code provides that deliberate abandonment and failure to provide assistance to a person in danger is punishable by a fine, community service, corrective labour or a prison term.

Articles 126 and 127 make abduction and illegal deprivation of liberty punishable by prison terms.

In December 2003, an amendment was made to the Russian Criminal Code by the insertion of a new Article 127.1 in the following terms:

The Slavery Convention, signed in Geneva in 1926, entered into force on 7 July 1955. Russia acceded to the Slavery Convention on 8 August 1956 and Cyprus on 21 April 1986. In the recitals, the Contracting Parties stated as follows:

Article 1 defines slavery as:

Under Article 2, the parties undertake to prevent and suppress the slave trade and to bring about, progressively and as soon as possible, the complete abolition of slavery in all its forms.

Article 5 deals with forced or compulsory labour and provides, inter alia, that:

Article 6 requires States whose laws do not make adequate provision for the punishment of infractions of laws enacted with a view to giving effect to the purposes of the Slavery Convention to adopt the necessary measures in order that severe penalties can be imposed in respect of such infractions.

In the first case to deal with the definition of enslavement as a crime against humanity for sexual exploitation, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Vukovic and Kovac, 12 June 2002, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia observed that:

It concluded that:

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘the Rome Statute’), which entered into force on 1 July 2002, provides that ‘enslavement’ under Article 7(1)(c) of the Rome Statute:

Cyprus signed the Rome Statute on 15 October 1998 and ratified it on 7 March 2002. Russia signed the Statute on 13 September 2000. It has not ratified the Statute.

The first international instrument to address trafficking of persons, the International Agreement for the Suppression of White Slave Traffic, was adopted in 1904. It was followed in 1910 by the International Convention for the Suppression of White Slave Traffic. Subsequently, in 1921, the League of Nations adopted a Convention for the Suppression of Trafficking in Women and Children, affirmed in the later International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women of Full Age of 1933. The 1949 Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others brought the former instruments under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. Russia ratified CEDAW on 23 January 1981 and Cyprus acceded to it on 23 July 1985.

Article 6 CEDAW provides that:

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (‘the Palermo Protocol’), supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000 was signed by Cyprus on 12 December 2000 and by Russia on 16 December 2000. It was ratified by them on 26 May 2004 and 6 August 2003 respectively. Its preamble notes:

Article 3(a) defines ‘trafficking in persons’ as:

Article 3(b) provides that the consent of a victim of trafficking to the intended exploitation is irrelevant where any of the means set out in Article 3(a) have been used.

Article 5 obliges States to:

Assistance and protection for victims of trafficking is dealt with in Article 6, which provides, in so far as relevant:

Article 9, on the prevention of trafficking in persons, provides that:

Article 10 emphasises the need for effective exchange of information between relevant authorities and training of law enforcement and immigration officials. It provides, in so far as relevant:

The Council of the European Union has adopted a Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings (Framework Decision 2002/JHA/629 of 19 July 2002). It provides for measures aimed at ensuring approximation of the criminal law of the Member States as regards the definition of offences, penalties, jurisdiction and prosecution, protection and assistance to victims.

In 2005, the Council adopted an action plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings (OJ C 311/1 of 9.12.2005). The action plan proposes steps to be taken by Member States, by the Commission and by other EU bodies involving coordination of EU action, scoping the problem, preventing trafficking, reducing demand, investigating and prosecuting trafficking, protecting and supporting victims of trafficking, returns and reintegration and external relations.

In recent years, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has adopted three legal texts addressing trafficking in human beings for sexual exploitation: Recommendation No. R (2000) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on action against trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation; Recommendation Rec (2001) 16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of children against sexual exploitation; and Recommendation Rec (2002) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of women against violence. These texts propose, inter alia, a pan-European strategy encompassing definitions, general measures, a methodological and action framework, prevention, victim assistance and protection, criminal measures, judicial cooperation and arrangements for international cooperation and coordination.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also adopted a number of texts in this area, including: Recommendation 1325 (1997) on traffic in women and forced prostitution in Council of Europe member States; Recommendation 1450 (2000) on violence against women in Europe; Recommendation 1523 (2001) on domestic slavery; Recommendation 1526 (2001) on the campaign against trafficking in minors to put a stop to the east European route: the example of Moldova; Recommendation 1545 (2002) on the campaign against trafficking in women; Recommendation 1610 (2003) on migration connected with trafficking in women and prostitution; and Recommendation 1663 (2004) on domestic slavery: servitude, au pairs and ‘mail-order brides’.

The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (‘the Anti-Trafficking Convention’) was signed by Cyprus on 16 May 2005 and ratified on 24 October 2007. It entered into force in respect of Cyprus on 1 February 2008. Russia has yet to sign the Convention. A total of 41 member States of the Council of Europe have signed the Anti-Trafficking Convention and 26 have also ratified it.

The explanatory report accompanying the Anti-Trafficking Convention emphasises that trafficking in human beings is a major problem in Europe today which threatens the human rights and fundamental values of democratic societies. The report continues as follows:

In its preamble, the Anti-Trafficking Convention asserts, inter alia, that:

Article 1 provides that the purposes of the Anti-Trafficking Convention are to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, to protect the human rights of the victims of trafficking, to design a comprehensive framework for the protection and assistance of victims and witnesses and to ensure effective investigation and prosecution of trafficking.

Article 4(a) adopts the Palermo Protocol definition of trafficking and Article 4(b) replicates the provision in the Palermo Protocol on the irrelevance of the consent of a victim of trafficking to the exploitation (see paragraphs 150 to 151 above).

