2 GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT decision of 10 April 2007, it was declared partly admissible by a Chamber of the latter Section, composed of Peer Lorenzen, President, Snejana Botoucharova, Volodymyr Butkevych, Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Rait Maruste, Javier Borrego Borrego, Renate Jaeger, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar. 4. On 30 June 2008 a Chamber of the Fifth Section, composed of Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Volodymyr Butkevych, Renate Jaeger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. The Chamber decided unanimously that it was not necessary to rule on the Government’s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It held, by six votes to one, that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It further held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention. 5. By submissions dated 19 September 2008, received at the Court’s Registry on 26 September 2008, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73, maintaining his claim that there had been a violation of both Article 3 and Article 6 of the Convention. On 1 December 2008 a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. 6. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. 7. The applicant and the German Government (“the Government”) each filed a memorial on the merits and replied in writing to each other’s memorials. In addition, third-party comments were received from Mr Friedrich von Metzler and Mrs Sylvia von Metzler, the parents of J., who had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2) and who were represented by Mr E. Kempf and Ms H. Schilling, lawyers practising in Frankfurt am Main. Additional third-party submissions were received from the Redress Trust, a London-based international human rights nongovernmental organisation, which had been granted leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 §§ 2 and 3) and which was represented by Ms C. Ferstman, Director, and Mr L. Oette, Adviser. The parties replied to those submissions (Rule 44 § 5). 8. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18 March 2009 (Rule 59 § 3).