dimanche 16 mars 2014

European Court of Human Rights - Request- violations of the articles 3, 6-1, 8 of the Convention

This REQUEST  was sent to the European Court of Human Rights  in 2010
The answer is  at the end of the french text on  : http://lezarceleurs.blogspot.fr/2014/03/cour-europeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme.html

For more than ten years now, I have been the victim of continuous, complex violence and violations, not to mention a gang rape.

From 2001 onwards, my vehicles but also my home were continually broken into every time I was absent from home. During the years of these violations a rape, thefts, damage, insults and threats were committed. I was constantly followed and placed in abusive situations, entailing considerable expense.

The only way to describe the method used for this deliberate destruction is to imagine uninterrupted gunfire from different, complementary angles, with a single purpose: to destroy the target.

I am that target, sometimes a prey, sometimes a toy. I am a woman alone, isolated now, a victim sometimes despised, sometimes ridiculed or deliberately humiliated.

To deal with this unimaginable situation I turned to the State legal services for protection, as would any citizen with nothing on her conscience. .
I should add that I have no legal training.

To clarify this rather complicated case, in a necessarily abbreviated form, I will furnish merely a few distinct examples, under four headings :
- the manufactured psychological context: rumours, image destroyed, insults
- total insecurity : break ins, thefts, damage, spying,
- rape denied by the courts : rape
- other denials : complaints , procedures


RUMOURS, IMAGE DESTROYED, INSULTS
For XX years, I was the image of what I was: a simple, reasonable, active and rather reserved person..
Repeated, converging rumours gradually presented me as deranged . All my acts and behaviour were interpreted to give grounding to these rumours.

In 2000, at the start of this campaign of rumours, I was in sole charge of my dying mother who was under palliative treatment at my home.

It appears that my image began to be destroyed by the lawyer of my only brother, a woman I had never met. In 2001 she took the liberty of telephoning people who knew me to tell them I was "mad".

The door keeper of my building was the second person to spread this type of rumour with everyone who met me. The campaign snowballed.

In 2004, the porter and her husband, made bold by their supporters, went so far as to insult me, for no personal reason, in the hall of the building: «  whore, bitch… madwoman... she's driving us up the wall»

My complaint, filed in Paris against them for insulting language in November 2004, was declared a nonsuit in March 2006.

Because this case received no action, other offences followed.
From that time to this, the rumours and insults from virtual strangers have continued.

On 24 December 2009, my next door neighbour, of whom I knew merely the profession (artist), stood on the landing outside and shouted, for the benefit of the neighbours, that he would "have me sent to a mental hospital". After shouting this three times, he called me a "bitch, worse than shit, unscrewable" and interrupted my protests with "shut your mouth, bitch". He ended with " I'll break you ".

In 2003, a threat similar to this "I'll break you" was made by a Chinese, who told me "I, will know how to break you".

In 2005, It was the daughter of the solicitor in charge of my mother's estate, in Angers, who shouted that "We can break her, we will wear her down, then we'll see".

BREAK INS, THEFTS, DAMAGE, SPYING
At the time the rumours began, in 2000, I noticed that people were entering my home without breaking in, stealing things, damaging, things, and moving files and objects to different places and messing up my things.
My mother died in early 2001.

The solicitor in Angers (49) in charge of the estate wrote giving me incorrect information. This supposed legal advice enabled him to refuse to liquidate the estate, which consisted of a single property, a small house.
The estate was settled in 2007 after legal proceedings.

The false information given by the solicitor had served to block the situation and meant that the property could be inherited by a single heir, the last survivor.
French solicitors (notaires) are representatives of the French State and are under the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I filed a complaint with the Director of Public Prosecutions of Angers on May 16 2007, indicating the false information deliberately given to me by the solicitor and the resulting legal costs.
I received no reply and no action was taken.

It was after my mother's death in 2001 that every time I left my home I returned to find that someone had entered in my absence. This has continued until December 2009.