Article 5 requires States to take measures to prevent trafficking and provides, inter alia, as follows:

Article 6 requires States to take measures to discourage the demand that fosters trafficking and provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:

Article 10 sets out measures regarding training and cooperation and provides that:

Article 12 provides that:

Articles 18 to 21 require States to criminalise specified types of conduct:

Article 23 requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 18 to 21 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. For criminal offences established in accordance with Article 18, such sanctions are to include penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition.

Article 27 provides that States must ensure that investigations into and prosecution of offences under the Anti-Trafficking Convention are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a victim, at least when the offence was committed in whole or in part on its territory. States must further ensure that victims of an offence in the territory of a State other than their State of residence may make a complaint before the competent authorities of their State of residence. The latter State must transmit the complaint without delay to the competent authority of the State in the territory in which the offence was committed, where the complaint must be dealt with in accordance with the internal law of the State in which the offence was committed.

Article 31(1) deals with jurisdiction, and requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with the Anti-Trafficking Convention when the offence is committed:

States may reserve the right not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases or conditions, the jurisdiction rules in Article 31(1)(d) and (e).

Article 32 requires States to co-operate with each other, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and through application of relevant applicable international and regional instruments, to the widest extent possible, for the purpose of:

The Mutual Assistance Convention was signed by Cyprus on 27 March 1996. It was ratified on 24 February 2000 and entered into force on 24 May 2000. The Russian Federation signed the Convention on 7 November 1996 and ratified it on 10 December 1999. It entered into force in respect of Russia on 9 March 2000.

Article 1 establishes an obligation on contracting parties to:

Article 3 provides that:

Article 26 allows States to enter into bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance to supplement the provisions of the Mutual Assistance Convention.

Article 2 of the Legal Assistance Treaty (ratified by Russia following the dissolution of the USSR) establishes a general obligation for both parties to provide each other with legal assistance in civil and criminal matters in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.

Article 3 sets out the extent of the legal assistance required under the Treaty and provides as follows:

The procedure for making a request is detailed in Article 5(1), which provides, in so far as relevant, that:

Article 6 sets out the procedure for executing a request:

Under Article 18 Contracting Parties are obliged to ensure that citizens of one State are exempted in the territory of the other State from payment of fees and costs and are afforded facilities and free legal assistance under the same conditions and to the same extent as citizens of the other State. Article 20 provides that a person requesting free legal assistance may submit a relevant application to the competent authority of the State in the territory of which he has his permanent or temporary residence. This authority will then transmit the application to the other State.

Chapter VI of the Treaty contains special provisions on criminal matters concerning, in particular, the institution of criminal proceedings. Article 35(1) provides that:

Article 36 sets out the procedure for the making of a request to institute criminal proceedings:

The Cypriot Government submitted that where efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case had been unsuccessful, the Court could strike an application out of the list on the basis of a unilateral declaration on the ground that there existed ‘'any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying a decision by the Court to discontinue the examination of the application. On the basis of the contents of the unilateral declaration and the ongoing domestic investigation into the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's death (see paragraph 187 above), the Cypriot Government considered that the requirements of Article 37 § 1 (c) were fully met.

The applicant requested the Court to reject the request of the Cypriot Government to strike the application out of the list of cases on the basis of the unilateral declaration. He argued that the proposals contained in the declaration did not guarantee that the responsible persons would be punished; that the declaration did not contain any general measures to prevent similar violations from taking place in the future, even though trafficking for sexual exploitation was a recognised problem in Cyprus; and that if the Court declined to deliver a judgment in the present case, the Committee of Ministers would be unable to supervise the terms proposed by the Cypriot Government.

The AIRE Centre submitted that the extent of human trafficking in Council of Europe member States and the present inadequate response of States to the problem meant that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required continued examination of cases that raised trafficking issues where they might otherwise be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1.

In its submissions, the AIRE Centre referred to the factors taken into consideration by the Court when taking a decision under Article 37 § 1 as to whether a case merits continued examination, highlighting that one such factor was ‘whether the issues raised are comparable to issues already determined by the Court in previous cases’. The AIRE Centre highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the extent of member States' obligations to protect victims of trafficking, in particular as regards protection measures not directly related to the investigation and prosecution of criminal acts of trafficking and exploitation.

The Court observes at the outset that the unilateral declaration relates to the Republic of Cyprus only. No unilateral declaration has been submitted by the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the Court will consider whether it is justified to strike out the application in respect of complaints directed towards the Cypriot authorities only.

The Court recalls that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to strike out an application, or part thereof, under Article 37 § 1 on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even where the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. Whether this is appropriate in a particular case depends on whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine; see also, inter alia, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI; and Radoszewska-Zakościelna v. Poland, no. 858/08, § 50, 20 October 2009).

Relevant factors in this respect include the nature of the complaints made, whether the issues raised are comparable to issues already determined by the Court in previous cases, the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondent Government in the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in any such previous cases, and the impact of these measures on the case at issue. It may also be material whether the facts are in dispute between the parties, and, if so, to what extent, and what prima facie evidentiary value is to be attributed to the parties' submissions on the facts. Other relevant factors may include whether in their unilateral declaration the respondent Government have made any admissions in relation to the alleged violations of the Convention and, if so, the scope of such admissions and the manner in which the Government intend to provide redress to the applicant. As to the last-mentioned point, in cases in which it is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation and the respondent Government declare their readiness to do so, the intended redress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out the application, the Court, as always, retaining its power to restore the application to its list as provided in Article 37 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 5 of the Rules of Court (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 76).

The foregoing factors are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list of relevant factors. Depending on the particular facts of each case, it is conceivable that further considerations may come into play in the assessment of a unilateral declaration for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 77).

