diff --git "a/README.md" "b/README.md" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/README.md" @@ -0,0 +1,1368 @@ +--- +tags: +- sentence-transformers +- sentence-similarity +- feature-extraction +- generated_from_trainer +- dataset_size:12180 +- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss +base_model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased +widget: +- source_sentence: '9. On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court (oблacний + суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to death + and ordered the confiscation of his personal property. 10. On 22 February 1996 + the Supreme Court (Верхoвний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. + The applicant was transferred by the authorities responsible for the isolation + block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior + (Адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ) to + one of the cells intended for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence. + 11. A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 + March 1997. In judgment no. 11pп/99 of 29 December 1999, the Constitutional Court + of Ukraine held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death + penalty were contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution. As a result, death sentences + were commuted to life imprisonment by Law no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000. 12. On + 2 June 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court commuted the applicant’s death + sentence to life imprisonment. 13. The facts of the case concerning the conditions + of the applicant’s detention in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison and the events during his + time there are disputed. 14. The facts as presented by the applicant are set + out in paragraphs 17 to 23 below. The facts as presented by the Government are + set out in paragraphs 24 to 30. 15. A description of the material submitted to + the Commission and to the Court will be found in paragraphs 31 to 58 below. 16. The + Commission, in order to establish the facts in the light of the dispute over the + conditions of the applicant’s detention and the events which occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk + Prison, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) + of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of documents + submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions + and appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at a hearing conducted + at the Ministry of Justice in Kyiv on 23 and 26 November 1998, and in Ivano-Frankivsk + on 24 and 25 November 1998. The Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its + findings of fact are summarised in paragraphs 59 to 75 below. 17. On 12 December + 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of the murder + of four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal + property. After the first-instance judgment, he was placed in a separate cell. + He was not allowed to write to his family, nor could he be visited by his lawyer. + He applied several times for permission to meet his lawyer. 18. On 22 February + 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On a decision + of the authorities responsible for the isolation block of the Ministry of the + Interior, the applicant was transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting + execution of the death sentence. On 30 March 1996 the applicant’s lawyer applied + to see the applicant in order to give him the Supreme Court’s decision in the + case. The prison governor did not grant him permission to do so. 19. Conditions + of detention of persons sentenced to death were governed by the Pre-Trial Detention + Act 1993 (“the Act”) and by an instruction of 20 April 1998 (“the Instruction”), + whose content remained top secret. Under the terms of the Instruction, exercise + in the open air, watching television, buying newspapers and receiving food parcels + from relatives were prohibited. The Instruction therefore prevented the applicant + from enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Act. 20. In a reply by the deputy + head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior to a complaint + by the applicant’s father concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, + reference was made to the Instruction. Moreover, according to information received + by the applicant’s father from the deputy governor of the prison, it appeared + that the Act did not apply to him. Had the Act been applicable to the applicant, + he would have been entitled under sections 9(1) and 13 to take daily exercise + in the open air, to receive parcels twice a month and to watch television. However, + this was strictly prohibited between 1995 and 1998. Up to September 1997 the applicant + was also prohibited from sending and receiving letters. It was only then that + the deputy governor of the prison orally informed the applicant’s mother that + he could send and receive letters. Moreover, his father was refused permission + to visit him on 29 May 1995 and 10 June and 31 July 1996 without any explanation + from the prison authorities. From July 1996 onwards, instead of monthly visits + which would last up to two hours, the applicant’s father had been allowed to visit + the applicant only once every three months for not more than one hour. 21. As + regards visits from a priest, the applicant’s father and members of the clergy + repeatedly but unsuccessfully applied to the prison authorities and those responsible + for the isolation block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry + of the Interior for the applicant to be allowed to receive a visit from a priest. + 22. The applicant finally stated that he had complained several times about the + conditions in which he was being held. He had also unsuccessfully applied to the + prison authorities for permission to lodge an application with the European Commission + of Human Rights. 23. In a letter to the Commission of 6 March 1998, the applicant’s + father stated that on 4 March 1998 he had seen his son, who had told him about + a check-up carried out by a commission from the Ministry of the Interior in mid-February + 1998. After the commission had left, the applicant had been transferred to a cell + that was worse equipped and dirty. The window in the cell had been fully shuttered. + The bucket for flushing the toilet had been taken away and the toilet could not + therefore be cleaned properly, which had caused an unbearable smell. Moreover, + the applicant had been given only 25 cl of hot water to prepare tea and milk. + All his dishes had been removed. His Bible had been taken away. He had not been + allowed to read periodicals and his notebook and calendar had been confiscated. + 24. The Government stated that the legal status and conditions of detention of + persons sentenced to death were governed by the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. + Pursuant to section 8 of the Act, a person sentenced to death was kept in custody + away from other prisoners. The cell to which the applicant had been transferred + after his sentence had become final complied with the sanitary and hygiene rules + laid down in section 11 of the Act: the cell measured 9 sq. m and had a bed, a + table, a radio, sufficient natural and electric light, heating, running water + and a toilet. 25. The applicant was provided with three meals a day, standard + clothing and footwear as well as other articles of everyday use. Medical assistance, + treatment, prophylactic and anti-epidemic measures were arranged and implemented + in accordance with the legislation on health protection. 26. According to section + 12 of the Act, prior to the sentence being carried out, prisoners sentenced to + death were, as a rule, allowed visits from relatives and other persons not more + than once a month, by written permission of the court within whose jurisdiction + the case fell. The length of a visit was two hours maximum. After a case had been + dealt with by an appellate court, visits by lawyers and legal assistants could + be allowed by the head of the Central Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior, + the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior or his deputy + responsible for the isolation block. According to section 12 of the Act, visits + by defence counsel were allowed without any limits as to their number and length. + 27. On 13 December 1995, after the first-instance judgment, the applicant’s parents + and lawyer received permission to visit him. The parents visited the applicant + on 15 December 1995 and in January 1996. The applicant’s lawyer visited him on + 21 December 1995 and on 7 January 1996. During the period from 22 February 1996 + to 29 December 1997, the parents applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate + of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to visit the applicant on 24 February, + 4 March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 1 October, 18 November and 25 December 1996, + and on 3 and 20 June and 19 September 1997. They were granted permission for visits + on 24 February, 5 March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 4 October and 4 December 1996, + and on 4 March, 4 June, 4 September and 4 December 1997. 28. The applicant’s + lawyer applied for permission to visit the applicant on 25 April, 11 November, + and 18 and 19 December 1996. Permission was granted for a first visit on 7 May + 1996 and on the other occasions as requested. 29. Persons sentenced to death + were allowed to send an unlimited number of letters. During the period 1995-98 + the applicant sent thirty-one letters: twenty-four letters related to his criminal + case and seven letters were to his relatives. The applicant applied for the first + time to the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission + to send letters to his relatives on 17 September 1997. Thereafter he sent letters + to his parents on 19 and 26 November and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and + 30 January, 3 February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, + 15 September, 22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He received letters + from his parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December + 1997, and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23 February, 14 and 16 March, 17 April, + 14 May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July, 20 August, 29 September, 10, 22 and 27 October, + 4, 20, 26 and 30 November and 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 30. The Government + further submitted that the Prosecutor-General had conducted a thorough investigation + into the applicant’s and his parents’ complaints concerning the application of + illegal methods of investigation in the applicant’s case, namely torture and brutal + and inhuman treatment. The allegations had not been proved and had been found + unsubstantiated. In fact, complaints by the applicant, his parents, his representative + and his defence counsel were received on 11 March, 8 April, 13, 14 and 29 May, + 24 July, 11 September and 25 October 1996, and on 5 and 17 March, 19 May and 25 + July 1997, and answered on 20 and 23 March, 23 and 24 April, 23 May, 27 June, + 1 August, 30 September and 14 November 1996, and on 28 and 31 March and 20 May + 1997. On 31 July 1997 the exchange of letters and the proceedings concerning the + complaints filed by the applicant and his parents were terminated pursuant to + section 12 of the Act. 31. In a letter of 26 May 1998 the prison governor replied + to a complaint lodged by the applicant’s father on 10 May 1998 informing him that + persons sentenced to death were allowed to send twelve letters a year. He also + stated that the applicant was aware of his rights and obligations. 