77. The applicant also submitted various news from the media published on the territory controlled by the regarding the judiciary “MRT” in the region. Some of these items refer to politically motivated persecution using the as a means of exerting pressure, or allege that the “courts” “MRT Supreme Court” is a court” of the President”. Others “puppet “MRT mention the appointment of new judges to the courts”, referring to “MRT the freshly appointed as having barely any experience, and citing “judges” examples such as that of a person who became a judge of the City “Tiraspol Court” at the age of 25, three years after graduating from the local university. THE LAW 78. The applicant complained, that he had been arrested and inter alia, detained unlawfully by the authorities. He further alleged that he “MRT” had not been given the requisite medical assistance for his condition, had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and had been prevented from seeing his parents and his pastor. He submitted that both Moldova and Russia had jurisdiction and were responsible for the alleged violations. I. GENERAL ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES 79. The Russian Government argued that the applicant did not come within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the application should be declared inadmissible and in respect of the ratione personae ratione loci Russian Federation. For their part, the Moldovan Government did not contest that the Republic of Moldova retained jurisdiction over the territory controlled by the but submitted that the applicant had failed to “MRT”, exhaust the remedies available to him in Moldova. The Court finds it appropriate, before examining the admissibility and merits of each complaint lodged by the applicant, to examine these two objections potentially affecting all of the complaints. A. Jurisdiction 80. The Court must first determine whether, for the purposes of the matters complained of, the applicant falls within the jurisdiction of either or both of the respondent States, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.
77. The applicant also submitted various news from the media published on the territory controlled by the “MRT” regarding the judiciary in the region. Some of these items refer to politically motivated persecution using the “courts” as a means of exerting pressure, or allege that the “MRT Supreme Court” is a “puppet court” of the “MRT President”. Others mention the appointment of new judges to the “MRT courts”, referring to the freshly appointed “judges” as having barely any experience, and citing examples such as that of a person who became a judge of the “Tiraspol City Court” at the age of 25, three years after graduating from the local university. THE LAW 78. The applicant complained, inter alia, that he had been arrested and detained unlawfully by the “MRT” authorities. He further alleged that he had not been given the requisite medical assistance for his condition, had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and had been prevented from seeing his parents and his pastor. He submitted that both Moldova and Russia had jurisdiction and were responsible for the alleged violations. I. GENERAL ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES 79. The Russian Government argued that the applicant did not come within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the application should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation. For their part, the Moldovan Government did not contest that the Republic of Moldova retained jurisdiction over the territory controlled by the “MRT”, but submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available to him in Moldova. The Court finds it appropriate, before examining the admissibility and merits of each complaint lodged by the applicant, to examine these two objections potentially affecting all of the complaints. A. Jurisdiction 80. The Court must first determine whether, for the purposes of the matters complained of, the applicant falls within the jurisdiction of either or both of the respondent States, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.
cazul-mozer-en.docx