Finally, the Court reiterates that its judgments serve not only to decide those cases brought before it but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 154, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 86, Series A no. 39; and Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX). Although the primary purpose of the Convention system is to provide individual relief, its mission is also to determine issues on public-policy grounds in the common interest, thereby raising the general standards of protection of human rights and extending human rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the Convention States (see Karner, cited above, § 26; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 78 to 79, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)).

In considering whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application in so far as it concerns complaints directed against the Republic of Cyprus on the basis of the Cypriot unilateral declaration, the Court makes the following observations.

First, the Court emphasises the serious nature of the allegations of trafficking in human beings made in the present case, which raise issues under Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention. In this regard, it is noted that awareness of the problem of trafficking of human beings and the need to take action to combat it has grown in recent years, as demonstrated by the adoption of measures at international level as well as the introduction of relevant domestic legislation in a number of States (see also paragraphs 264 and 269 below). The reports of the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights and the report of the Cypriot Ombudsman highlight the acute nature of the problem in Cyprus, where it is widely acknowledged that trafficking and sexual exploitation of cabaret artistes is of particular concern (see paragraphs 83, 89, 91, 94, 100 to 101 and 103 above).

Second, the Court draws attention to the paucity of case-law on the interpretation and application of Article 4 of the Convention in the context of trafficking cases. It is particularly significant that the Court has yet to rule on whether, and if so to what extent, Article 4 requires member States to take positive steps to protect potential victims of trafficking outside the framework of criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The Cypriot Government have admitted that violations of the Convention occurred in the period leading up to and following Ms Rantseva's death. They have taken additional recent steps to investigate the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's death and have proposed a sum in respect of just satisfaction. However, in light of the Court's duty to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, this is insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. In view of the observations outlined above, there is a need for continued examination of cases which raise trafficking issues.

In conclusion, the Court finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the continuation of the examination of the case. Accordingly, it rejects the Cypriot Government's request to strike the application out under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

The Russian Government argued that the events forming the basis of the application having taken place outside its territory, the application was inadmissible ratione loci in so far as it was directed against the Russian Federation. They submitted that they had no ‘actual authority’ over the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and that the actions of the Russian Federation were limited by the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus.

The applicant rejected this submission. He argued that in accordance with the Court's judgment in Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, the Russian Federation could be held responsible where acts and omissions of its authorities produced effects outside its own territory.

Article 1 of the Convention provides that:

As the Court has previously emphasised, from the standpoint of public international law, the jurisdictional competence of a State is primarily territorial. Accordingly, a State's competence to exercise jurisdiction over its own nationals abroad is subordinate to the other State's territorial competence and a State may not generally exercise jurisdiction on the territory of another State without the latter's consent, invitation or acquiescence. Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect this ordinary and essentially territorial notion of jurisdiction (see Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59–61, ECHR 2001-XII).

The applicant's complaints against Russia in the present case concern the latter's alleged failure to take the necessary measures to protect Ms Rantseva from the risk of trafficking and exploitation and to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of her arrival in Cyprus, her employment there and her subsequent death. The Court observes that such complaints are not predicated on the assertion that Russia was responsible for acts committed in Cyprus or by the Cypriot authorities. In light of the fact that the alleged trafficking commenced in Russia and in view of the obligations undertaken by Russia to combat trafficking, it is not outside the Court's competence to examine whether Russia complied with any obligation it may have had to take measures within the limits of its own jurisdiction and powers to protect Ms Rantseva from trafficking and to investigate the possibility that she had been trafficked. Similarly, the applicant's Article 2 complaint against the Russian authorities concerns their failure to take investigative measures, including securing evidence from witnesses resident in Russia. It is for the Court to assess in its examination of the merits of the applicant's Article 2 complaint the extent of any procedural obligation incumbent on the Russian authorities and whether any such obligation was discharged in the circumstances of the present case.

In conclusion, the Court is competent to examine the extent to which Russia could have taken steps within the limits of its own territorial sovereignty to protect the applicant's daughter from trafficking, to investigate allegations of trafficking and to investigate the circumstances leading to her death. Whether the matters complained of give rise to State responsibility in the circumstances of the present case is a question which falls to be determined by the Court in its examination of the merits of the application below.

The Russian Government argued that the complaint under Article 4 of the Convention was inadmissible ratione materiae as there was no slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour in the present case. They pointed to the fact that Ms Rantseva had entered the Republic of Cyprus voluntarily, having voluntarily obtained a work permit to allow her to work in accordance with an employment contract which she had concluded. There was no evidence that Ms Rantseva had been in servitude and unable to change her condition or that she was forced to work. The Russian Government further highlighted that Ms Rantseva had left, unimpeded, the apartment where she was residing with the other cabaret artistes. They therefore contended that there were insufficient grounds to assert that the cabaret artistes were being kept in the apartment against their will. The Russian Government added that the fact that Ms Rantseva left the police station with M.A. was insufficient to support the conclusion that Ms Rantseva was in servitude and forced to work. Had she feared for her life or safety, she could have informed the police officers while she was at the police station.

The applicant insisted that the treatment to which Ms Rantseva had been subjected fell within the scope of Article 4.

The Court finds that the question whether the treatment about which the applicant complains falls within the scope of Article 4 is inextricably linked to the merits of this complaint. Accordingly, the Court holds that the objection ratione materiae should be joined to the merits.

The applicant argued that a positive obligation arose in the present case to protect Ms Rantseva from ill-treatment from private individuals. He contended that the two forensic reports conducted following Ms Rantseva's death revealed that the explanation of her death did not accord with the injuries recorded. He argued that the witness testimony gathered did not provide a satisfactory response to the question whether there were injuries present on Ms Rantseva's body prior to her death. Despite this, no investigation was conducted by the Cypriot authorities into whether Ms Rantseva had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, no steps were taken to avoid the risk of ill treatment to Ms Rantseva in circumstances where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk. Accordingly, in the applicant's submission, there was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

In their written submissions, the Cypriot Government denied that any violation of Article 3 had occurred. They pointed out that nothing in the investigation file suggested that Ms Rantseva had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prior to her death. In any event, a thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, was conducted into the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's death. The investigation therefore complied with Article 3.

In their subsequent unilateral declaration (see paragraph 187 above), the Cypriot Government acknowledged that there had been a breach of the procedural obligation arising under Article 3 of the Convention in so far as the police investigation into whether Ms Rantseva was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prior to her death was ineffective. They also confirmed that three independent investigators had been appointed to investigate the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's employment and stay in Cyprus and whether she had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Referring to Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, ECHR 2005-VII, and the Anti-Trafficking Convention (see paragraphs 162 to 174, above), the applicant contended that the Cypriot authorities were under an obligation to adopt laws to combat trafficking and to establish and strengthen policies and programmes to combat trafficking. He pointed to the reports of the Council of Europe's Commissioner on Human Rights (see paragraphs 91 to 104 above), which he said demonstrated that there had been a deterioration in the situation of young foreign women moving to Cyprus to work as cabaret artistes. He concluded that the obligations incumbent on Cyprus to combat trafficking had not been met. In particular, the applicant pointed out that the Cypriot authorities were unable to explain why they had handed Ms Rantseva over to her former employer at the police station instead of releasing her (see paragraph 82 above). He contended that in so doing, the Cypriot authorities had failed to take measures to protect his daughter from trafficking. They had also failed to conduct any investigation into whether his daughter had been a victim of trafficking or had been subjected to sexual or other exploitation. Although Ms Rantseva had entered Cyprus voluntarily to work in the cabaret, the Court had established that prior consent, without more, does not negate a finding of compulsory labour (referring to Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 36, Series A no. 70).

In respect of Russia, the applicant pointed out that at the relevant time, the Russian Criminal Code did not contain provisions which expressly addressed trafficking in human beings. He argued that the Russian authorities were aware of the particular problem of young women being trafficked to Cyprus to work in the sex industry. Accordingly, the Russian Federation was under an obligation to adopt measures to prevent the trafficking and exploitation of Russian women but had failed to do so. In the present case, it was under a specific obligation to investigate the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's arrival in Cyprus and the nature of her employment there, but no such investigation had been carried out.

In their written observations, the Cypriot Government confirmed that no measures were taken in the period prior to or following Ms Rantseva's death to ascertain whether she had been a victim of trafficking in human beings or whether she had been subjected to sexual or other forms of exploitation. However they denied that there had been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention. They conceded that there were positive obligations on the State which required the penalisation and effective prosecution of any act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. However, they argued by analogy with s 2 and 3 that positive obligations only arose where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk that an identified individual was being held in such a situation. These positive obligations would only be violated where the authorities subsequently failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.

In the present case, there was nothing in the investigation file, nor was there any other evidence, to indicate that Ms Rantseva was held in slavery or servitude or was required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The Cypriot Government further pointed to the fact that no complaint had been lodged with the domestic authorities by the applicant that his daughter had been a victim of trafficking or exploitation and that none of the correspondence from the Russian authorities made any reference to such a complaint. Ms Rantseva herself had made no allegations of that nature prior to her death and the note she left in her apartment saying she was tired and was going back to Russia (see paragraph 17 above) was inadequate to support any such allegations. The Government claimed that the first time that any complaint of this nature was made to the authorities was on 13 April 2006, by a Russian Orthodox priest in Limassol. They argued that the Russian authorities had failed to cooperate with the Cypriot authorities and take witness statements from two Russian women who had worked with Ms Rantseva at the cabaret.

In their subsequent unilateral declaration (see paragraph 187 above), the Cypriot Government accepted that they had violated their positive obligations under Article 4 in failing to take any measures to ascertain whether Ms Rantseva had been a victim of trafficking in human beings or had been subjected to sexual or any other kind of exploitation. They also confirmed that three independent investigators had been appointed to investigate the circumstances of Ms Rantseva's employment and stay in Cyprus and whether there was any evidence that she was a victim of trafficking or exploitation.

As noted above, the Russian Government contested that Ms Rantseva's treatment in the present case fell within the scope of Article 4 (see paragraph 209 above).

On the merits, the Russian Government agreed that the positive obligations arising under Article 4 required member States to ensure that residents were not being kept in slavery or servitude or being forced to work. Where such a case did occur, member States were required to put in place an effective framework for the protection and reinstatement of victims' rights and for the prosecution of guilty persons. However, in so far as the applicant's complaint was directed against Russia, his argument was that the Russian authorities ought to have put in place a system of preventative measures to protect citizens going abroad. The Russian Government pointed out that any such measures would have had to strike a balance between Article 4 and the right to free movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention, which provides that ‘[e]veryone shall be free to leave any country, including his own’. They also argued that the scope of any such measures was significantly restricted by the need to respect the sovereignty of the State to which the citizen wished to travel.

