Last Updated on February 2, 2022 by LawEuro
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his arrest and the failure to carry out an effective investigation, or to provide him with the required medical assistance contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. It further concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest in breach of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MĂTĂSARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 20253/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 20253/09) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Anatol Mătăsaru (“the applicant”), on 20 April 2009;
the decision to give notice to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3, 5 §§ 2, 6 and 8 of the Convention;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his arrest and the failure to carry out an effective investigation, or to provide him with the required medical assistance contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. It further concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest in breach of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.
THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented by Mr V. Panțîru, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, who at the relevant time was Mr V. Grosu.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. On 5 April 2009 a general election took place in Moldova. The Communist Party, which had a majority of votes in the outgoing Parliament, won 60 mandates out of a total of 101. On 6 April 2009 a protest against the alleged falsification of the results of the election began in the centre of Chişinău. More details about the general background of these events can be found in Taraburca v. Moldova (no. 18919/10, §§ 7-10 and 33-37, 6 December 2011).
I. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
6. The applicant participated at the protests of 6 and 7 April 2009. According to the applicant, on 8 April 2009, at 9.10 a.m., he was arrested by plain-clothed officers in front of his house and was taken to the General Police Department (“the GPD”). The only document shown to him as the basis for his arrest was the decision of the Chişinău Prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation into the events of 6 April 2009, namely mass disorder by interrupting public transportation, disobeying lawful orders of the authorities, committing acts of violence and vandalism and insulting passers-by.
7. The applicant claims that he was severely beaten at the GPD. In the minutes taken at the time of his arrest, the applicant stated, in the presence of his lawyer at 3 p.m. on the same day, that he had been ill-treated by the police and was thus physically and psychologically unable to respond to questioning. It was mentioned several times in the minutes that he had requested medical assistance and added that he had been arrested at 9.10 a.m. by plain-clothed officers who had not shown any identification documents. According to the minutes, the applicant was formally arrested in one of the offices of the GPD.
8. The applicant’s lawyer also asked for medical assistance for his client. According to his lawyer, the applicant had signs of ill-treatment around his eyes, nose and lips, and complained of a sharp pain in his ribs. An ambulance was called on the same day. According to the document released by the Health Ministry, the ambulance doctors prescribed in-patient treatment for the applicant, notably for head trauma and contusion of his face tissues, of internal organs and of his thoracic cage. The doctors noted that the GDP detention facility doctor had taken responsibility for the applicant and refused his hospitalisation stating that it was not necessary. The minutes taken during the arrest indicated that the applicant had been arrested because witnesses had stated expressly that the applicant had committed the crime, without specifying which crime.
9. On 10 April 2009 the investigating judge of the Rîșcani District Court in Chișinău asked the head of Prison no. 13 to ensure that urgent medical treatment was given to the applicant. On the same day he wrote to the prosecutor’s office, asking it to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill‑treatment and to report within a month on the results of that investigation. On 16 April 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal also requested the head of Prison no. 13 to ensure that the applicant was given appropriate medical treatment, adding that it was apparent from the materials submitted to that court that he had suffered injuries.
10. On 14 April 2009 the applicant was examined by a forensic specialist, who found various bruises, haematomas and excoriations on his head, face, his back and upper and lower limbs.
11. On 15 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to Prison no. 13, where he was immediately examined by a doctor. The latter found haematomas under the applicant’s eyes, on his shoulder and the right knee, as well as head trauma, contusion of his face tissues and of his thoracic cage.
12. On 23 April 2009 the Ombudsman wrote to the applicant’s wife to inform her that his team had visited the GPD on an unspecified date and managed to obtain the transfer from the GPD to Prison no. 13 of the applicant and eleven other persons. He added that, on the day of the visit to the GPD, the applicant was examined by the team’s doctor, who found injuries on his body. The precise analysis of these injuries would only be possible after a forensic expert examined the applicant. The Ombudsman sent a request to the competent prosecutor’s office, asking it to investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment.
13. On 30 September 2009 the Minister of Justice expressed the authorities’ regrets for the disproportionate use of force during the events of 7 April 2009.
14. In the years that followed, two criminal investigations were pursued in respect of the allegations made by the applicant: one into his ill-treatment during arrest and on the way to the GPD and another for the ill-treatment at the GPD.
A. Investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his arrest and civil action against three officers
15. In the first set of criminal proceedings, three officers stood accused and were found guilty by the Centru District Court on 4 May 2011. According to the testimonies of the three officers, they were ordered to take the applicant to the GDP in the morning of 8 April 2009. Shortly after 10 a.m. they were waiting outside his home and when he went out, they asked him to follow them to the GPD, but did not show him any document, except their special identity cards. When he refused and became violent, they used force to take him in. They also noted that they were plain-clothed but presented themselves to the applicant. The court found that the officers had not issued any document to formally summon the applicant to come to the GPD, nor any decision to take him in, thus not having a lawful basis for the arrest. Relying on the various medical documents and witness testimonies, the court also found that the three officers had hit the applicant. The court sentenced two of the officers to three years’ imprisonment and the third officer to two years’ imprisonment, suspending the execution of the sentences in respect of all three officers for one year.
16. After several judgments adopted and a retrial by the lower courts, by its final judgment of 10 December 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 4 May 2011.
17. The applicant lodged a civil law claim against the three officers. The last decision in those proceedings was adopted by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 21 February 2019 and an appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice. The parties did not inform the Court of any further development.
B. Investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment at the GPD
18. In the second set of criminal proceedings two officers were charged. On 26 March 2012 the Centru District Court found both officers guilty of ill‑treating the applicant at the GPD.
19. That judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 3 April 2013. On 18 March 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and ordered a retrial.
20. On 4 June 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment and ordered a retrial. While pending before the Centru District Court, the case was assigned successively to five different judges, who, for various reasons, were eventually unable to examine it. The case was subsequently transferred to the Buiucani branch of the Chișinău Court. The parties did not inform the Court of any further development in these proceedings.
II. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention
21. On 10 April 2009 a prosecutor asked the Rîşcani District Court to order the applicant’s detention for thirty days pending trial. The request referred exclusively to the events of 7 April 2009, accusing the applicant of participation in the violent protests of that day, including the destruction of public buildings and placing of a foreign flag on the President’s Palace. On the same day the applicant was formally indicted. The prosecutor added that the applicant could not be found at his home.
22. Also on 10 April 2009 the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court, ordered the applicant’s detention for thirty days. The reasons given by the court were that:
“the crime of which the applicant was accused is a serious one for which the law provides a penalty of more than two years of imprisonment; the crime was committed by a group of persons who acted violently; there are reasons to believe that the applicant could abscond or obstruct the normal course of the investigation, could put pressure on witnesses in order for the latter to withdraw or amend their statements; the applicant could warn other suspects and collude with other persons in order to form a common position” and that “the materials in the criminal file, at this stage of criminal prosecution, provide evidence constituting a reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] committed the crime provided for under Article 285 § 3 of the Criminal Code”.
23. On the same day the court adopted a decision, asking the Chişinău Prosecutor to investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the GPD. The Prosecutor was asked to report on his findings within a month.
24. On 13 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision to remand his client. He complained of the applicant’s unlawful arrest in front of his house by plain-clothed officers without showing any identification documents and the refusal to register the applicant’s arrest at 9.10 a.m. when he was in fact arrested. He further complained of the applicant’s ill-treatment by police and the refusal to allow his in-hospital treatment prescribed by the medical emergency team. The lawyer added that the prosecutor had not annexed any evidence to support the accusations made to his request for a court decision ordering the applicant’s detention. Moreover, the request was identical to the almost 200 other requests made in respect of persons arrested in connection with the events of 7 April 2009. The lawyer doubted the impartiality of the investigating judge, who came to the police station to examine the case and thus prevented the relatives and the media from attending. He finally relied on Article 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention and asked, inter alia, for a court decision ordering the applicant’s medical examination with a view to establishing the nature and degree of signs of ill-treatment on his body.
25. On 21 April 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as unfounded. It found that the investigation had been lawfully started and the preventive measure chosen by the investigating judge ensured the good flow of the investigation, while preventing the applicant from absconding or reoffending. The materials of the case, notably photos and video recordings of the applicant from the relevant events, clearly showed his active involvement in the mass disorder. Since it was obvious that he had called on the masses to disobey and attack the police and the Presidential Palace and that he had thrown stones at the police protecting that building, there was a risk that he would commit other similar violent actions, given his personality, notably his past criminal conviction to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s state of health had been addressed by asking various authorities to ensure his medical treatment; from a phone call with Prison no. 13 the judge was satisfied that in the meantime he had been treated in that prison and did not need in-patient treatment. Similarly, the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment had been addressed by requesting the prosecutor’s office to investigate the complaint.
26. On 8 May 2009 the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court extended the applicant’s detention for another thirty days, essentially for the same reasons as earlier. It referred, in particular, to the applicant’s past convictions and that, being again charged with a serious offence, there was a need to keep him in detention.