32. In a letter + of 10 August 1998 the Ivano-Frankivsk regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s + father that visits and correspondence of persons sentenced to death were governed + by the Instruction and not by the Act to which the applicant’s father had referred + in his complaint. 33. In a written complaint of 4 September 1998 addressed to + the regional prosecutor the applicant’s parents stated, inter alia, that they + had not seen the applicant for three months, that since 5 July 1998 they had not + received any letters from him, that on 2 September 1998 they had become aware + that the applicant had been beaten and humiliated, that Mr Ivashko, the deputy + governor of the prison, had intervened during their visit on 2 September 1998 + when the applicant had spoken about his conditions of detention, and that, for + a period of one year and six months, the applicant had been denied the possibility + of a visit from a priest, despite his requests. 34. In a letter of 10 September + 1998 the regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that the applicant’s + visits and correspondence were governed by the national legislation and that the + prison administration had acted within the limits of this legislation. 35. On + 10 September 1998 the Ivano-Frankivsk deputy regional prosecutor sent a report + to the Prosecutor-General. The report concerned the findings of the investigation + carried out following the complaint by the applicant’s father about allegedly + unlawful acts by the prison authorities in respect of the applicant’s correspondence + and visits. The report concluded that the investigation had not established any + violation of the applicant’s rights by the prison authorities. 36. On 11 September + 1998 the applicant’s father sent a complaint to Mr Shtanko, the head of the State + Department for the Execution of Sentences, to which the latter replied on 12 October + 1998. The allegations he raised were similar to those in his complaint to the + regional prosecutor of 4 September 1998. Mr Shtanko replied that the applicant + had been placed in solitary confinement because he had broken the rules. Furthermore, + an investigation had not established that any physical force had been used against + the applicant or that the prison authorities had humiliated him or restricted + his rights, as was confirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s father + was also informed that visits, including visits by a priest, could be allowed + by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. 37. On + 23 October 1998 the applicant’s parents submitted a request to the regional prosecutor, + the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior and the prison governor + that a commission of independent doctors be set up in order to examine the applicant’s + state of health. They alleged that the inmates of the prison had been tortured, + which resulted in a suicide attempt by one of them or an attempt on his life. + On 3 November 1998 the applicant’s parents were informed by the prison governor + that their request had been refused on the grounds that there had been no sign + of torture or of the use of any other physical violence against the applicant + and that his state of health was satisfactory. 38. On 23 and 24 October 1998 + the applicant’s parents sent a letter to Mrs Leni Fischer, then President of the + Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. They complained of torture inflicted + on the applicant and one of his fellow inmates, Mr Kuznetsov, which had resulted + in a suicide attempt by the latter, and alleged that they had been taken to hospital + and that Mr Kuznetsov had been paralysed. The parents further complained that + they had been prevented from seeing the applicant. 39. In a letter of 26 October + 1998 the applicant’s parents informed the Commission that “in establishment BI + 304/199 in Ivano-Frankivsk there [had] been an attempt to execute the unjustly + condemned M. Kuznetsov and B. Poltoratskiy illegally, and [that] the Government + [had] tried to conceal the fact”. 40. A handwritten medical report issued on + 28 October 1998 was signed by the applicant. The report stated that the applicant + did not show any signs of having been beaten and that his state of health was + satisfactory. 41. In a handwritten statement of 28 October 1998 the applicant + said that he had been treated properly by the prison authorities, that no physical + violence had been employed, that all disciplinary measures imposed on him had + been justified and that his parents’ complaints had not been substantiated. 42. The + Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of the Interior + issued a report on 29 October 1998 in response to the applicant’s father’s complaint + about alleged torture and his request for a commission of independent doctors + to examine the applicant’s state of health. The report stated that on 28 October + 1998 the applicant had been examined by the prison doctors who had found no signs + of physical injury. It also stated that the applicant denied that he had been + tortured. 43. In a letter of 30 October 1998 the deputy head of the Regional + Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s mother that + her complaint concerning torture to which the applicant had allegedly been subjected + had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated. A medical examination of the + applicant had not shown any signs of torture. Accordingly, there was no reason + to set up a medical commission to investigate the allegations. 44. A letter of + 2 November 1998 from the deputy regional prosecutor to the Prosecutor-General + reported on the findings of the investigation carried out in connection with the + applicant’s father’s complaint about restrictions on the applicant’s correspondence + and visits, the interference by the prison authorities during the applicant’s + parents’ visit on 2 September 1998 and the physical torture inflicted on the applicant. + The letter said that, as regards the restriction on the applicant’s correspondence + and visits, the father had wrongly relied on the Act, which did not apply to that + category of prisoners, that the interference by a prison official had been justified, + and that on 25 September 1998 the applicant had undergone a thorough medical examination + which had not established any physical injuries. Finally, it explained that the + applicant had been placed in solitary confinement on 26 August 1998 because he + had broken the prison rules by refusing to let himself be examined by a prison + warder upon his return from a daily walk outside the cell. 45. In a letter of + 20 November 1998 the deputy regional prosecutor replied to the applicant’s mother’s + complaint about the physical torture allegedly inflicted on the applicant and + to her request for a medical examination of the applicant. He stated that on 28 + October 1998 the applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established + that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The medical report had been confirmed + and signed by the applicant. 46. In a letter of 23 November 1998 the regional + prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that his allegations about illegal + acts on the part of the prison authorities had been found to be unsubstantiated. + 47. In a letter of 30 November 1998 the deputy head of the Regional Directorate + of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s representative, Mr Voskoboynikov, + that he could not be granted permission to visit the applicant as the latter had + already had a visit from his relatives that month. 48. In a letter of 8 December + 1998 from the State Department for the Execution of Sentences the applicant’s + father was informed that a thorough investigation had proved that his complaint + about an illegal attempt to execute his son was unsubstantiated and that his son’s + state of health was satisfactory. 49. On 22 December 1998 the applicant requested + permission from the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior + to see a priest. His request was granted and he saw a priest on 26 December 1998. + 50. In a letter of 15 February 1999 the prison governor informed the applicant’s + father that his complaint of 22 January 1999 had been examined. He stated that + persons sentenced to death were allowed to receive two parcels a year but no food + parcels. 51. In a decision of 5 March 1999 the Senior Prosecutor rejected a criminal + complaint by the applicant’s parents against the deputy regional prosecutor. He + refused to institute criminal proceedings against the latter on the ground that + there was no evidence of his having committed an offence. He stated, inter alia, + that the Act did not apply to the conditions of detention of death-row prisoners. + These were governed by the Instruction, which was covered by the rules on State + secrecy. 52. According to the prison records, the applicant’s parents applied + to visit the applicant on 19 September 1997, and on 4 March, 8 April, 19 June, + 22 July, 2 November and 1 December 1998. Permission was given on 7 October 1997, + and on 4 March, 22 April, 20 August, 17 November and 11 December 1998 for visits + which took place on 4 December 1997 and 4 March, 12 June, 2 September and 26 November + 1998 and on 4 January 1999. The request of 19 June 1998 was not granted. 53. According + to the prison records, the applicant sent letters to his parents on 17 September, + 19 and 26 November, and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January, 3 February, + 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15 September, 22 October, + 13 November and 11 December 1998. He received letters from them and other persons + on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December 1997, and on 16 + and 26 January (two letters), 6, 10, 17 and 23 February, 6, 14 and 16 March, 6, + 17, 20, 27 and 29 April, 14 May, 1, 8 and 30 June, 1, 20 and 30 July, 20 August + (two letters), 29 September, 10, 22 (two letters) and 27 October, 4, 13, 20, 26 + and 30 November, 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 54. In an undated document Mr Y.M. + Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block, declared that during the period + between 11 September 1997 and 18 December 1998, neither the applicant nor his + parents had asked for permission for the applicant to see a priest. He further + declared that during the said period no member of the clergy had asked for such + permission. He signed the declaration. 55. According to the applicant’s medical + card, the applicant was X-rayed and blood-tested on 23 April 1998. On 25 September, + 1 and 28 October, 9, 19 and 27 November, 3, 10, 17 and 24 December 1998 the applicant + was seen by a prison psychiatrist. 56. In a written request of 2 May 2000 to + the head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences + of the Ministry of the Interior, Mr Boyko, the applicant’s father, in his capacity + as his legal representative, asked for a confidential meeting with the applicant + in order to discuss issues concerning his application pending before the European + Court of Human Rights. On 23 May 2000, following a further request lodged on 15 + May 2000, he was granted permission for a normal visit on 5 June 2000. 57. On + 16 May 2000 the applicant’s father complained to the Deputy Minister of the Interior + that his request of 2 May 2000 for a confidential meeting had remained unanswered. + 58. In a letter of 14 July 2000 the deputy head of the State Department for the + Execution of Sentences, Mr V.A. Lyovochkin, replied that Mr Boyko had given the + applicant’s father permission to visit the applicant on 5 June 2000 and that the + visit had taken place as scheduled. He added that in accordance with Article 40 + of the Correctional Labour Code, a lawyer could be given permission for a confidential + meeting with his client on presentation of his licence and identity card. 59. Since + the facts of the case were disputed, the Commission conducted an investigation, + with the assistance of the parties, and took oral evidence from the following + witnesses: the applicant; the applicant’s parents; Mr Bronislav S. Stichinskiy, + Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr Drishchenko, Deputy Prosecutor-General; Mr Ivan + V. Shtanko, Deputy Minister of the Interior; Mr Petro A. Yaremkiv, the governor + of Ivano-Frankivsk Prison; Mr Bogdan V. Kachur, prison doctor; Mr Stanislav V. + Prokhnitskiy, medical assistant; Mr Yuriy M. Pindus, assistant to the prison governor, + who was on duty on 3 September 1998; Mr Fedir O. Savchuk, assistant to the prison + governor, who was on duty during the night of 2 to 3 September 1998; Mr Igor P. + Ivashko, the deputy governor of the prison; Mr Yaroslav M. Pavlyuk, the deputy + head of the isolation block; Mr Valentin M. Nabiulin, the head of the Department + for Supervision of Isolation Blocks and Prisons of the Directorate for the Execution + of Sentences; Mr Oleksand V. Kmyta, the deputy head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional + Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior; and Mr Anatoliy O. Boyko, the head + of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences of the + Ministry of the Interior. + + The Commission’s findings may be summarised as follows. 60. The applicant gave + evidence before the delegates that he had been beaten on 2 September 1998 after + the visit from his parents on the same day. During that visit, he had said to + his parents that he had been beaten and called a beast. The applicant’s parents + stated before the delegates that they had been told by their son on 2 September + 1998 that he had been beaten and humiliated. The Commission observed, however, + that the applicant denied before the delegates that he had been beaten before + 2 September 1998. It considered, therefore, that it had not been established that + the applicant had been beaten before 2 September 1998. 61. As to the events on + 2 September 1998, the applicant stated before the delegates that, after the visit + from his parents on that date, he had been taken to the “cinema room” where four + persons, including Mr Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block on duty, + were waiting for him with clubs. He had been asked three times to tell everything, + but had refused and had been struck on his legs, hips, back and chest. He had + returned to his cell and had written until the morning on four sheets of paper + which had been included in a file. 62. The applicant further stated that he had + been beaten on 10, 14 and 22 September 1998. One day, during a technical search + of his cell, he had been taken out and ordered to get undressed so that his clothes + could be checked. When he was naked, he had been beaten. He had been ordered to + lie down on the floor with his face to the ground and his hands behind his head. + He mentioned the name of K.Y. Hrevnin to the delegates. 63. The Commission considered + that the applicant’s account contained a number of details and elements which + it would not have expected to find in a fabricated story. It noted, however, that + there was no record of any occurrence connected to the ill-treatment described + by the applicant. The Commission accepted that the applicant may have been afraid + to complain or to write to anyone, as he said. However, it accepted this argument + with difficulty, having regard to the fact that he had not been scared when he + had told his parents on 2 September 1998 that he had been beaten. Moreover, the + prison psychiatrist saw him on 25 September 1998 and had not recorded any problems + regarding his state of health or any injuries. The Commission added that the medical + report of 28 October 1998, which the applicant had signed, concluded that he did + not show any signs of having been beaten and that his state of health was satisfactory. + 64. The Commission further noted that the applicant had signed a written statement + on 28 October 1998 to the effect that he had been treated properly by the prison + authorities, that no physical violence had been used against him, that all disciplinary + measures imposed on him had been justified and that his parents’ complaints had + not been substantiated. It took into account the fact that, before the delegates, + the applicant had denied the contents of his statement, and pointed out that the + practice of the prison authorities to require an inmate to confirm in writing + that he had been treated properly by prison officers gave rise to suspicion. 65. As + to the applicant’s parents’ submission before the delegates that, after the alleged + beatings and torture on 2 September 1998, he had been transferred to Chukopovskiy + Psycho-Neurological Hospital early in the morning of 3 September 1998 and had + been placed in the intensive care unit where he had been given a blood transfusion, + the Commission observed that, although the applicant had maintained that he had + been beaten after his parents’ visit on 2 September 1998, he had denied that he + had been transferred to hospital. This was corroborated by the statements of the + prison doctor, the medical assistant, the governor’s assistant on duty at the + time and the deputy governor, all of whom had been heard by the delegates. In + addition, there was no documentary evidence proving that the applicant had been + taken to hospital on the aforesaid date. The Commission did not consider the parents’ + evidence on this point convincing or reliable. 66. The Commission found that + there was no medical or other material evidence establishing that the applicant + had sustained injury as a result of ill-treatment by prison officers in Ivano-Frankivsk + Prison, as he had alleged. It had regard to the fact that the applicant had denied + that he had been beaten before 2 September 1998 and had been transferred to hospital + after that date, and that the absence of any use of force by prison officers on + 2, 10, 14 and 22 September 1998 had been supported by the oral statements of the + witnesses heard by its delegates. The Commission therefore found it impossible + to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant had been subjected to + ill-treatment in prison as he had alleged. 67. The applicant’s parents sent a + complaint to the regional prosecutor on 4 September 1998, claiming, inter alia, + that they had become aware that the applicant had been beaten and humiliated by + prison officers. They made similar allegations to the head of the State Department + for the Execution of Sentences on 11 September 1998. On 12 October 1998 the latter + informed the applicant’s father that the investigation had not established that + any physical force had been used against his son or that the prison authorities + had humiliated him or restricted his rights. He also stated that this finding + had been confirmed in writing by the applicant himself. 68. On 23 October 1998 + the applicant’s parents requested the regional prosecutor, the Regional Directorate + of the Ministry of the Interior and the prison governor to set up an independent + medical commission in order to examine the applicant’s state of health. They alleged + that the prison’s inmates had been tortured, resulting in a suicide attempt by + one of them, Mr Kuznetsov, or in an attempt on his life. On 30 October 1998 the + applicant’s mother was informed by the deputy head of the Regional Directorate + of the Ministry of the Interior that her complaint concerning the alleged torture + of the applicant had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated and a medical + examination of the applicant had not revealed any signs of torture. There was, + accordingly, no reason to set up a medical commission to investigate her allegations. + On 3 November 1998 the prison governor informed the applicant’s parents that their + request had been refused on the grounds that there was no sign of torture or the + use of any other form of physical violence against the applicant and that his + state of health was satisfactory. In a letter of 20 November 1998 to the applicant’s + parents, the deputy regional prosecutor confirmed that on 28 October 1998 the + applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established that the parents’ + allegations were unsubstantiated. Moreover, on 2 November 1998 the deputy regional + prosecutor sent a letter to the Prosecutor-General which reported on the results + of the investigation carried out in connection with, inter alia, the allegations + that the applicant had been physically tortured. The letter confirmed that on + 25 September 1998 the applicant had undergone a thorough medical examination which + had not revealed any physical injury. 69. The Commission noted that on 8 December + 1998 the applicant’s father had received a letter from the State Department for + the Execution of Sentences stating that a thorough investigation had proved that + his complaint about an attempt to execute his son was unsubstantiated and that + the latter’s state of health was satisfactory. The domestic investigation had + then ended on 5 March 1999 with a decision by the Senior Prosecutor on the applicant’s + parents’ criminal complaint against the regional prosecutor. The Senior Prosecutor + had refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that no criminal offence + had been established. 70. The Commission found that there were no contemporaneous + records giving details of any investigation which the domestic authorities had + carried out into the applicant’s parents’ allegations of the events in September + 1998. It had not seen a single document proving that an investigation had been + carried out by any domestic authorities other than those directly involved in + the facts of which the applicant’s parents complained. Moreover, the medical report + of 28 October 1998 had been drafted almost two months after the applicant’s alleged + ill-treatment and the applicant had not been seen by the prison doctor or prison + psychiatrist between 23 April and 25 September 1998. 