The European Convention imposes a positive obligation on the Contracting Party to investigate thoroughly into allegations of arbitrary deprivations of liberty even in cases where it cannot be established, although it is alleged, that the deprivation of liberty is attributable to the authorities (see Decision of the Human Rights Chamber No. CH/02/9851 et al.; M.Ć. et al. v. the Republika Srpska, Decision on Admissibility and Merits of 4 December 2003, paragraph 60; Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the case of Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia).
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 696/04 of 23 September 2005, paragraph 53, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 86/05;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2582/05 of 17 January 2005, paragraph 58, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; the deprivation of liberty by SFOR; a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of BiH established
The obligation to secure, for example, the right to liberty and security of the person as well as the right not to be subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment relates to the general obligations of a state under Article 1 of the European Convention according to which the High Contracting Parties will secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the European Convention. Therefore, the competent domestic authorities had the obligation to conduct the investigation as regards the violation of the appellants’ rights. Additionally, such investigation does not have to give positive outcome in each case. The European Convention does not impose an obligation to a state to achieve a certain result but to carry out the appropriate procedure.
Since the obligation includes the procedure and not the result, it is possible that the authorities comply with their positive obligation under the European Convention even if the facts and circumstances under which a violation of the right occurred were not specifically established.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2582/05 of 17 January 2005, paragraph 58, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; the deprivation of liberty by SFOR; a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of BiH established;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 696/04 of 23 September 2005, paragraph 54, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 86/05
There is a violation of the right to liberty and security of the person under Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, in case where the person was kept in detention after the convicting judgment had become legally binding, while there was no legal basis for his detention any longer.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1426/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraphs 42 and 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11/07;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2539/06 of 29 April 2009, paragraph 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/09; detention after the judgment of conviction became final; a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of BiH established