27. On 14 May 2009 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Chișinău prosecutor’s office about the investigator’s failure to effectively investigate his client’s ill-treatment. In particular, referring to the investigating judge’s decision of 10 April 2009 to report within a month about the progress of the investigation (see paragraph 23 above), he submitted that the applicant had still not been interviewed and neither he, nor the lawyer had been informed of any results of the investigation.
28. On 5 June 2009 the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court extended the applicant’s detention for another thirty days. On 10 June 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision, replacing the preventive measure of detention with house arrest. The prosecution’s request of 22 June 2009 to replace house arrest with detention was rejected on 23 June 2009.
THE LAW
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
29. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated at the time of his arrest and during his detention at the GPD and that no effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had taken place. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
30. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, he lodged his application while there was still no final decision of the domestic authorities in respect of his complaints. Moreover, he never complained at the domestic level about the alleged sexual assaults on him in Prison no. 13.
31. The applicant argued that he had properly complained to the competent authorities. He added that his lawyer had reasons to believe that the applicant was being sexually and otherwise abused by his cellmates since he was allegedly being held in a cell with persons convicted for murder and rape.
32. The Court notes that the applicant complained to the competent authorities about his ill-treatment before lodging his application in 2009. Some twelve years later the proceedings in respect of some of those allegations are still pending (see paragraph 20 above), while another set of criminal proceedings has ended with a final judgment convicting three officers. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the applicant did not exhaust or properly try to exhaust available remedies. Therefore, the Government’s objection concerning the failure to exhaust remedies concerning ill-treatment by the police must be rejected.
33. At the same time, it is apparent that the applicant never made any complaints at domestic level concerning the alleged abuse by his cellmates. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him and that this complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
34. The Court notes that the complaints about ill-treatment by the police and investigation of these complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
35. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated during his arrest by several plain-clothed officers. Thereafter he was ill-treated during the eight days which he spent at the GPD and was not provided with medical assistance required as a result of his ill-treatment. His complaints against the arresting officers eventually resulted in the latter’s conviction, but the civil proceedings against those officers to obtain compensation from them were still pending. The proceedings against the officers accused of ill-treating him at the GPD had not been finished after many years, which in the applicant’s view showed the ineffectiveness of the investigation. The applicant added that in the second criminal proceedings the prosecutor dropped the charges against certain high-ranking officers.
36. The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been ill-treated during his detention at the GPD between 8 and 15 April 2009, contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. At the same time, it had not been proven that he had needed urgent medical assistance during the ambulance visit of 8 April 2009 (see paragraph 8 above), since it was established, together with the doctor employed by the GPD detention facility, that the applicant had mild injuries that did not require in-patient treatment. During his detention at the GPD the applicant made no request for medical assistance, as was clear from the register of detainees. After his transfer to Prison no. 13 the applicant was seen by that prison’s doctors and received adequate in-patient treatment. As for the investigation into his allegations, the authorities complied with their obligations since several officers had been identified and charged, and good progress had been achieved overall. At the same time, any judgment of the Court finding a violation of Article 3 while the proceedings were pending before the domestic courts would affect those proceedings and would undermine the principle of subsidiarity established in the Court’s case-law.
37. The Court summarised the applicable case-law principles in its judgment in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium [GC] (no. 23380/09, § 81-90 and 100-101, ECHR 2015).
38. In the present case, the Court notes the Government’s acknowledgment of the applicant’s ill-treatment at the GPD (see paragraph 36 above). It also notes that it was established by the domestic courts that even prior to having been placed in the GPD’s detention facility the applicant had already been hit by the three arresting officers (see paragraph 15 above).
39. The applicant also claimed that he had not been given the medical assistance required as a result of his ill-treatment. The Government disputed that, arguing that no such assistance had been required since his injuries had been minor. Moreover, it followed from the register of detainees that he had not requested medical assistance after the ambulance visit.
40. The Court notes that in the very first document signed by the applicant, the minutes of his arrest, both he and his lawyer wrote about the need for medical assistance (see paragraph 7 above). It is also apparent that the GPD doctor refused the ambulance doctors’ suggestion to take the applicant for in-patient treatment (see paragraph 8 above). Finally, the courts and the Ombudsman noted the need for medical assistance to the applicant (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). At the same time, after being transferred to Prison no. 13 the applicant needed to be treated on an in-patient basis (see paragraph 11 above). In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant needed in-patient medical treatment and was not provided with it.