According to the Russian Government, there was a wealth of measures set out in Russian criminal law to prevent violations of Article 4, to protect victims and to prosecute perpetrators. Although at the relevant time Russian criminal law did not contain provisions on human trafficking and slave labour, such conduct would nonetheless have fallen within the definitions of other crimes such as threats to kill or cause grave harm to health, abduction, unlawful deprivation of liberty and sexual crimes (see paragraphs 133 to 135). The Russian Government also pointed to various international treaties ratified by the Russian Federation, including the Slavery Convention 1926 (see paragraphs 137 to 141above) and the Palermo Protocol 2000 (see paragraphs 149 to 155 above), and highlighted that Russia had signed up to a number of mutual legal assistance agreements (see paragraphs 175 to 185 above). In the present case, they had taken active measures to press for the identification and punishment of guilty persons within the framework of mutual legal assistance treaties. They further explained that on 27 July 2006, the application of the Criminal Code was extended to allow the prosecution of non-nationals who had committed crimes against Russian nationals outside Russian territory. However, the exercise of this power depended on the consent of the State in whose territory the offence was committed.

As regards the departure of Ms Rantseva for Cyprus, the Russian authorities pointed out that they only became aware of a citizen leaving Russia at the point at which an individual crossed the border. Where entry requirements of the State of destination were complied with, and in the absence of any circumstances preventing the exit, the Russian authorities were not permitted to prohibit a person from exercising his right of free movement. Accordingly, the Russian authorities could only make recommendations and warn its citizens against possible dangers. They did provide warnings, via the media, as well as more detailed information regarding the risk factors.

The Russian Government also requested the Court to consider that there had been no previous findings of a violation of Article 4 against Cyprus. They submitted that they were entitled to take this into consideration in the development of their relations with Cyprus.

The first question which arises is whether the present case falls within the ambit of Article 4. The Court recalls that Article 4 makes no mention of trafficking, proscribing ‘slavery’, ‘servitude’ and ‘forced and compulsory labour’.

The Court has never considered the provisions of the Convention as the sole framework of reference for the interpretation of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein (Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 67, 12 November 2008). It has long stated that one of the main principles of the application of the Convention provisions is that it does not apply them in a vacuum (see Loizidou v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 163, ECHR 2005-IV). As an international treaty, the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the rules of interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties.

Under that Convention, the Court is required to ascertain the ordinary meaning to be given to the words in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the provision from which they are drawn (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 29, Series A no. 18; Loizidou, cited above, § 43; and Article 31 § 1 of the Vienna Convention). The Court must have regard to the fact that the context of the provision is a treaty for the effective protection of individual human rights and that the Convention must be read as a whole, and interpreted in such a way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between its various provisions (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 48, ECHR 2005-X). Account must also be taken of any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties and the Convention should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; Demir and Baykara, cited above, § 67; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 62, ECHR 2008-…; and Article 31 para. 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention).

Finally, the Court emphasises that the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings, requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, inter alia, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).

In Siliadin, considering the scope of ‘slavery’ under Article 4, the Court referred to the classic definition of slavery contained in the 1926 Slavery Convention, which required the exercise of a genuine right of ownership and reduction of the status of the individual concerned to an ‘object’ (Siliadin, cited above, § 122). With regard to the concept of ‘servitude’, the Court has held that what is prohibited is a ‘particularly serious form of denial of freedom’ (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, Commission's report of 9 July 1980, §§ 78–80, Series B no. 44). The concept of ‘servitude’ entails an obligation, under coercion, to provide one's services, and is linked with the concept of ‘slavery’ (see Seguin v. France (dec.), no. 42400/98, 7 March 2000; and Siliadin, cited above, § 124). For ‘forced or compulsory labour’ to arise, the Court has held that there must be some physical or mental constraint, as well as some overriding of the person's will (Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 34, Series A no. 70; Siliadin, cited above, § 117).

The absence of an express reference to trafficking in the Convention is unsurprising. The Convention was inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, which itself made no express mention of trafficking. In its Article 4, the Declaration prohibited ‘slavery and the slave trade in all their forms’. However, in assessing the scope of Article 4 of the Convention, sight should not be lost of the Convention's special features or of the fact that it is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. The increasingly high standards required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably require greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 71, ECHR 2002-VI; and Siliadin, cited above, § 121).

The Court notes that trafficking in human beings as a global phenomenon has increased significantly in recent years (see paragraphs 89, 100, 103 and 269 above). In Europe, its growth has been facilitated in part by the collapse of former Communist blocs. The conclusion of the Palermo Protocol in 2000 and the Anti-Trafficking Convention in 2005 demonstrate the increasing recognition at international level of the prevalence of trafficking and the need for measures to combat it.

The Court is not regularly called upon to consider the application of Article 4 and, in particular, has had only one occasion to date to consider the extent to which treatment associated with trafficking fell within the scope of that Article (Siliadin, cited above). In that case, the Court concluded that the treatment suffered by the applicant amounted to servitude and forced and compulsory labour, although it fell short of slavery. In light of the proliferation of both trafficking itself and of measures taken to combat it, the Court considers it appropriate in the present case to examine the extent to which trafficking itself may be considered to run counter to the spirit and purpose of Article 4 of the Convention such as to fall within the scope of the guarantees offered by that Article without the need to assess which of the three types of proscribed conduct are engaged by the particular treatment in the case in question.

The Court observes that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia concluded that the traditional concept of ‘slavery’ has evolved to encompass various contemporary forms of slavery based on the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership (see paragraph 142 above). In assessing whether a situation amounts to a contemporary form of slavery, the Tribunal held that relevant factors included whether there was control of a person's movement or physical environment, whether there was an element of psychological control, whether measures were taken to prevent or deter escape and whether there was control of sexuality and forced labour (see paragraph 143 above).

