United Kingdom; 4.12.1995, Ribitsch v. Austria; 18.12.1996, Aksoy v. Turkey; 25.2.97, Findlay v. the United Kingdom; 16.9.1997, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey; 19.2.1998, Guerra v. Italy; 19.2.1998, Kaya v. Turkey; 25.5.1998, Kurt v. Turkey; 9.6.1998, Tekin v. Turkey; 2. 9. 1998, Erkalo v. the Netherlands; 2.9.1998, Yasa v. Turkey; 23.9.1998, A. v. the United Kingdom In the case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria1, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A2, as a Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr R. Bernhardt, President, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mrs E. Palm, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr D. Gotchev, Mr P. van Dijk, Mr V. Toumanov, and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 June and 25 September 1998, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 22 September 1997, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 24760/94) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Commission under Article 25 by three Bulgarian nationals, Mr Anton Assenov, Mrs Fidanka Ivanova and Mr Stefan Ivanov, on 6 September 1993. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby Bulgaria recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 3, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 25 of the Convention. 2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).