41. As for the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment, it is noted that two investigations were opened. While they were apparently started without delay, one of them (concerning his ill-treatment at the GPD) has already lasted for more than twelve years. The other one (concerning his ill-treatment at the time of arrest) lasted for four years and ended with the suspension of the execution of the sentences to which the officers had been convicted. As a result, none of them spent a single day in prison and they were effectively shielded from almost any form of responsibility. The only remaining tool at the applicant’s disposal – that of claiming damages from those offices in civil proceedings – also proved illusive since the proceedings, started in 2014, have still not ended after seven years, despite the officers’ guilt having been established in the criminal proceedings that had preceded (see paragraph 17 above). The only explanation given to the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment at the GPD was that five different judges had dealt with the case, which eventually had to be transferred to another court (see paragraph 20 above). The Court considers that the domestic authorities must organise their justice system in a manner which does not unduly protract criminal investigations, undermining their efficiency.
42. In view of the above, the Court concludes that not only has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention and deprived of medical assistance which he needed, but also the various proceedings aimed at prosecuting those responsible for his ill-treatment and for compensating him have been protracted and ineffective, resulting in one case in the arresting officers’ virtual impunity. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case, both in its substantive and procedural limbs.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION
43. The applicant complained that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest. He relied on Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.”
A. Admissibility
44. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
45. The applicant argued that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest until several hours after his actual arrest.
46. The Government acknowledged that the applicant’s right guaranteed under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention had been breached.
47. For its part, the Court does not have any reason to arrive at a different conclusion, given that the applicant’s detention was not even officially acknowledged until 3 p.m. on 8 April 2009, some five hours after his actual arrest shortly after 10 a.m. and that the arresting officers did not produce any document serving as a basis for the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 15 above). Moreover, the minutes of arrest only indicated that witnesses had seen the applicant having committed the crime, but did not indicate which crime (see paragraph 8 above). At the same time, in the absence of any acknowledgment of a breach of Article 5 § 2 by the domestic courts or of any compensation awarded, the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of that provision.
48. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention.
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
49. The applicant complained that he had not been brought before the investigating judge when the latter decided on the prosecutor’s request for a detention order. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
Admissibility
50. The applicant argued that the domestic courts did not give sufficient reasons for his detention on remand.
51. The Government submitted that, contrary to the applicant’s submission in his application form that he had not been brought before a judge immediately after his arrest, in fact he was brought before the investigating judge on 10 April 2009, who ordered his detention pending trial. Moreover, he lodged his application with the Court before the Court of Appeal had a chance to examine his appeal against the investigating judge’s decision to remand him.
52. The Court notes that the initial complaint referred only to the alleged failure to bring the applicant before the investigating judge on 10 April 2009, when the judge decided whether or not to order his detention pending trial. In his observations, he referred to the insufficiency of the reasons given by the judge, a matter not raised in the initial application and which is not the subject of the present application.
53. As for the allegation that he was not brought before the investigating judge, the Court notes that the applicant did not submit any evidence to support that claim. On the contrary, the Government showed that not only did that judge see the applicant, but he also asked for the investigation of his allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph 9 above).
54. In view of the above, the Court finds that his complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
55. In a letter dated 6 September 2019 the applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention since the civil proceedings against some of the officers were pending for seven years (see paragraph 17 above).
56. Since this matter was not part of the application lodged with the Court and is not the subject of the present case, the Court will not examine it.
VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
57. The applicant complained of a breach of Article 8 since he had been forced by the investigators to reveal the password to his email accounts. He added that he had no means of proving his allegations.
58. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies by failing to complain in domestic law about the violation of his Article 8 rights.
59. The Court notes the absence of any complaint at national level about the alleged pressure to reveal the applicant’s passwords. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him and that this complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
VIII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
60. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
61. The applicant claimed 2,700 Moldovan lei (MDL, which is the equivalent of approximately 167 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage. He referred to his salary which he could not receive during the three months of his detention.
62. The Government considered that the claim was unsubstantiated.
63. The Court notes that it did not deal with the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. It sees no causal link between its findings of violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 2 of the Convention and the damage claimed. It therefore makes no award in this respect.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
64. The applicant claimed EUR 38,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, referring to his suffering from the ill-treatment and the tarnishing of his image in the media.
65. The Government considered that the amount claimed was excessive and should not exceed EUR 25,000.
66. In view of its finding of a violation of both substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3, as well as of Article 5 § 2, the Court awards the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
C. Costs and expenses
67. The applicant claimed EUR 2,360 in respect of costs and expenses. He relied on a contract between his wife and his lawyer.
68. The Government argued that the sum claimed was excessive and, in any event, should not exceed EUR 1,500.
69. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicant.
70. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaints under Article 3 (except for the allegation of abuse by cellmates) and Article 5 § 2 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of its substantive and procedural limbs;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply