acts of torture should be sanctioned with at least ten years’ imprisonment. The non-use by Greek courts of Article 137B and the imposition of non-dissuasive penalties on law enforcement officials was also brought forward in a case concerning alleged ill-treatment, including falanga and ‘Palestinian hanging’, of members of a group of Afghan nationals by police officers in the police station of Aghios Panteleimonas, Athens, in 2004. In this case, the Athens Mixed Jury Appeal Court, disregarding the prosecutor’s proposal, did not accept that torture had occurred and convicted the two incriminated police officers to suspended 20 and 25 months’ imprisonment for inflicting unintentional bodily harm. This case also was subsequently brought before the Strasbourg Court.19 According to information available, in all cases so far, except in the aforementioned case of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas, all penalties for torture imposed in first instance have been overturned on appeal. A noteworthy case is the above-mentioned ‘Chios submarino’ one where the two incriminated coast guard officers were convicted by the Piraeus Naval Tribunal in 2013 to, inter alia, suspended three and six years’ imprisonment for complicity to aggravated torture and aggravated torture respectively.20 In 2014 the convictions were overturned on appeal, primarily on evidentiary grounds, and the defendants were acquitted. Reportedly during the trial the prosecutor called for the officers’ acquittal claiming, inter alia, that there was no evidence adduced showing that the latter were trained in torture methods.21 II. The absence of reference to the question of racially biased ill-treatment in Alsayed Allaham and Zontul A striking element of the Strasbourg Court judgments in Alsayed Allaham and Zontul is the absence of applicant complaints, or of proprio motu evaluation by the Court, about the possible existence of racial bias in the migrants’ ill-treatment by law enforcement officers. In fact such a claim, under Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination), was put forward unsuccessfully in another case concerning substantive and procedural violations of Article 3 ECHR due to ill-treatment by the police in Thessaloniki in 2001 of a Greek citizen of Russian-Pontic origin (Zelilof v. Greece, judgment of 24 May 2007). In this case the Court made it clear that its task in this context is to “establish whether or not racism was a causal factor in the impugned conduct of the police officers”, which may lead to a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR. In Zelilof the Court followed the wording and reasoning of the 2005 Grand Chamber judgment in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (judgment of 6 July 2005) concerning the killing by military police of the Roma applicants’ relatives. After recalling that in assessing evidence it has adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” it added that in certain cases of alleged discrimination the Court may require the respondent state to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimination and – if they fail to do so – find a violation of Article 14 ECHR. However, in cases where it is alleged that a violent act has been racially motivated, such an approach would amount to requiring the respondent state to prove the absence of a particular subjective attitude on the part of the person concerned. The Court continued saying: “While in the legal systems of many countries proof of the discriminatory effect of a policy or decision will dispense with the need to prove intent in respect of alleged discrimination in employment or the Ahmad Sarwari et autres c. Grèce, Application lodged on 19 June 2012, communicated to the government on 21 April 2016. See also press release on this case by the Lawyers’ Group for the Rights of Refugees and Migrants, 23 March 2012, in Greek, http://omadadikigorwn.blogspot.fr/2012/03/blog-post_27.html. 20 Judgment 365/2013, 25 November 2013, on file with the author. See press release on this case by Lawyers’ Group for the Rights of Refugees and Migrants, 26 November 2013, in Greek, http://omadadikigorwn.blogspot.fr/2013/11/blog-post_26.html. 21D. Mac Con Uladh, “Why did you annoy them? Coastguard officials acquitted of torture convictions”, 12 November 2014, available at: https://damomac.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/why-did-you-annoy-themcoastguard-officers-acquitted-of-torture-convictions/. Judgment 167/2014 was delivered by the Naval Appeal Court on 6 November 2014, on file with the author. 19 7