These unwanted visits resulted in broken crockery in the cupboards, clothes torn or stained with ink in the wardrobes, objects damaged by small knocks, carpets torn and cut with cutters, furniture damaged by tearing off surfaces, burning with acid, holes and blows by heavy objects. Electrical, electronic and IT equipment was broken or put out of service.

My cars, parked in the street and opened with copied keys, were similarly damaged: thefts, locks broken, batteries emptied, tyres punctured, various objects removed, electronics interfered with etc.

To give but two examples of these organised destabilising tactics, my cheque book was stolen from the apartment during one of these illicit visits and found several days later in plain view on the back shelf of my car, which was locked normally.

Documents filed and placed in a cupboard were found littered on the floor of the sitting room despite the fact that the apartment was protected by a burglar alarm in my absence. The alarm system log showed no indication of an intrusion.
These stressfull anecdotes seem improbable but they should have been investigated by the police when I complained.

No policeman came to investigate.
Among other offences, two spying devices were found in the telephones of two of my apartments, and a third emitter was found under a lamp and connected to mains electricity.

These spy devices enabled my plans to fight against this campaign to be overheard, as well as subjects that had been discussed in the supposed privacy of my apartment. This naturally was worrying and difficult for me to admit or understand .

My computer memory was searched, and texts manipulated. Furthermore my Web connections were spied on, and often I saw the term "redirection" appear on my screen, as well as finding it often impossible to connect.

Every time my privacy was invaded I filed complaints, following the advice of the Victim's advisory associations.
However, I did not remain inactive. To protect myself, I moved four times, changed locks 26 times and installed three burglar alarms of different types. In vain.

RAPE
In 2002 a gang of rapists entered my apartment (locked and bolted) during the night. I woke from a deep sleep to hear their voices around my bed. I tried to move, but my body did not respond to the orders of my brain. I was knocked unconscious and raped with no protection.
The next day I found bruises on my arms and legs.

Given that I was the victim of a rumour campaign describing me as "mad", I chosed not to file a complaint with the police.
However, in 2007 I denounced this rape, once I had proved that I was not mad and explained the stratagems set up by my mother's solicitor and their purpose: to eliminate me so that my brother could inherit both my mother's estate and mine.

I sent the complaint about the rape on May 28 2007 to the examining judge , in charge of my complaint against X with institution of civil action proceedings , lodged in Paris, on October 11 2006.

In February 2008 I also informed the Public Prosecutor of Rennes (35) of the rape.

At that time I was living partly in Dol de Bretagne (35) where I had complained to the police of break ins, thefts and damage. The break ins had continued, despite the fact that the succession had been closed.
In France, judges informed of a rape have the obligation to inform at once the Public Prosecutor who must order an investigation.
Neither of these two magistrates contacted me or interrogated me following my denunciation of the rape.
The rape was not added to the list of my complaints by the examining judge.
This offence was denied by deliberate omission by the judges as of May 27 2007.

COMPLAINTS AND PROCEDURES
Throughout this series of violent acts, I filed many complaints about the various incidents.
The fact is that my position as a victim was mainly denied by representatives of the State, sometimes cunningly, often by criticism or ridicule.

1-
On November 20 2003, I was called to the police station by Mme. R, a policewoman who informed me that she was responsible for proving me "mad".

On November 24 2003 I complained to the DPP about the humiliating terms and proceedings used by this policewoman towards a victim. In my letter I deliberately omitted the insult "mad", merely describing the atmosphere.

2-
On August 31 2004, I filed a complaint against X with institution of civil action proceedings for break-ins, theft, damages, interceptions of communications etc. before the court of Angers (49) under file n° 204/00037.

I was living part of the time in Angers where I was an officer in an association for the defence of building co-owners. This association covered three French départements where I travelled regularly.
During the course of the procedure in Angers, I received a summons on December 16 2004 for a psychiatric examination by an expert in Angers hospital, at the request of the examining judge.

At that date no police forces had visited my domicile to check the facts. I refused the examination.

On January 4 2005, a fortnight after the court had attempted to make the case a psychiatric one, the examining magistrate issued a commission rogatory (204/0037)for questioning.