71. The Commission found + that the eight death-row inmates at Ivano-Frankivsk Prison, including the applicant, + were being kept in single cells without the opportunity to communicate with other + inmates. The applicant’s cell measured 2 x 5 x 3 m. There was an open toilet, + a washbasin with a cold-water tap, two beds, a table and a little bench, both + fixed to the floor, central heating and a window with bars. The applicant had + some books, newspapers, a chess set, a stock of soap and toilet paper, some fruit + and other food. During the delegates’ visit on 24 and 25 November 1998, the cell + had been overheated, particularly in comparison with other rooms in the prison. + The light was on twenty-four hours a day and the central radio was switched off + at night. The inmates were frequently observed by prison warders through a spy + hole in the door of the cell, which deprived them of any kind of privacy. The + cell was freshly painted, from which the inference might be drawn that conditions + had been worse prior to the delegates’ visit. The Commission accepted the applicant’s + evidence that between 24 February and 24 March 1998 there had been no tap or washbasin + in his cell, but only a small pipe on the wall near the toilet, that the water + supply could only be turned on from the corridor, that the walls were covered + with faeces and that the bucket for flushing the toilet had been taken away. The + Commission found the applicant’s evidence – which was not contested by the Government + – persuasive. 72. The Commission also accepted the applicant’s evidence that, + until May 1998, the window in his cell had been shuttered and that he had not + been allowed to take daily outdoor walks. 73. Concerning the applicant’s parents’ + requests to visit him, the Commission found that, apart from the parents’ request + of 19 June 1998, all had been granted. The parents had applied to visit their + son on 19 September 1997 and on 4 March, 8 April, 22 July, 2 November and 1 December + 1998. Permission had been given on 7 October 1997 and on 4 March, 22 April, 20 + August, 17 November and 11 December 1998 for visits which had taken place on 4 + December 1997 and 4 March, 12 June, 2 September and 26 November 1998 and 4 January + 1999. The Commission noted that the parents’ requests to visit the applicant had + mostly been granted for a date two or three months after the request had been + made. Moreover, two warders had been present during the visits, who were authorised + to interrupt the conversation if they considered that the parents or the applicant + had said anything “untrue”. 74. Regarding the applicant’s correspondence, the + Commission noted that the applicant had applied for the first time to the Regional + Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to send a letter to + his relatives on 17 September 1997. Thereafter he had sent letters to his parents + on 19 and 26 November 1997, 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January, + 3 February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15 September, + 22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He had received letters from his + parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December 1997, + and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23 February, 14 and 16 March, 17 April, 14 + May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July, 20 August, 29 September, 10, 22 and 27 October, + 4, 20, 26 and 30 November and 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 75. The Commission + could not establish with sufficient clarity whether the applicant or his parents + had asked for permission for a priest to come to see the applicant. It nevertheless + found that while the applicant had seen a priest on 26 December 1998 following + his request of 22 December 1998, there had been no regular visits to inmates by + any chaplain.' + sentences: + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right + to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to + change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others + and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, + practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall + be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary + in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection + of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms + of others. 11 + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 +- source_sentence: 4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Krems (Austria). + He is a practising lawyer by profession. 5. On 18 June 1993 a colleague, Mr + P., laid a disciplinary information against the applicant alleging that he had + infringed the profession’s honour and reputation in the context of administrative + criminal proceedings relating to traffic offences. He was suspected of having + misbehaved towards intervening police officers during a traffic control by threatening + them with job-related troubles in case they charged him with traffic offences. + Subsequently, on 10 September 1993 the Disciplinary Council of the Lower Austrian + Bar Chamber (Disziplinarrat der Niederösterreichischen Rechtsanwaltskammer), upon + request of the Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor (Kammeranwalt), appointed an Investigating + Commissioner (Untersuchungskommissär). 6. On 16 September 1993 the Investigating + Commissioner informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings against him + were opened and requested him to file observations as regards the charges against + him. 7. On 4 October 1993 the applicant complied with this request. 8. On 13 + June 1994 the Investigating Commissioner submitted a report to the Disciplinary + Council. 9. On 7 October 1994 the Disciplinary Council discontinued the proceedings + against the applicant. The Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor filed an appeal against this + decision. 10. On 15 December 1994 the applicant submitted his observations on + the appeal. 11. On 20 February 1995 the Appeals Board (Oberste Berufungs- und + Disziplinarkommission) allowed the Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor’s appeal and remitted + the case to the Disciplinary Council. 12. In August 1995, after the case had + been taken over by another Investigating Commissioner, the latter agreed with + the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) to question the + police officers involved in the traffic control at issue by way of letters rogatory. + On 3 November 1995 he filed letters rogatory with the Donaustadt District Court + (Bezirksgericht) which were subsequently transferred to the Josefstadt District + Court. 13. On 13 December 1995 the two police officers were questioned by the + Josefstadt District Court. 14. On 8 February 1996 the Investigating Commissioner + submitted his report to the Disciplinary Council. 15. On 3 June 1996 the Disciplinary + Council, upon the Investigating Commissioner’s report, decided to open the main + proceedings. This decision was served on the applicant on 31 July 1996. 16. On + 30 August 1996 the applicant filed his observations. 17. On 20 September 1996 + the Disciplinary Council fixed a hearing for 14 October 1996 and summoned the + applicant, his spouse and the two police officers. As the applicant’s spouse and + one police officers submitted that they could not appear at that date, the hearing + was cancelled. 18. On 24 February 1997 the Constitutional Court, in proceedings + unrelated to the present one’s, issued a decision concerning the composition of + the Disciplinary Council. On 15 May 1997, after an internal discussion of the + consequences of the Constitutional Court’s decision for the proceedings at issue, + Mr F was appointed as new chairman of the Disciplinary Council. 19. On 17 September + 1997 the Disciplinary Council fixed a hearing for 6 October 1997. The applicant’s + spouse and the two police officers submitted that they could not appear at that + date. 20. On 19 September 1997 the applicant filed observations and challenged + the chairman and another member of the Disciplinary Council for bias. 21. On + 23 September 1997 a new chairman was appointed. 22. On 6 October 1997 the Disciplinary + Council held a hearing. The applicant requested to summon his spouse for the next + hearing. The Disciplinary Council adjourned the case and decided to obtain the + file concerning the administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant. + 23. On 9 February 1998 the Disciplinary Council requested the Vienna Federal + Police Directorate to submit the file concerning the administrative criminal proceedings + against the applicant. 24. On 5 August 1998, since the file at issue had meanwhile + been transmitted to an other administrative authority, the Disciplinary Council + filed a new request to submit the file. 25. On 6 August 1998 the Disciplinary + Council fixed a hearing for 14 September 1998. The applicant again challenged + a member of the Disciplinary Council for bias. 26. On 14 September 1998 the Disciplinary + Council held a hearing. The only witness heard was one of the two police officers, + the other witnesses and the applicant submitted that they were not able to appear. + 27. On 14 October 1998 the Disciplinary Council fixed another hearing for 9 November + 1998. The applicant again challenged two members of the Disciplinary Council for + bias and submitted that he was prevented from appearing. 28. On 9 November 1998 + the Disciplinary Council held a hearing and convicted the applicant under section + 10 § 2 of the Lawyers Act. It found that he had misbehaved towards intervening + police officers during a traffic control by threatening them with job-related + troubles in case they charged him with traffic offences. The applicant had thereby + infringed the profession’s honour and reputation. The Disciplinary Council ordered + him to pay an additional fine of ATS 10,000 as he had already been ordered to + pay ATS 25,000 in four other sets of disciplinary proceedings. 29. On 15 December + 1998 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision and on 11 January 1999 + the Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor submitted his observations in reply. 30. On 14 June + 1999 the Appeals Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 31. On 30 September + 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). + He complained, inter alia, about the length of the proceedings and claimed that + the disciplinary authorities had failed to take the excessive length of the proceedings + into account as a mitigating circumstance. 32. On 29 February 2000 the Constitutional + Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. This decision was served on the applicant + on 6 April 2000. + sentences: + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as + set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before + a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by + persons acting in an official capacity. +- source_sentence: 5. The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bogoria, Poland. + 6. On 5 July 1974 the applicant’s husband filed with the Staszów District Court + (sąd rejonowy) an action in which he sought a declaration that he and other relatives + inherited the property of his late father. 7. On 30 November 1977 the court issued + the relevant decision. Some of the participants in the proceedings lodged an appeal + against it. 8. On 14 April 1978 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) + amended that decision in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. 9. On + 21 December 1981 the applicant filed with the Staszów District Court a petition + in which she requested the division of the inherited property. 10. On 27 August + 1992 the court issued a partial decision. The applicant appealed it. 11. On 24 + June 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the + case for re-examination. 12. On 15 June 1994 the applicant challenged participation + in the proceedings of all the judges from the Staszów District Court. 13. On + 7 October 1994 the Regional Court dismissed that challenge. She appealed against + that decision. 