The Court considers that trafficking in human beings, by its very nature and aim of exploitation, is based on the exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership. It treats human beings as commodities to be bought and sold and put to forced labour, often for little or no payment, usually in the sex industry but also elsewhere (see paragraphs 101 and 161 above). It implies close surveillance of the activities of victims, whose movements are often circumscribed (see paragraphs 85 and 101 above). It involves the use of violence and threats against victims, who live and work under poor conditions (see paragraphs 85, 87 to 88 and 101 above). It is described by Interights and in the explanatory report accompanying the Anti-Trafficking Convention as the modern form of the old worldwide slave trade (see paragraphs 161 and 266 above). The Cypriot Ombudsman referred to sexual exploitation and trafficking taking place ‘under a regime of modern slavery’ (see paragraph 84 above).

There can be no doubt that trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention. In view of its obligation to interpret the Convention in light of present-day conditions, the Court considers it unnecessary to identify whether the treatment about which the applicant complains constitutes ‘slavery’, ‘servitude’ or ‘forced and compulsory labour’. Instead, the Court concludes that trafficking itself, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol and Article 4(a) of the Anti-Trafficking Convention, falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention. The Russian Government's objection of incompatibility ratione materiae is accordingly dismissed.

The Court reiterates that, together with Articles 2 and 3, Article 4 enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (Siliadin, cited above, § 82). Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 4 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

In assessing whether there has been a violation of Article 4, the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place must be taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 93, ECHR 2005-VII). The Court considers that the spectrum of safeguards set out in national legislation must be adequate to ensure the practical and effective protection of the rights of victims or potential victims of trafficking. Accordingly, in addition to criminal law measures to punish traffickers, Article 4 requires member States to put in place adequate measures regulating businesses often used as a cover for human trafficking. Furthermore, a State's immigration rules must address relevant concerns relating to encouragement, facilitation or tolerance of trafficking (see, mutatis mutandis, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, §§ 58 to 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73 to 74, ECHR 2001-V; and Nachova and Others, cited above, §§ 96 to 97 and 99–102).

In its Siliadin judgment, the Court confirmed that Article 4 entailed a specific positive obligation on member States to penalise and prosecute effectively any act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour (cited above, §§ 89 and 112). In order to comply with this obligation, member States are required to put in place a legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and punish trafficking. The Court observes that the Palermo Protocol and the Anti-Trafficking Convention refer to the need for a comprehensive approach to combat trafficking which includes measures to prevent trafficking and to protect victims, in addition to measures to punish traffickers (see paragraphs 149 and 163 above). It is clear from the provisions of these two instruments that the Contracting States, including almost all of the member States of the Council of Europe, have formed the view that only a combination of measures addressing all three aspects can be effective in the fight against trafficking (see also the submissions of Interights and the AIRE Centre at paragraphs 267 and 271 above). Accordingly, the duty to penalise and prosecute trafficking is only one aspect of member States' general undertaking to combat trafficking. The extent of the positive obligations arising under Article 4 must be considered within this broader context.

As with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, Article 4 may, in certain circumstances, require a State to take operational measures to protect victims, or potential victims, of trafficking (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman, cited above, § 115; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III). In order for a positive obligation to take operational measures to arise in the circumstances of a particular case, it must be demonstrated that the State authorities were aware, or ought to have been aware, of circumstances giving rise to a credible suspicion that an identified individual had been, or was at real and immediate risk of being, trafficked or exploited within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol and Article 4(a) of the Anti-Trafficking Convention. In the case of an answer in the affirmative, there will be a violation of Article 4 of the Convention where the authorities fail to take appropriate measures within the scope of their powers to remove the individual from that situation or risk (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman, cited above, §§116 to 117; and Mahmut Kaya, cited above, §§ 115 to 116).

Bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the obligation to take operational measures must, however, be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman, cited above, § 116). It is relevant to the consideration of the proportionality of any positive obligation arising in the present case that the Palermo Protocol, signed by both Cyprus and the Russian Federation in 2000, requires States to endeavour to provide for the physical safety of victims of trafficking while in their territories and to establish comprehensive policies and programmes to prevent and combat trafficking (see paragraphs 153 to 154 above). States are also required to provide relevant training for law enforcement and immigration officials (see paragraph 155 above).

Like Articles 2 and 3, Article 4 also entails a procedural obligation to investigate situations of potential trafficking. The requirement to investigate does not depend on a complaint from the victim or next-of-kin: once the matter has come to the attention of the authorities they must act of their own motion (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II). For an investigation to be effective, it must be independent from those implicated in the events. It must also be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of individuals responsible, an obligation not of result but of means. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in all cases but where the possibility of removing the individual from the harmful situation is available, the investigation must be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The victim or the next-of-kin must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, §§ 70 to 73).

Finally, the Court reiterates that trafficking is a problem which is often not confined to the domestic arena. When a person is trafficked from one State to another, trafficking offences may occur in the State of origin, any State of transit and the State of destination. Relevant evidence and witnesses may be located in all States. Although the Palermo Protocol is silent on the question of jurisdiction, the Anti-Trafficking Convention explicitly requires each member State to establish jurisdiction over any trafficking offence committed in its territory (see paragraph 172 above). Such an approach is, in the Court's view, only logical in light of the general obligation, outlined above, incumbent on all States under Article 4 of the Convention to investigate alleged trafficking offences. In addition to the obligation to conduct a domestic investigation into events occurring on their own territories, member States are also subject to a duty in cross-border trafficking cases to cooperate effectively with the relevant authorities of other States concerned in the investigation of events which occurred outside their territories. Such a duty is in keeping with the objectives of the member States, as expressed in the preamble to the Palermo Protocol, to adopt a comprehensive international approach to trafficking in the countries of origin, transit and destination (see paragraph 149 above). It is also consistent with international agreements on mutual legal assistance in which the respondent States participate in the present case (see paragraphs 175 to 185 above).