On February 17 2005, I was called in for questioning by a policewoman, Mme. C. She read out the notes for me to sign. I trusted her.

Two years later, I discovered, after gaining access to my civil case notes, that Mme. C had noted in the foregoing notes that I had said.:
"I expressly request to be heard as a witness and waive my right to counsel".
I had never asked to be considered as the witness of the violence I had suffered, since I was the victim thereof. Moreover, I could not waive the right to counsel since I had no lawyer.

On February 23 2005, Mme. C transferred her case notes to the examining magistrate. She clearly states therein that the examining magistrate had refused any investigation:

"The judge dealing with the case informed me that it was not necessary to visit the complainant's home. It would give no useful information, since the complainant clearly had a disturbed personality".

If Mme C had had the warrant with which to search my domicile, she would have seen the visible damage done by intruders that I was complaining about: clothes and linens ripped, chair seats injected with ink, a cupboard full of acid burn marks, an old spinning wheel cut up with a knife, probably a cutter, etc.

Mme C. added the following comments to her report: "during the interview, Madame XXX appeared to be disturbed and did not seem in possession of her faculties, talking incomprehensibly."
She added that : « It would seem she has a tendency to affabulate» .

If Mme C. had taken the trouble to ask, she would have learned that I was university educated and spoke three foreign languages, among which Chinese. This makes what she describes as "incomprehensible muttering" rather unlikely.

In October 17 2005, the Angers examining magistrate dismissed the case, on the grounds that I had refused to submit to psychiatric examination and that I had sent too many observations and descriptions of facts. She added that my interview by S. Cordier "merely underlined the unlikely nature of the complaints."
Between August 31 2004 and October 17 2005, no investigation or search was made at my home in ANGERS (49)

3 -
On August 10 2004, I filed a complaint agents X in Paris, also, registered under the number 345/05/42 . That, too, was dismissed in April 2005.
In Paris, no investigation or search was made at my appartment.
In both cases, the deposit was returned. Courts do not refund deposits when complaints are deemed abusive.

4-
On June 14 2005, two policemen came to my home in Angers for what they said was an investigation . It did not concern me. One of the policemen was Mr. B. I took advantage of their unexpected visit to ask them to make an official report on the damage in my apartment. They agreed and took my particulars for this purpose.

On July 30 2005, called in by Mme M, a policewoman, I discovered that no trace of the two policemen's visit to my home on June 14 could be found, nor of their report.
Even more seriously, Mme M told me that my complaint file was empty. Fearing that I did not understand, she spelt out the word: EM-PTY.

On November 2 2005, returning to the police station again, after being summoned by Mme. M, I was surprised to see Mr. B, the policeman who had supposedly reported on the state of my home on June 1

4.
Mr. B. tried to make me withdraw my complaint of November 2 2005 for harrassment.
I refused and decided to leave the room. Mr. B prevented me, blocking my passage and shouting to all his colleagues and one of the harrassers in the nearby waiting room, " She has a persecution complex, and doesn't want to be treated... she falls out with everyone ... it was the same in Paris. "
I complained about this treatment to the commissaire of the Angers police station on November 6 2006.
The Angers DPP took the case, but she dismissed it in 2006.

5-
On October 11 2006 a third complaint against X with institution of civil action proceedings was accepted in Paris under the number 06/910, on " invasion of my private life, insults, threats, incessant break-ins, violation of postal mail, telecommunications, damage to the contents of my homes, repeated thefts, abuse of trust in relation to a credit card, risk to my life due to fraudulent interventions in my car electronics".

The examining magistrate suggested, in a letter dated January 12 2007, that I ask to be heard by a police officer. I agreed to this on January 20 2007.

The examining magistrate asked the Commissaire of the main police station in Angers to conduct this

hearing on May 25 2007.
Although the French Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that hearings ordered by an examining magistrate must be conducted by a police officer, I was explicitly called and heard by Mme. G, a brand new policewoman , at the Mont Plaisir police station, 9 rue de Normandie, Angers (49), on June 7 2007. Following this hearing, a copy of the notes was signed by both of us.
I was refused a copy of this document.

On June 8 2007, 3 policemen Mr R., Mr P., Mme G., came to my home, to examine the damages. I noted this fact in letter to the judge
They did not give any form to fill for my approval.
They did not write their report while in the appartment or ask for my signature .

They, therefore, ignored the article n° 56 of the Code of penal procedure (Code de procédure pénale)

On July 11 2007, Mme D., a police officer not present at my hearing of June 7 2007, sent the examining magistrate a report mainly comprised of a list of my complaints.

In this report, Mme D. , mentioned neither the notes of the hearing that I signed together with Mme. G. , on June 7 2007, nor the report that should have been made following the visit of the three policemen to my home on June 8 2007.
In her report, Mme. D first noted that I was "well known to the police and legal services in both Angers and Paris".
This language is commonly used by the police and courts when referring to habitual
offenders.
She continued with her own opinion, preceded by the expression "given that...", an
expression usually referring to facts proved or corroborated by expert opinion.
The words following her "given that" were "deranged personality of affabulating type".

All these verbally cunning remarks served to make me (the victim) and my complaints seem inconsiderable, so dispensing the police from making investigations, and excusing its inertia.

New but not least, a letter from the examining magistrate dated 25 July 2007 exhorted me to withdraw my complaint n°06/910. In the same letter, the magistrate also informed me that the case had been declared a nonsuit on March 27 2007.

This appears to mean that the case had been dismissed even before my questioning by the police on June 7 2007.

I replied to this letter on August 3 2007 refusing to withdraw my complaint.

A second letter from the examining magistrate dated October 5 2007 confirmed that case 06/910 had been declared a nonsuit on March 27 2007. However, at that date I had still not received notice of this nonsuit.

The same letter dated October 5 2007 fixed a new deposit for this same case at €3,000. This is the case that had been accepted in 2006 on a deposit of 800 euros.
This was an unexpected demand

I replied to this letter on October 10 2007.

On November 7 2007 I was able, with the necessary help of a lawyer, to gain access to what was presented as the entire investigation file on my case.

Missing from this file was the report of the police hearing (threatened with nullification, because the new policewoman Mrs C., had not the quality to replace a judge) dated June 7 2007 and the report on the police search in my domicile on June 8 2007.

In a letter dated November 13 2007, I warned the examining magistrate that the lawyer who had gained access to my case file had completed his task.
In the same letter I also requested that the two missing reports be sent to me. No answer was received. This supposes that they disappeared or were deliberately removed from the investigation file.

Refusal to inform
On February 6 2008, the examining magistrate ordered a refusal to inform without proper motivations (as requested by the article 86 of the Code of penal procedure) .

The judge only mentionned that a complaint on similar grounds had been declared a nonsuit on April 27 2005 in Paris.

This decision did not take account of the rape denunciation of May 28 2007, since the denunciation of a victim is worth a complaint. It did not take account neither of the posteriority of the other and different complaints.

Though, the denunciation of a criminal act extends the prescribed time of the complaint from. three years to ten years.

The decision of the judge was based solely on Mme D's account and did not take into account the reports of my hearing on June 7 2007 and on the police visit of June 8 2007.

Court of Appeal
I appealed against the refusal to inform in the Paris Court of Appeal, on the grounds that this case had been dealt with haphazardly and carelessly in view of the letters from the examining magistrate dated July 25 and October 5.

The complaint had been filed under the number 06/910 and a deposit of 800 euros had been paid in 2006. The questioning by the police took place on June 7 2007.

Mme D's report was sent on July 11 2007.

Mme D. was a police officer in Angers. Her report was unexpectedly sent to the examining judge of Paris , through the Court of Saumur , a small city 40 kms away from Angers.

However, in his letter dated July 25 2007, the examining magistrate asked me to withdraw my complaint n° 06/910, precisely the complaint which awaited his final decision.

In the same letter, he stated that the complaint (06/910) had been declared a nonsuit on March 27 2007.

Therefore, on 25 July 2007 the judge was encouraging me to withdraw a complaint that had already been declared a nonsuit.

It seemed clear that these irregularities plus the nullified and absent report on my hearing of June 7 2007 implied that the examining magistrate was not in possession of the necessary facts on which to base a decision.
My appeal was therefore based on those inconsistencies.

Court of Appeal - decision -
On December 15 2008, the examining chamber confirmed the order of refusal to inform dated February 6 2008. Its main argument was based on Mme D's opinion of my behaviour and psychology, which, intensified and aggravated by the chamber, her superior, became : "imaginary allegations ... exacerbated persecution complex"

This is how the examining chamber could declare that my said  comportmental and psychological problems therefore led to the conclusion that there was no possibility to give criminal qualifications to the facts listed in my complaints.
Court of Cassation
On December 31 2008 I filed an appeal in the French Court of Cassation, n° 08/00929, presenting a pleading based again and particularly on the irregularities in the investigative procedure.

In its report, G 09-80. 819 , dated 23 April 2009 the rapporteur of the criminal division of the Court refused the appeal on the basis of Art. 590 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that reference be made to the laws the violation of which is invoked.

In the same report dated April 23 2009, the rapporteur repeated the inventions of the investigating chamber: "imaginary allegations ... exacerbated persecution complex", without reference to the article in the Code of Penal Procedure incriminated.

In a letter to the rapporteur dated May 9 2009, I contested the abusive and ungrounded use of the terms "imaginary allegations ... exacerbated persecution complex" .

Finally, on October 9 2009, I received the decision, G 09-80.819 F-N , from the criminal division of the Cour de Cassation, refusing my appeal under Art. 567-1-1 of the Code of Penal Procedure, on the grounds that there existed no way of admitting the appeal.

Here again, the 800 euro deposit was refunded.
A deposit is never refunded when an appellant wastes the court's time with "imaginary allegations ".
Here, as before, this refund showed implicitly that my complaints were grounded..
                                                                 *****************
It is in these circumstances that I present this claim before the European Court of Human Rights, for it to be judged that France, a signatory State, has violated several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .

                                                              ********************
Various actions, omissions and decisions in this case have violated Arts. 3 , 6.§ 1 and 8 of the Convention.

Violation of Article 3 of the Convention
"No person shall be subjected to torture, nor to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment"

1-
In the aforementioned context of violence and violations of every kind, including insults, the representatives of the State deliberately sought to describe me as mad, deranged or disturbed with the intention of making me believe so.

First of all, the solicitor ( notaire), a public officer, by refusing to liquidate the estate with false information, set up the conditions for a context of violence. To push me out of my mother inheritance, persons that I did not even know joigned with insults and criminal acts to drive me crazy.

Policemen and magistrates have also participated .
This treatment by the public authorities began with the words of Mme R, a policewoman, who, talking to me , of me, used the term "mad" on November 23 2003.

In 2005 , Mr B. , a policeman, shouted :
" She has a persecution complex... she doesn't want to be treated... she has fallen out with everyone. It was the same in Paris".
These were a few among many.

Without recourse to any mental health expert or specialist, the police and judiciary used terms and expressions all designed to break me, by disregarding me as a victim of organized but unjustified violence.
These terms were also used in a text, that of the French Cour de Cassation, which is a matter of public record.
My supposed state of derangement, as decreed by judges not qualified to diagnose it, thus became an officially acknowledged stigma.
The language used was sometimes, cleverly, on the borderline between the psychological and the psychiatric: « eccentric… extravagant .»
Those personal value judgment were used to describe me , instead of investigating the offenses I kept on mentioning ..
Some expressions avoided the trap of the overt pseudo-medical diagnosis . This was the case of the examining magistrate's term of "semblance", which was repeated by the Cour de Cassation, protecting themselves in order to assert a "form of exacerbated feeling of persecution"

Refusing deliberately to take into account the unbearable situation I faced, to make it stop, the policemen and magistrates have tried to convince me of mental or psychological problems, that they named.
Throughout this period, after first trusting the police and courts of my country, I became a victim of their determination.

I was daily confronted with my aggressors and their violence, and on top of that came the representatives of the State who were determined to deny the reality of my case, attempting to place me in psychological and behavioural categories that I did not belong in.
Fighting alone against the all-powerful State bodies to make them admit that I am a victim and a normal citizen has been a traumatizing experience and the moral suffering has exhausted me. Hitherto my fight has been in vain.
The accusations of abnormality, by representatives of the State at all stages of my complaints, leveled at a victimized woman (myself) who was already struggling against incessant harassment, can be considered as a form of mental torture. This has continued for six years.

2-
The rape accusation of 2007 was ignored and hidden by the representatives of the French State at the highest level, yet their function and French law require them to take the complaint into account and investigate.
Denial of rape also increases the victim's suffering and leaves her no chance of reconstruction.
The denial might have been to bolster the State which had not taken measures to protect me, and continued to assert that it was all in my imagination.
This way of despising a victim is part of the treatment leading to mental torture that I underwent. .

3-
Rape, an undesired sexual act, is a degrading treatment against which the French State has the duty to protect its citizens, and it should have investigated and prosecuted.
In my case, the gang rape, in my apartment, after placing me in a state of dependence, was a degrading and humiliating experience and violated my right to physical and moral integrity.
Therefore, Article 3 of the Convention was violated.


Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
"All persons shall have the right to have their cause heard equitably, publicly and within reasonable delays, by an independent and impartial tribunal set up by law, which shall decide, either on the contestations arising from civil rights and obligations, or on the grounds for any criminal accusation against them".

1-
In my complaint n° 204/00037 filed in Angers in 2004, the investigation of the policewoman, Mme C. clearly notes the examining magistrate's refusal to allow any search of my home.
"the judge issuing the order stipulated that it was not necessary to investigate at the complainant's home. These observations would add nothing to our investigation."
It was no doubt because of the same decision not to investigate that the examining magistrate decided to order a psychiatric examination in December 2004 even before issuing the order ( Jan.. 05) .
Both these manouvers were intended deliberately so as not to hear my complaint. This clearly denied me due and fair process.

2 -
My complaint n° 06/910 was filed in Paris, but was then dealt with in Angers (49), where I lived.
In June 2007, two documents from the file processed by Angers disappeared: the report of the hearing and the report on the observations in my home.

The new policewoman who conducted the hearing had no capacity to do it.
She had not the three necessary years of practice to be considered a police officer and therefore stand in for the examining judge.
The three policemen and woman who came to my home on June 8 2007 had not produced any written approval from me .
They futhermore did not ask me to sign their report.
This report was not added to my file.
Actually , these actions which happened to heap ridicule on a victim (me)turned out to appear as a parody of justice.
In July and August 2007, contradictory and irregular decisions and demands from the Paris examining magistrate contributed to the confusion in dealing with this case:

- the magistrate suggested that I withdraw the complaint that had been accepted six months previously
- the case was declared nolle prosequi before the date of the hearing was fixed
- an additional deposit was demanded.


All these irregular acts resulted in an order of refusal to inform made by a tir examining magistrate on February 6 2008.
The decision was grounded purely on the fact that the actions I complained about were not criminally qualifiable,. Since no investigation had never been done at my home, it is very likely that no investigation was carried out by the investigation team.

The only available document for this case remains the report dated July 11 2007, based on the reading of my numerous complaints, and the conclusions drawn from them by the writer, the lady police officer. This report analyses neither the information in the report on my hearing dated June 7 2007, nor the items in the report made at my home on June 8 2007. These two documents were never found in the case file.
The examining chamber then grounded its order on the fact that my previous complaints about similar, but not identical, facts had given rise to dismissal of the case.
It adds, in the absence of any result of investigations that were not pursued, that this case is based only on my imagination driven by "a form of exacerbated feeling of persecution".
It stated too, that my complaints were not criminally qualifiable .
The deductive reasoning which ends up in this conclusion seems to be that since I am said perturbed, then I am not « trustworthy » and so are not my complaints .