14. On 14 November 1994 the President of the Regional Court, in + reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, + wrote a letter informing her that the case was very complex and that she contributed + to the delay by her numerous petitions. 15. On 24 February 1995 the Rzeszów Court + of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) amended the Regional Court’s decision of 7 October + 1994 in that it excluded four judges from participation in the proceedings. 16. On + 29 May 1995 the District Court held a hearing. It stayed the proceedings, because + three participants had died. The court ordered the applicant to provide information + concerning their legal successors. 17. On 11 December 1995 the court refused + the applicant’s request to have the proceedings resumed. It noted that she had + failed to provide the addresses of the heirs of one of the participants in the + proceedings and submitted only that they lived in the United States. 18. On 12 + July 1996 the District Court refused the applicant’s subsequent request in this + respect. It relied, inter alia, on the fact that she had failed to specify whether + the persons concerned had Polish or American nationality, which made it impossible + for the court to serve summonses on them. The applicant appealed that decision. + 19. On 7 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the appealed decision and ordered + its re-examination by the District Court. 20. On 7 April 1998 the District Court + resumed the proceedings. On the same date it decided to appoint a guardian ad + litem for absent participants in the proceedings and announce that fact in a newspaper. + 21. On 22 September 1998 the President of the District Court informed the applicant + that the newspaper which the court had requested to publish the announcement had + not replied. The President resolved to undertake necessary steps in order to ensure + a more expeditious examination of the case. 22. On 22 June 1999 the Regional + Court excluded a judge from participation in the proceedings and transferred the + case to the Opatów District Court. 23. On 29 September 1999 four judges from + the latter court requested to be excluded from participation in the proceedings + due to their personal relations with one of the participants. 24. On 28 July + 2000 the applicant was ordered to submit certain pleadings and provide information + about the nationality of the participants residing in the United States. In reply, + she submitted that she did not know whether they had a Polish nationality. 25. In + August 2000 the District Court summoned the applicant to make an advance payment + to cover the costs of translating letters rogatory and sending them to the United + States. In reply, the applicant stated that the participants residing there spoke + fluent Polish and thus translation was not necessary. 26. On 28 September 2000 + the court stayed the proceedings, relying on the applicant’s failure to comply + with its order. 27. On 26 February 2001 the applicant requested that the proceedings + be resumed and submitted a letter from the Polish consulate in Chicago, from which + it transpired that the persons concerned had not renounced their Polish nationality. + 28. On 16 March 2001 the court refused that request. The applicant appealed. + 29. On 17 July 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court transferred the appeal against + that decision to the Kielce Regional Court. 30. On 24 October 2001 the latter + court rejected the appeal. 31. On 25 January 2002 the Opatów District Court once + again refused to resume the proceedings. 32. On 8 February 2002 the applicant + appealed against that decision. 33. The proceedings are still pending. + sentences: + - ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. + This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information + and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. + This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, + television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it + carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, + conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary + in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity + or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection + of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, + for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining + the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms + set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground + such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national + or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other + status. +- source_sentence: "9. The applicants, Dirk Venema, Wubbechien Venema-Huiting and\ + \ Kimberly Venema, are Netherlands nationals and live in Alphen aan den Rijn,\ + \ in the Netherlands. 10. Mr Dirk Venema and Mrs Wubbechien Venema-Huiting, who\ + \ were born in 1964 and 1967 respectively, are the parents of Kimberly Venema.\ + \ Kimberly was born on 14 February 1994. 11. From May 1994 onwards Mr and Mrs\ + \ Venema became aware that Kimberly's breathing sometimes stopped and her heart\ + \ raced. This led them to seek medical advice from, inter alios, doctors practising\ + \ at Leiden University Hospital. Kimberly was taken into hospital for two periods,\ + \ of fourteen days and six days respectively, in the course of July and August\ + \ 1994. 12. The doctors found nothing physically wrong with Kimberly. They began\ + \ to suspect that Kimberly was healthy but that Mrs Venema might be suffering\ + \ from a psychological disturbance known as the Munchausen syndrome by proxy.\ + \ 13. The Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a condition in which a parent of a\ + \ young child, nearly always the mother, driven by a need of her own for attention,\ + \ seeks superfluous medical assistance for her child. The parent may invent a\ + \ disease or even cause the symptoms. In certain cases, for example if the child's\ + \ breathing is interfered with, the child's life may be in danger. 14. At around\ + \ this time Kimberly was referred to Curium, a children's psychiatric clinic in\ + \ Oegstgeest, near Leiden. 15. In August 1994 the Leiden University Hospital\ + \ doctors made their fears known to the Child Welfare Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming).\ + \ The Government state that the identity of the applicants was not revealed to\ + \ the Child Welfare Board at this time. The Child Welfare Board advised the doctors\ + \ to provide adequate medical care and discuss their fears with the child's parents.\ + \ The Venema family was kept under medical observation but the doctors did not\ + \ discuss their suspicions with Mr and Mrs Venema. 16. On 1 December 1994 the\ + \ Child Abuse Medical Counselling Centre (Bureau Vertrouwensarts inzake Kindermishandeling)\ + \ in The Hague telephoned the Child Welfare Board. A doctor connected with this\ + \ centre stated – according to the Government, still without naming the applicants\ + \ – that it was suspected that Mrs Venema was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome\ + \ by proxy. In spite of the medical care provided, the situation had not improved.\ + \ The question arose whether to intervene. It was agreed that the Child Abuse\ + \ Medical Counselling Centre doctor would obtain more information with a view\ + \ to informing the Child Welfare Board. It is not recorded that the doctor did\ + \ so. 17. Kimberly was again taken into hospital on 14 December 1994, following\ + \ an incident two days earlier. 18. A meeting took place on 20 December 1994\ + \ to discuss the case of Kimberly. Those taking part included the director of\ + \ Curium, four doctors and two nurses connected with Leiden University Hospital,\ + \ the doctor connected with the Child Abuse Medical Counselling Centre, the Venema\ + \ family's general practitioner, the deputy unit head of the Child Welfare Board\ + \ and a specialised family help worker (gezinsverzorger). It was decided that\ + \ Leiden University Hospital and Curium would jointly submit a report to the Child\ + \ Welfare Board. Mr and Mrs Venema were neither involved nor informed. 19. It\ + \ would appear that it was only during this meeting that the identity of the applicants\ + \ was communicated to the Child Welfare Board. 20. On 2 January 1995 the Child\ + \ Welfare Board was provided by Curium with a first version of this report (hereinafter\ + \ “the Curium/Leiden University Hospital report”). In response to questions received\ + \ from the Child Welfare Board, the reporting parties made additions to it. 21.\ + \ On 3 January 1995 Curium sent the revised version of the report to the Child\ + \ Welfare Board. The report stated that they believed Kimberly's life to be at\ + \ risk and that urgent action was required. It expressed the opinion that it was\ + \ not possible to discuss the matter with Mr and Mrs Venema, there being a danger\ + \ that they might react unpredictably. According to the Government, the Child\ + \ Welfare Board received the report on the following day. 22. On 4 January 1995\ + \ the Child Welfare Board applied by fax to the juvenile judge (Kinderrechter)\ + \ of the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague for a supervision\ + \ order (ondertoezichtstelling) and an order for Kimberly to be placed away from\ + \ her family (uithuisplaatsing). The same day the juvenile judge issued a provisional\ + \ supervision order (voorlopige ondertoezichtstelling), valid until 11 January\ + \ 1995, pending a decision of a more permanent nature, at the same time ordering\ + \ Kimberly to be placed away from her family. The juvenile judge did not hear\ + \ Mr and Mrs Venema before coming to this decision. She scheduled a hearing for\ + \ 10 January 1995. 23. The Government state that the Child Welfare Board wrote\ + \ to Mr and Mrs Venema on 5 January 1995, enclosing with their letter the application\ + \ for a provisional supervision order, the Curium/Leiden University Hospital report\ + \ and several articles on the Munchausen syndrome by proxy. 24. The applicants\ + \ state that they did not at any time receive either the letter of 5 January 1995\ + \ or any of the other documents mentioned. The Government appear to dispute this.\ + \ 25. On 6 January 1995 Mr and Mrs Venema arrived at Leiden University Hospital\ + \ intending to collect Kimberly and take her home with them. It was then that\ + \ they learnt of the juvenile judge's decisions of 4 January 1995. They were not\ + \ allowed to see Kimberly. 26. Also on 6 January 1995 the juvenile judge issued\ + \ an order, again without hearing Mr and Mrs Venema, for Kimberly to be taken\ + \ to a foster home, the name and address of which was withheld from Mr and Mrs\ + \ Venema. This order was carried out the same day. 27. Again on 6 January 1995\ + \ two of the doctors from Leiden University Hospital – a paediatrician and a child\ + \ psychiatrist – and the investigating officer of the Child Welfare Board met\ + \ with Mr and Mrs Venema to discuss the Curium/Leiden University Hospital report,\ + \ the implications of a provisional supervision order and Kimberly's placement\ + \ away from her family. 28. On 10 January 1995 the juvenile judge heard Mr and\ + \ Mrs Venema in camera. Mr and Mrs Venema were assisted by a lawyer. A representative\ + \ of the Child Welfare Board was also present. At the close of the hearing the\ + \ juvenile judge decided that, given the expert opinions to the effect that Kimberly's\ + \ life appeared to be in danger, the provisional supervision order would have\ + \ to remain in force but that a second opinion would be obtained as soon as possible\ + \ from a psychiatrist and a child psychiatrist. 29. It can be inferred from the\ + \ case file that Mr and Mrs Venema were allowed to see Kimberly once every two\ + \ weeks under an access arrangement, but no copy of the access order has been\ + \ submitted. 30. The order of 6 January 1995 was transmitted to Mr and Mrs Venema\ + \ on 20 January 1995. 31. The psychiatrist's report was dated 27 January 1995.\ + \ It concluded that there were no indications that Mr and Mrs Venema posed any\ + \ danger to Kimberly. However, a paragraph which the psychiatrist added to this\ + \ report on 3 February 1995, after discussions by telephone with the Child Welfare\ + \ Board, stated that it “[could] not be entirely ruled out” that Mrs Venema was\ + \ suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and recommended further examination.\ + \ 32. The Child Welfare Board sent the psychiatrist's report to Curium and Leiden\ + \ University Hospital. Curium let it be known in response that it saw no reason\ + \ to reconsider its point of view. 33. Mr and Mrs Venema appealed to the Court\ + \ of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague on 9 February 1995 against the placement\ + \ order. 34. Mr and Mrs Venema submitted written statements made by their general\ + \ practitioner (dated 8 February 1995) and Mrs Venema's gynaecologist (dated 9\ + \ February 1995). These criticised the quality of the reporting by Curium and\ + \ the Leiden University Hospital doctors and expressed doubts as to the validity\ + \ of their diagnosis. They also noted that Mrs Venema had not shown any tendency\ + \ to seek superfluous or clearly unnecessary medical attention. 35. Mr and Mrs\ + \ Venema also submitted separate statements of three different psychiatrists (dated\ + \ 17, 21 and 22 February 1995), including two university professors, who had examined\ + \ them at their request. All were extremely critical of the diagnosis made by\ + \ the Leiden University Hospital doctors. They concluded that Kimberly would be\ + \ in no apparent danger if she were returned to her parents and recommended that\ + \ this be done. 36. The child psychiatrist, from whom an opinion was to be obtained\ + \ pursuant to the order made by the juvenile judge on 10 January 1995, was approached\ + \ by the Child Welfare Board on 16 February 1995. 37. On 25 February 1995 the\ + \ Leiden University Hospital doctors elaborated on the reasons for their suspicions\ + \ as set out in their report of 3 January to the Child Welfare Board. 38. A second\ + \ child, Jonathan, was born to Mr and Mrs Venema on 28 February 1995. The Child\ + \ Welfare Board, aware that Mrs Venema was due to give birth, had on 14 February\ + \ 1995 applied for a provisional supervision order aimed at the protection of\ + \ the second child immediately after the birth, but had withdrawn this application\ + \ on 16 February 1995. 39. The Court of Appeal held a hearing on 1 March 1995.\ + \ 40. On 15 March 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that\ + \ the Child Welfare Board had had sufficient reason to approach the juvenile judge\ + \ as it had done, and that the juvenile judge had had sufficient reason to make\ + \ the orders in question. It would have been preferable, even so, to have involved\ + \ the parents in the decision-making process beforehand, or at least at an earlier\ + \ stage. As matters stood, the experts disagreed amongst themselves. Given the\ + \ likelihood that the examinations ordered by the juvenile judge would be brought\ + \ to a conclusion shortly and that the juvenile judge would rescind the placement\ + \ order immediately if the outcome was favourable to Mr and Mrs Venema, the Court\ + \ of Appeal decided to confirm the decision of the juvenile judge. 41. On 30\ + \ March 1995 the juvenile judge gave a decision prolonging Kimberly's placement\ + \ away from her family until 6 May 1995. Mr and Mrs Venema appealed. 42. It appears\ + \ that around 10 April 1995 the access arrangement was modified in that Mr and\ + \ Mrs Venema were then allowed to see Kimberly once every week instead of once\ + \ a fortnight. The Government state that the initiative for this change was taken\ + \ by the juvenile judge. 43. Mr and Mrs Venema lodged an appeal on points of\ + \ law (cassatieberoep) against the Court of Appeal's decision of 15 March 1995\ + \ with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) on 24 April 1995. 44. On 2 May 1995 the\ + \ juvenile judge made an order prolonging Kimberly's placement away from her family\ + \ until 23 May 1995. Mr and Mrs Venema appealed, complaining among other things\ + \ that the juvenile judge had not heard them before reaching this decision. On\ + \ 12 May 1995, after holding a hearing, the Court of Appeal gave a decision confirming\ + \ the juvenile judge's order. It held that although the juvenile judge had erred\ + \ in not hearing Mr and Mrs Venema, this error was sufficiently remedied by the\ + \ appeal hearing. As to the merits of the case, the Court of Appeal agreed that\ + \ the opinion of the child psychiatrist appointed as an expert pursuant to the\ + \ order of the juvenile judge was slow in coming but considered nonetheless that\ + \ the potential danger to Kimberly's life outweighed any disadvantages of Kimberly's\ + \ placement away from her family. On the same day the Court of Appeal, by a separate\ + \ decision, declared Mr and Mrs Venema's appeal against the decision of 30 March\ + \ 1995, which had prolonged the placement order until 6 May, inadmissible because\ + \ by then it had become devoid of purpose. 45. The child psychiatrist submitted\ + \ his opinion on 19 May 1995. It contained extensive reports of medical and other\ + \ examinations and discussions with the applicants, character witnesses and doctors\ + \ who had treated Kimberly on several occasions after she had stopped breathing.\ + \ Appended to the opinion were psychiatric reports in standard form on Mr and\ + \ Mrs Venema, finding no sign of any psychiatric disorder, and a report by two\ + \ Rotterdam University Hospital paediatricians finding a physical explanation\ + \ for Kimberly's arrested breathing but no sign of maltreatment. The opinion noted\ + \ that Kimberly's normal development had been impaired by the proceedings and\ + \ that Mr and Mrs Venema had found the entire sequence of events profoundly distressing.\ + \ It concluded without reservation that Kimberly should be handed back to her\ + \ parents. 46. On 22 May 1995, following a hearing in camera, the juvenile judge\ + \ rescinded the provisional supervision order and the placement order, at the\ + \ same time refusing to replace the provisional supervision order with a permanent\ + \ one. Kimberly was handed back to Mr and Mrs Venema. 47. The Supreme Court not\ + \ yet having given judgment, Mr and Mrs Venema submitted on 29 August 1995 that\ + \ they nonetheless had a continued interest in obtaining a decision of that court\ + \ as to the legality of the measures in question. They stated, in particular,\ + \ that a finding in their favour would provide them with some form of moral satisfaction;\ + \ would enable them to take action in tort for damages against the State, Leiden\ + \ University Hospital and Curium; would prevent further interference with their\ + \ family life; and would obviate the need for the applicants to take further civil\ + \ proceedings. 48. The Advocate-General (advocaat-generaal) at the Supreme Court\ + \ submitted an advisory opinion on 20 December 1995. He expressed the view that\ + \ the appeal was inadmissible as Mr and Mrs Venema no longer had any legal interest\ + \ in the outcome of the proceedings. The possible satisfaction of being found\ + \ in the right was not in itself a sufficient interest. Nor was the possibility\ + \ of a further civil action for damages, it being by no means obvious that such\ + \ an action would in fact be made possible by a decision of the Supreme Court.\ + \ The possibility of further interference with the applicants' family life in\ + \ the future was not relevant to the case before the Supreme Court. The question\ + \ whether the State, Leiden University Hospital or Curium had committed a tort\ + \ against the applicants was outside the scope of the case before the Supreme\ + \ Court, so that the need, if any, for further civil proceedings could not be\ + \ considered relevant either. Turning to the merits of the case, the Advocate-General\ + \ expressed the opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeal was based on\ + \ adequate legal grounds and sufficiently reasoned. 49. On 26 January 1996 the\ + \ Supreme Court gave judgment declaring Mr and Mrs Venema's appeal on points of\ + \ law inadmissible for lack of interest. It was held that the interests stated\ + \ were insufficient. 50. In the meantime, on 10 May 1995, a discussion took place\ + \ between a representative of the Legal Proceedings Monitoring Group (Vereniging\ + \ Voor Nader Onderzoek Rechtspleging – “VVNOR”), a non-governmental organisation\ + \ that had taken up Mr and Mrs Venema's case, and the Director of the Child Welfare\ + \ Board. It would appear that the Legal Proceedings Monitoring Group representative\ + \ showed the Director documents taken from Kimberly's medical records, which had\ + \ been obtained from Leiden University Hospital and which had been in Mr and Mrs\ + \ Venema's possession for five weeks. 51. On the same day, 10 May 1995, the Legal\ + \ Proceedings Monitoring Group transmitted a written statement of complaint on\ + \ Mr and Mrs Venema's behalf to the Child Welfare Board. 52. On 1 June 1995 the\ + \ Deputy Director of the Child Welfare Board gave a written decision declaring\ + \ the complaint partly well-founded and partly ill-founded. Complaints considered\ + \ well-founded related to the failure to give Mr and Mrs Venema access to certain\ + \ documents – due to the absence from the file, at the relevant time, of certain\ + \ meeting reports, and in the case of a list of contacts, due to an omission –\ + \ and to the application for a provisional supervision order lodged on 14 February\ + \ 1995 in respect of the second child Mr and Mrs Venema were then expecting. As\ + \ to the latter issue, it was stated that the said application had been withdrawn\ + \ on 16 February 1995 because it appeared not to be legally possible to seek a\ + \ supervision order in respect of an as yet unborn child; the application had\ + \ therefore been precipitate. The Deputy Director expressed regret for the lapse\ + \ of time involved. 53. The Legal Proceedings Monitoring Group, on behalf of\ + \ Mr and Mrs Venema, lodged an appeal with the Child Welfare Boards Complaints\ + \ Committee no. IV (Klachtencommissie IV bij de raden voor de kinderbescherming),\ + \ which was received by that body on 23 June 1995. 54. The Complaints Committee\ + \ held a hearing on 22 August 1995 and gave its decision on the same day. It was\ + \ considered reasonable that the Child Welfare Board had accepted the assessment\ + \ of the Leiden University Hospital and Curium doctors that Kimberly's life was\ + \ in danger; given the apparent urgency of the situation, the Board could not\ + \ be faulted for not ensuring that the Leiden University Hospital and Curium doctors\ + \ had obtained Mr and Mrs Venema's prior permission for the transmission to it\ + \ of medical information. The Board ought, however, to have informed Mr and Mrs\ + \ Venema in good time that it did not intend to make use of witnesses named by\ + \ them but intended to rely solely on the court-appointed experts. The Complaints\ + \ Committee further accepted the Board's statement that the psychiatrist had added\ + \ to his report of 27 January 1995 a reservation to the effect that it could not\ + \ be ruled out that Mrs Venema was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy,\ + \ not at the bidding of the Child Welfare Board, but in response to a reminder\ + \ that the report did not contain corroborating information from third-party sources\ + \ (hetero‑anamnesis). 55. The case received a measure of publicity. Questions\ + \ in Parliament and a complaint to the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris\ + \ van Justitie), lodged on behalf of Mr and Mrs Venema by the Legal Proceedings\ + \ Monitoring Group, led the Deputy Minister to order an official inquiry into\ + \ the way the Child Welfare Board had handled the affair. 56. The report of the\ + \ official inquiry was published on 25 July 1996. Its conclusions, in so far as\ + \ relevant, may be summarised as follows. \n– In deciding to intervene without\ + \ the prior involvement of Mr and Mrs Venema, the Child Welfare Board had no doubt\ + \ sought in good faith to protect Kimberly's interests, but it might with advantage\ + \ “have displayed more creativity in seeking a solution that did more justice\ + \ to the parents' interests”.\n– Given the Child Welfare Board's own lack of\ + \ psychiatric expertise and the fact that the Munchausen syndrome by proxy is\ + \ difficult to diagnose, the use which the Child Welfare Board made of a variety\ + \ of contradictory reports had not been “unacceptable” although it might have\ + \ assessed them in a more critical fashion.\n– A lack of coordination within\ + \ the Child Welfare Board had delayed the involvement of the child psychiatrist,\ + \ who was only approached on 16 February 1995. This was regrettable because otherwise\ + \ the reports might have been complete by the time of the birth of Jonathan.\n\ + – The Child Welfare Board's advice to the juvenile judge might have been more\ + \ complete. As a minimum, the Child Welfare Board could reasonably have been expected\ + \ to justify the absence of any inquiry of its own and to give more extensive\ + \ reasons for the choices it made.\n– The Child Welfare Board's case-file management\ + \ and internal reporting were deficient: documents explaining the background to\ + \ its decisions were not contained in the file.\n– The transmission of the report\ + \ of the psychiatrist to the Leiden University Hospital doctors and Curium had\ + \ constituted a breach of confidence vis-à-vis Mr and Mrs Venema since, after\ + \ they had first reported Kimberly's case to the Child Welfare Board, their involvement\ + \ had ended. Curium in particular had been treated virtually as an external expert\ + \ body.\n– It appeared that Mr and Mrs Venema had not been summoned in writing\ + \ to the hearing of the juvenile judge on 10 January 1995, notwithstanding the\ + \ Child Welfare Board's statement to the contrary, but that this was due to a\ + \ misunderstanding between the registry of the Regional Court and the Board and\ + \ could not be blamed on the latter. 57. The report went on to formulate recommendations\ + \ aimed at preventing the recurrence of cases such as the present. 58. According\ + \ to the Government, the report led the Deputy Minister to conclude that the Child\ + \ Welfare Board had “acted lawfully and fulfilled its statutory responsibility”,\ + \ although its internal working procedures deserved some criticism. It had been\ + \ right for the Board to take firm action and, in view of the nature and seriousness\ + \ of the complaint, to rely on the expertise of third parties." + sentences: + - ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right + to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. + There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this + right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic + society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being + of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of + health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. + - ARTICLE 1 Protection of property Every natural or legal person is entitled to + the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions + except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law + and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall + not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it + deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general + interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. + 33 + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 +- source_sentence: 9. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl. 10. On + 15 October 1993 the applicant and two days later his wife, Mrs N.F., were taken + into police custody in Bingöl on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist + organisation, namely the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). 11. Mrs F. was held + in police custody for four days, during which period she was allegedly kept blindfolded. + The police officers allegedly hit her with truncheons, insulted her verbally and + threatened her with rape. 12. On 20 October 1993, following her detention in + police custody, Mrs F. was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were + no signs of ill-treatment on her body. On the same day she was taken to a gynaecologist + for a further examination. The police requested that the report should indicate + whether she had had vaginal or anal intercourse while in custody. Despite her + refusal, Mrs F. was forced by the police officers to undergo a gynaecological + examination. The police officers remained on the premises while Mrs F. was examined + behind a curtain. The doctor reported that she had not had any sexual intercourse + in the days preceding the examination. 13. On the same day Mrs F. was taken to + the Bingöl public prosecutor's office, where she complained about her forced gynaecological + examination. The public prosecutor did not record her complaints and ordered her + release. 14. On 28 October 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National + Security Court charged the applicant and his wife with aiding and abetting members + of the PKK. 15. On 23 March 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court acquitted + the applicant and his wife for lack of evidence. 16. On 9 February 1995, the + applicant and his wife complained to the Bingöl public prosecutor about their + ill-treatment while in police custody. They further complained that Mrs F. had + been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination without her consent. 17. The + police officers denied the allegations in statements made before the Bingöl public + prosecutor. They submitted that it had been necessary for a gynaecological examination + to be performed in order to determine whether Mrs F. had been sexually assaulted + while in police custody. They further submitted that the examination had been + performed with her consent. 18. On 5 October 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor + decided not to prosecute the police officers for lack of evidence. The applicant + and his wife appealed. 19. On 29 November 1995 the Muş Assize Court quashed the + public prosecutor's decision on the ground that there had been insufficient examination + of the evidence in the investigation file. 20. On 19 December 1995 the Bingöl + public prosecutor charged three police officers with, inter alia, violating Mrs + F.'s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. 21. On + 16 May 1996 the Bingöl Assize Court acquitted the defendant police officers on + the ground that the complainants had not provided sufficient convincing evidence + in support of their allegations. The court held that the police officers had had + no intention of subjecting the applicant's wife to degrading and humiliating treatment + when they made her undergo a gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect + themselves against a possible accusation of rape. The applicant and his wife appealed. + 22. On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Bingöl Assize Court's judgment. + sentences: + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and + obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair + and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal + established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public + may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public + order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles + or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent + strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where + publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a + criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. + 9 + - ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right + to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. + There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this + right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic + society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being + of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of + health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. +pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity +library_name: sentence-transformers +--- + +# SentenceTransformer based on nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased + +This is a [sentence-transformers](https://www.SBERT.net) model finetuned from [nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased](https://huggingface.co/nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased). It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for retrieval. + +## Model Details + +### Model Description +- **Model Type:** Sentence Transformer +- **Base model:** [nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased](https://huggingface.co/nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased) +- **Maximum Sequence Length:** 512 tokens +- **Output Dimensionality:** 768 dimensions +- **Similarity Function:** Cosine Similarity +- **Supported Modality:** Text + + + + +### Model Sources + +- **Documentation:** [Sentence Transformers Documentation](https://sbert.net) +- **Repository:** [Sentence Transformers on GitHub](https://github.com/huggingface/sentence-transformers) +- **Hugging Face:** [Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/models?library=sentence-transformers) + +### Full Model Architecture + +``` +SentenceTransformer( + (0): Transformer({'transformer_task': 'feature-extraction', 'modality_config': {'text': {'method': 'forward', 'method_output_name': 'last_hidden_state'}}, 'module_output_name': 'token_embeddings', 'architecture': 'BertModel'}) + (1): Pooling({'embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode': 'mean', 'include_prompt': True}) +) +``` + +## Usage + +### Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers) + +First install the Sentence Transformers library: + +```bash +pip install -U sentence-transformers +``` +Then you can load this model and run inference. +```python +from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer + +# Download from the 🤗 Hub +model = SentenceTransformer("sentence_transformers_model_id") +# Run inference +sentences = [ + "9. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl. 10. On 15 October 1993 the applicant and two days later his wife, Mrs N.F., were taken into police custody in Bingöl on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). 