The applicant submitted that his daughter's treatment at the police station and subsequent confinement to the apartment of M.A.'s employee violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He emphasised the importance of Article 5 in protecting individuals from arbitrary detention and abuse of power. Ms Rantseva was legally on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and was, the applicant contended, unreasonably and unlawfully detained by M.A., escorted to the police station, released into M.A.'s custody and detained in the apartment of M.A.'s employee. He further observed that no document had been produced by the Cypriot authorities setting out the grounds on which Ms Rantseva had been detained and subsequently handed over to M.A..

In their written submissions, the Cypriot Government denied that there had been a violation of Article 5 in the present case. They argued that it was not clear from the established facts of the case whether the police had exercised any power over Ms Rantseva. Nor was it clear what would have happened had Ms Rantseva refused to leave with M.A..

In their unilateral declaration (see paragraph 187 above), the Government accepted that Ms Rantseva's treatment at the police station and the decision not to release her but to hand her over to M.A., even though there was no legal basis for her deprivation of liberty, was not consistent with the requirements of Article 5.

The Court reiterates that in proclaiming the ‘right to liberty’, Article 5 § 1 aims to ensure that no-one should be dispossessed of his physical liberty in an arbitrary fashion. The difference between restrictions on movement serious enough to fall within the ambit of a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 and mere restrictions of liberty which are subject only to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 93, Series A no. 39). In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be her concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58–59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi, cited above, § 92; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII).

In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was taken by M.A. to the police station where she was detained for about an hour. There is no evidence that Ms Rantseva was informed of the reason for her detention; indeed, as the Court has noted above (see paragraph 297) there is no record that she was interviewed by the police at all during her time at the police station. Despite the fact that the police concluded that Ms Rantseva's immigration status was not irregular and that there were no grounds for her continued detention, she was not immediately released. Instead, at the request of the person in charge of the Aliens and Immigration Service (‘AIS’), the police telephoned M.A. and requested that he collect her and take her to the AIS office at 7 a.m. for further investigation. M.A. was advised that if he did not collect her, she would be allowed to leave. Ms Rantseva was detained at the police station until M.A.'s arrival, when she was released into his custody (see paragraph 20 above).

The facts surrounding Ms Rantseva's subsequent stay in M.P.'s apartment are unclear. In his witness statement to the police, M.A. denied that Ms Rantseva was held in the apartment against her will and insists that she was free to leave (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant alleges that Ms Rantseva was locked in the bedroom and was thus forced to attempt an escape via the balcony. The Court notes that Ms Rantseva died after falling from the balcony of the apartment in an apparent attempt to escape (see paragraph 41 above). It is reasonable to assume that had she been a guest in the apartment and was free to leave at any time, she would simply have left via the front door (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, §§ 76–78, ECHR 2005-V). Accordingly, the Court considers that Ms Rantseva did not remain in the apartment of her own free will.

In all, the alleged detention lasted about two hours. Although of short duration, the Court emphasises the serious nature and consequences of the detention and recalls that where the facts indicate a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1, the relatively short duration of the detention does not affect this conclusion (see Järvinen v. Finland, no. 30408/96, Commission decision of 15 January 1998; and Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47244/99, 4 November 2003, where the transportation to the police station, search and temporary confinement in a cell lasting around one hour was considered to constitute a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article 5).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the detention of Ms Rantseva at the police station and her subsequent transfer and confinement to the apartment amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention.

In so far as Ms Rantseva was detained by private individuals, the Court must examine the part played by the police officers and determine whether the deprivation of liberty in the apartment engaged the responsibility of the Cypriot authorities, in particular in light of their positive obligation to protect individuals from arbitrary detention (see Riera Blume, cited above, §§ 32–35).

The Court has already expressed concern that the police chose to hand Ms Rantseva into M.A.'s custody rather than simply allowing her to leave (see paragraph 298 above). Ms Rantseva was not a minor. According to the evidence of the police officers on duty, she displayed no signs of drunkenness (see paragraph 20 above). It is insufficient for the Cypriot authorities to argue that there is no evidence that Ms Rantseva did not consent to leaving with M.A.: as the AIRE Centre pointed out (see paragraph 269 above), victims of trafficking often suffer severe physical and psychological consequences which render them too traumatised to present themselves as victims. Similarly, in her 2003 report the Ombudsman noted that fear of repercussions and inadequate protection measures resulted in a limited number of complaints being made by victims to the Cypriot police (see paragraphs 87 to 88 above).

Taken in the context of the general living and working conditions of cabaret artistes in Cyprus, as well as in light of the particular circumstances of Ms Rantseva's case, the Court considers that it is not open to the police to claim that they were acting in good faith and that they bore no responsibility for Ms Rantseva's subsequent deprivation of liberty in M.P.'s apartment. It is clear that without the active cooperation of the Cypriot police in the present case, the deprivation of liberty could not have occurred. The Court therefore considers that the national authorities acquiesced in Ms Rantseva's loss of liberty.

It remains to be determined whether the deprivation of liberty fell within one of the categories of permitted detention exhaustively listed in Article 5 § 1. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 refers essentially to national law and lays down an obligation to comply with its substantive and procedural rules. It also requires, however, that any measure depriving the individual of his liberty must be compatible with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Riera Blume, cited above, § 31).