These two decisions, based on statements made by a police officer not qualified to judge either the physical or the mental health of a person, constitute a violation of the right to due process before an impartial tribunal (Art. 6 § 1 of the Convention).

In fact, because I was catalogued as "disturbed" and "affabulating", I simply never benefited from an impartial treatment of my complaints.
The order from the Criminal division of the Court of Cassation on September 1 2009, refusing to admit my appeal, is also in violation of article 6§1 of the Convention.

This judgment, which relies on article 567-1-1, declares that there were no grounds allowing the appeal to be heard, without detailing what those grounds might be. Article 567-1-1 provides that the appeal must be declared as not admitted where it does not present "serious grounds for cassation".

Moreover, the report of the rapporteur recommended non admission of the appeal insofar as my appeal did not cite the laws violation of which was alleged, as required by Art. 590 of the aforementioned code.
Nonetheless, the appeal refers expressly to Art. 81 of that code and argues that it was violated during the procedure.

What is more, many judgments of the Court of Cassation show that the judicial authorities do not hesitate to qualify facts that they are seized with, and this could have been done in my case. That was not so.
In my case, the Court of Cassation and the examining magistrate did not automatically find the legal arguments likely to determine the result of a procedure.
I was not granted an impartial treatment of my case.
Therefore, article 6§1 of the Convention was violated.

Violation of article 8 of the Convention
"All persons have the right to privacy in their lives, homes and correspondence.
No public authority may interfere in the exercise of this right, unless this interference is provided by law and constitutes a measure which, in a democratic society, is required by national security, public safety, national economic health, defence of law and order and prevention of criminal acts, protection of health and morals, or protection of the rights and liberties of third parties".

The first line of the Convention asserts the right to privacy in the family, home and correspondence. It goes on to confirm that public authorities may not interfere in the exercise of this right.

1-
By suspecting me, indeed accusing me, of disorders or illness that had been neither observed or named by specialists, the police and examining magistrates clearly violated my privacy.
These suspicions or impressions were mentioned by the police and magistrates as disorders, derangements or illnesses.
- in writing (Mme. C , and the examining magistrate at Angers, then Mme D. in 2006 , then the examining magistrate and the rapporteur in the Cour de Cassation )
- verbally ( Mme R. and Mr. B.)
They violated the right to privacy acknowledged by the Convention and protected by the State, by constantly and directly interfering in my private life,
By the same token, they damaged my reputation by formulating these accusations of behavioural disorders invented for their own convenience.
These manoeuvres and humiliating criticism also violated my right to dignity.
All these procedures by the public authorities thus interfered in my private life.

2-
The right to privacy in the home implies that the home is inviolable. It is guaranteed by the Convention and the member States.
It so happens that no report on the violations of my domicile was ever made. The two reports expected ( dated 14-6-2005 and 8-6-05) do not appear to exist.
There was therefore a deliberate intention on the part of the State representatives to hide the extreme situation that I experienced, and do nothing.

It would therefore be appropriate here to consider that these violations and their consequences are proved, because the method of the ostrich hiding its head in the sand, used by the French State, leads us to suppose that the absence of investigation and reporting prove precisely that I must be telling the truth.
The incessant violations of my privacy deprived me of normal security and enjoyment of the apartments I was living in.
The privacy, security and well-being in my living spaces were denied me for ten years through the inertia or inefficiency of the authority that guarantees them. The consequences were destruction and incessant thefts.
3-
During this time, my correspondence was stolen or opened. My telephone line was spied on or transferred. My Internet connections were impossible or spied on.
This is a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention.
I therefore demand that the French State be sentenced to pay € XXX euros in damages.


Furthermore, I wish to draw the attention of the European Court of Human Rights to the right, not observed in my case and cruelly highlighted by it:
the right to normality
which would serve to protect many women at the basic level of acts of justice in Europe and throughout the world.

***********************

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Remarque : Seul un membre de ce blog est autorisé à enregistrer un commentaire.