11. Mrs F. was held in police custody for four days, during which period she was allegedly kept blindfolded. The police officers allegedly hit her with truncheons, insulted her verbally and threatened her with rape. 12. On 20 October 1993, following her detention in police custody, Mrs F. was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were no signs of ill-treatment on her body. On the same day she was taken to a gynaecologist for a further examination. The police requested that the report should indicate whether she had had vaginal or anal intercourse while in custody. Despite her refusal, Mrs F. was forced by the police officers to undergo a gynaecological examination. The police officers remained on the premises while Mrs F. was examined behind a curtain. The doctor reported that she had not had any sexual intercourse in the days preceding the examination. 13. On the same day Mrs F. was taken to the Bingöl public prosecutor's office, where she complained about her forced gynaecological examination. The public prosecutor did not record her complaints and ordered her release. 14. On 28 October 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court charged the applicant and his wife with aiding and abetting members of the PKK. 15. On 23 March 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court acquitted the applicant and his wife for lack of evidence. 16. On 9 February 1995, the applicant and his wife complained to the Bingöl public prosecutor about their ill-treatment while in police custody. They further complained that Mrs F. had been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination without her consent. 17. The police officers denied the allegations in statements made before the Bingöl public prosecutor. They submitted that it had been necessary for a gynaecological examination to be performed in order to determine whether Mrs F. had been sexually assaulted while in police custody. They further submitted that the examination had been performed with her consent. 18. On 5 October 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers for lack of evidence. The applicant and his wife appealed. 19. On 29 November 1995 the Muş Assize Court quashed the public prosecutor's decision on the ground that there had been insufficient examination of the evidence in the investigation file. 20. On 19 December 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor charged three police officers with, inter alia, violating Mrs F.'s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. 21. On 16 May 1996 the Bingöl Assize Court acquitted the defendant police officers on the ground that the complainants had not provided sufficient convincing evidence in support of their allegations. The court held that the police officers had had no intention of subjecting the applicant's wife to degrading and humiliating treatment when they made her undergo a gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect themselves against a possible accusation of rape. The applicant and his wife appealed. 22. On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Bingöl Assize Court's judgment.", + 'ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.', + 'ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9', +] +embeddings = model.encode(sentences) +print(embeddings.shape) +# [3, 768] + +# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings +similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings) +print(similarities) +# tensor([[1.0000, 0.6258, 0.5939], +# [0.6258, 1.0000, 0.6146], +# [0.5939, 0.6146, 1.0000]]) +``` + + + + + + + + + + +## Training Details + +### Training Dataset + +#### Unnamed Dataset + +* Size: 12,180 training samples +* Columns: sentence1 and sentence2 +* Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples: + | | sentence1 | sentence2 | + |:--------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| + | type | string | string | + | details | | | +* Samples: + | sentence1 | sentence2 | + |:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| + | 11. At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is X and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for periods of about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family since 1989. 12. The applicants initially cohabited from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and X were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 a residence order was made transferring custody of P. to X. 13. K. was again hospitalis... | ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. | + | 9. In June 1949 plots of agricultural land owned by the applicant’s father were expropriated by the former Doksy District National Council (okresní národní výbor) under the Czechoslovak New Land Reform Act No. 46/1948 (“the 1948 Act”). The applicant’s father had never obtained any compensation. In 1957 some of these plots were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure under the 1948 Act. In 1977 the applicant’s father died and the applicant’s rights over his estate were confirmed. 10. After the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the Act No. 229/1991 on Adjustment of Ownership Rights in respect of Land and Other Agricultural Property (“zákon o půdě”, the “Land Ownership Act”) entered into force on 24 June 1991. The Act provided that the 1948 Act was no longer applicable and that under certain conditions property confiscated pursuant to that Act without compensation could be returned to its former owners or their heirs if it was still in th... | ARTICLE 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 | + | 8. In 1991 Mr Dušan Slobodník, a research worker in the field of literature, published an autobiography entitled Paragraph: Polar Circle. He described in it, inter alia, his conviction by a Soviet military tribunal in 1945 on the ground that he had been ordered to spy on the Soviet army after having been enrolled, in 1944 when he was 17 years old, in a military training course organised by Germans. In the book, Mr Slobodník also wrote about his detention in Soviet gulags and his rehabilitation by the Supreme Court of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1960. In June 1992 Mr Slobodník became Minister for Culture and Education of the Slovak Republic. 9. On 20 July 1992 the newspaper Telegraf published a poem by the applicant. It was dated 17 July 1992 (the day when the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic was solemnly proclaimed) and entitled “Good night, my beloved” (“Dobrú noc, má milá”). One of its verses read as follows: + “In Prague prisoner Havel is giving up his president... | ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. | +* Loss: [MultipleNegativesRankingLoss](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#multiplenegativesrankingloss) with these parameters: + ```json + { + "scale": 20.0, + "similarity_fct": "cos_sim", + "gather_across_devices": false, + "directions": [ + "query_to_doc" + ], + "partition_mode": "joint", + "hardness_mode": null, + "hardness_strength": 0.0 + } + ``` + +### Training Hyperparameters +#### Non-Default Hyperparameters + +- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16 +- `learning_rate`: 2e-05 +- `warmup_steps`: 0.1 +- `fp16`: True + +#### All Hyperparameters +
Click to expand + +- `do_predict`: False +- `prediction_loss_only`: True +- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16 +- `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 8 +- `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 1 +- `eval_accumulation_steps`: None +- `torch_empty_cache_steps`: None +- `learning_rate`: 2e-05 +- `weight_decay`: 0.0 +- `adam_beta1`: 0.9 +- `adam_beta2`: 0.999 +- `adam_epsilon`: 1e-08 +- `max_grad_norm`: 1.0 +- `num_train_epochs`: 3 +- `max_steps`: -1 +- `lr_scheduler_type`: linear +- `lr_scheduler_kwargs`: None +- `warmup_ratio`: None +- `warmup_steps`: 0.1 +- `log_level`: passive +- `log_level_replica`: warning +- `log_on_each_node`: True +- `logging_nan_inf_filter`: True +- `enable_jit_checkpoint`: False +- `save_on_each_node`: False +- `save_only_model`: False +- `restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint`: False +- `use_cpu`: False +- `seed`: 42 +- `data_seed`: None +- `bf16`: False +- `fp16`: True +- `bf16_full_eval`: False +- `fp16_full_eval`: False +- `tf32`: None +- `local_rank`: -1 +- `ddp_backend`: None +- `debug`: [] +- `dataloader_drop_last`: False +- `dataloader_num_workers`: 0 +- `dataloader_prefetch_factor`: None +- `disable_tqdm`: False +- `remove_unused_columns`: True +- `label_names`: None +- `load_best_model_at_end`: False +- `ignore_data_skip`: False +- `fsdp`: [] +- `fsdp_config`: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False} +- `accelerator_config`: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None} +- `parallelism_config`: None +- `deepspeed`: None +- `label_smoothing_factor`: 0.0 +- `optim`: adamw_torch_fused +- `optim_args`: None +- `group_by_length`: False +- `length_column_name`: length +- `project`: huggingface +- `trackio_space_id`: trackio +- `ddp_find_unused_parameters`: None +- `ddp_bucket_cap_mb`: None +- `ddp_broadcast_buffers`: False +- `dataloader_pin_memory`: True +- `dataloader_persistent_workers`: False +- `skip_memory_metrics`: True +- `push_to_hub`: False +- `resume_from_checkpoint`: None +- `hub_model_id`: None +- `hub_strategy`: every_save +- `hub_private_repo`: None +- `hub_always_push`: False +- `hub_revision`: None +- `gradient_checkpointing`: False +- `gradient_checkpointing_kwargs`: None +- `include_for_metrics`: [] +- `eval_do_concat_batches`: True +- `auto_find_batch_size`: False +- `full_determinism`: False +- `ddp_timeout`: 1800 +- `torch_compile`: False +- `torch_compile_backend`: None +- `torch_compile_mode`: None +- `include_num_input_tokens_seen`: no +- `neftune_noise_alpha`: None +- `optim_target_modules`: None +- `batch_eval_metrics`: False +- `eval_on_start`: False +- `use_liger_kernel`: False +- `liger_kernel_config`: None +- `eval_use_gather_object`: False +- `average_tokens_across_devices`: True +- `use_cache`: False +- `prompts`: None +- `batch_sampler`: batch_sampler +- `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: proportional +- `router_mapping`: {} +- `learning_rate_mapping`: {} + +
+ +### Training Logs +| Epoch | Step | Training Loss | +|:------:|:----:|:-------------:| +| 1.3123 | 500 | 2.8396 | +| 2.6247 | 1000 | 2.6340 | + + +### Training Time +- **Training**: 47.8 minutes + +### Framework Versions +- Python: 3.12.12 +- Sentence Transformers: 5.4.1 +- Transformers: 5.0.0 +- PyTorch: 2.10.0+cu128 +- Accelerate: 1.12.0 +- Datasets: 4.8.3 +- Tokenizers: 0.22.2 + +## Citation + +### BibTeX + +#### Sentence Transformers +```bibtex +@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert, + title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks", + author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna", + booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing", + month = "11", + year = "2019", + publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics", + url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084", +} +``` + +#### MultipleNegativesRankingLoss +```bibtex +@misc{oord2019representationlearningcontrastivepredictive, + title={Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding}, + author={Aaron van den Oord and Yazhe Li and Oriol Vinyals}, + year={2019}, + eprint={1807.03748}, + archivePrefix={arXiv}, + primaryClass={cs.LG}, + url={https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748}, +} +``` + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file