By laying down that any deprivation of liberty should be ‘in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’, Article 5 § 1 requires, first, that any arrest or detention should have a legal basis in domestic law. The Cypriot Government did not point to any legal basis for the deprivation of liberty but it can be inferred that Ms Rantseva's initial detention at the police station was effected in order to investigate whether she had failed to comply with immigration requirements. However, having ascertained that Ms Rantseva's name was not included on the relevant list, no explanation has been provided by the Cypriot authorities as to the reasons and legal basis for the decision not to allow Ms Rantseva to leave the police station but to release her into the custody of M.A.. As noted above, the police found that Ms Rantseva did not exhibit signs of drunkenness and did not pose any threat to herself or others (see paragraphs 20 and 320 above). There is no indication, and it has not been suggested, that Ms Rantseva requested that M.A. come to collect her. The decision of the police authorities to detain Ms Rantseva until M.A.'s arrival and, subsequently, to consign her to his custody had no basis in domestic law.

It has not been argued that Ms Rantseva's detention in the apartment was lawful. The Court finds that this deprivation of liberty was both arbitrary and unlawful.

The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of Ms Rantseva's unlawful and arbitrary detention.

The applicant highlighted the importance of the right of access to court in a democratic society. Such a right entailed an opportunity for an individual to have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which interfered with his rights. The applicant pointed out that there had been no trial in respect of his daughter's death. He further complained about the failure of the Cypriot authorities to ensure his effective participation in the inquest proceedings and to provide free legal assistance. Accordingly, he submitted, the Cypriot authorities had violated his right of access to court guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention.

In their written observations, the Cypriot Government submitted that Article 6 did not apply to inquest proceedings as they were not proceedings that determined civil rights and obligations. Accordingly, the applicant could not claim a right of access to the proceedings in respect of his daughter's death.

If, on the other hand, inquest proceedings did engage Article 6, the Cypriot Government contended that the applicant's right of access to court was ensured in the present case.

In their subsequent unilateral declaration (see paragraph 187 above), the Cypriot Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's right to an effective access to court by the failure of the Cypriot authorities to establish any real and effective communication between them and the applicant as regards the inquest and any other possible legal remedies available to the applicant.

The applicant sought EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the death of his daughter. He pointed to the serious nature of the alleged violations in the present case and the fact that his daughter was the sole provider for the family. He also highlighted the emotional anguish occasioned by his daughter's death and his subsequent efforts to bring those responsible to justice.

The Cypriot Government argued that the sum claimed was excessive, having regard to the Court's case-law. They further pointed out that the applicant had provided no evidence that he was financially dependent upon his daughter. In their unilateral declaration (see paragraph 187 above), they offered to pay the applicant EUR 37,300 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, or such other sum as suggested by the Court.

The Russian Government submitted that any non-pecuniary damages should be paid by the State which failed to ensure the safety of the applicant's daughter and failed to perform an effective investigation into her death. They noted that they were not the respondent State as far as the applicant's substantive Article 2 complaint was concerned.

The Court notes that a claim for loss of economic support is more appropriately considered as a claim for pecuniary loss. In this respect, the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, inter alia, Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 352, ECHR 2003-V (extracts)). In the present case the Court has not found Cyprus responsible for Mr Rantseva's death, holding that there was a procedural, and not a substantive, violation of Article 2 in the present case. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it appropriate to make any award to the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage arising from Ms Rantseva's death.

As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court has found that the Cypriot authorities failed to take steps to protect Ms Rantseva from trafficking and to investigate whether she had been trafficked. It has further found that the Cypriot authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into Ms Rantseva's death. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the applicant must be regarded as having suffered anguish and distress as a result of the unexplained circumstances of Ms Rantseva's death and the failure of the Cypriot authorities to take steps to protect her from trafficking and exploitation and to investigate effectively the circumstances of her arrival and stay in Cyprus. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the sum of EUR 40,000 in respect of the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the conduct of the Cypriot authorities, plus any tax that may be chargable on that amount.

The Court recalls that it has found a procedural violation of Article 4 in respect of Russia. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damage in respect of the damage sustained by him by the conduct of the Russian authorities, plus any tax that may be chargable on that amount.

The applicant requested reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the sum of around 485,480 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 11,240), including travel, photocopying, translation and services of a notary. The sum also included the sum of RUB 233,600 in respect of the sale of his home in Russia, which he claimed was necessary in order to obtain necessary funds; funeral costs in the sum of about RUB 46,310; and RUB 26,661 spent on attending a conference on trafficking in Cyprus in 2008. Relevant receipts were provided.

The Cypriot Government argued that the applicant could only claim for costs which were necessarily incurred to prevent or redress a breach of the Convention, reasonable as to quantum and causally linked to the violation in question. As such, they contested the applicant's claim of RUB 233,600 in respect of the sale of his flat, the sums expended on attending the 2008 conference and any costs and expenses not substantiated by receipts or not reasonable as to quantum.

The Russian Government contended that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegation that he was required to sell his flat and travel to Cyprus. In particular, they submitted that the applicant could have applied to relevant law enforcement authorities in Russia to request necessary documents and evidence from the Cypriot authorities and could have instructed a lawyer in Cyprus. The Russian Government also contested the applicant's claim for the costs of the 2008 conference on the ground that it was not directly linked to the investigation of Ms Rantseva's death.

The Court recalls that the applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the applicant is not entitled to claim the proceeds of the sale of his house or for the expenses of travelling to the conference in Cyprus in 2008, such conference not being directly linked to the investigation of Ms Rantseva's death. Further, the Court recalls that it found only a procedural breach of Article 2. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of funeral expenses.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 4,000 in respect of costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. In the circumstances of this case the Court considers it appropriate that the costs and expenses are awarded against Cyprus.