Datasets:

overthelex
/

echr-livehrb-static-2k

item_id string	case_name string	respondent string	article string	violation_label string	verdict_free_text string	original_length int64	verdict_free_length int64	retention_percentage float64	verdict_removal_method string	decision_date string	application_number string	importance string	ecli string	article_full string	group string
001-246017	CASE OF LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA	ALBANIA	6	violation	THIRD SECTION CASE OF LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA (Application no. 6045/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 November 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lasku and Others v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee comp...	21,171	8,625	40.7	court_assessment_start	2025-11-18	6045/14	4	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1118JUD000604514	6	regular
001-115854	CASE OF QAMA v. ALBANIA AND ITALY	ALBANIA AND ITALY	8	no_violation	FOURTH SECTION CASE OF QAMA v. ALBANIA AND ITALY (Application no. 4604/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 January 2013 FINAL 08/04/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Qama v. Albania and Italy,...	40,804	4,569	11.2	court_assessment_start	2013-01-08	4604/09	3	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0108JUD000460409	8	regular
001-115165	CASE OF BALL v. ANDORRA	ANDORRA	8	no_violation	THIRD SECTION CASE OF BALL v. ANDORRA (Application no. 40628/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 December 2012 FINAL 11/03/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.. In the case of Ball v. Andorra, The European Cou...	32,358	13,643	42.2	court_assessment_start+conclusion_scrub; recut: the_law_header_v13	2012-12-11	40628/10	4	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1211JUD004062810	8	regular
001-173089	CASE OF ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA	ARMENIA	6	violation	FIRST SECTION CASE OF ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 3571/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 April 2017 FINAL 27/07/2017 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Asatryan v. Armenia, The Europ...	39,703	31,990	80.6	court_assessment_start+conclusion_scrub	2017-04-27	3571/09	4	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0427JUD000357109	6	regular
001-112501	CASE OF SHOLOKHOV v. ARMENIA AND MOLDOVA	ARMENIA AND MOLDOVA	6	violation	THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHOLOKHOV v. ARMENIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 40358/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 July 2012 FINAL 31/10/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sholokh...	45,433	33,607	74	court_assessment_start	2012-07-31	40358/05	3	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0731JUD004035805	6	regular
001-176964	CASE OF GOLDNAGL v. AUSTRIA	AUSTRIA	6	violation	FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GOLDNAGL v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 6822/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 September 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Goldnagl v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sit...	18,760	15,316	81.6	court_assessment_start+conclusion_scrub	2017-09-07	6822/12	4	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0907JUD000682212	6	regular
001-242855	CASE OF UMID-T LLC v. AZERBAIJAN	AZERBAIJAN	1	violation	THIRD SECTION CASE OF UMID-T LLC v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 7949/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 April 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of UMID-T LLC v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: ...	12,624	5,270	41.7	court_assessment_start	2025-04-29	7949/13	4	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0429JUD000794913	P1-1	regular
001-235491	CASE OF MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA	AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA	8	violation	"FIFTH SECTION\nCASE OF MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA\n(Application no. 39503/17)\n \nJUDGMEN(...TRUNCATED)	169,798	100,397	59.1	court_assessment_start	2024-09-05	39503/17	3	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0905JUD003950317	8	regular
001-202524	CASE OF MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY	AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY	38	no_violation	"FOURTH SECTION\nCASE OF MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN \nv. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY\n(Application no. 17247/(...TRUNCATED)	216,477	72,231	33.4	court_assessment_start	2020-05-26	17247/13	1	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0526JUD001724713	38	regular
001-204584	CASE OF MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY	AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY	8	violation	"FIFTH SECTION\n \n \n \nCASE OF MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY\n \n(Application no. 62775/(...TRUNCATED)	99,683	14,958	15	court_assessment_start	2020-09-17	62775/14	3	ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0917JUD006277514	8	regular

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

echr-livehrb-static-2k

Balanced static evaluation set for LiveHumanRightsBench (ECtHR human-rights judgment prediction).

regular: 1000 pairs from overthelex/echr-verdict-free (Ukraine excluded), round-robin stratified by respondent country.
ukr: 1000 pairs from overthelex/echr-ukr-verdict-free, round-robin stratified by ECHR article.
Natural violation/no-violation distribution (base-rate balancing is a separate task). Seed=42, reproducible.
Verdict-free text (contamination-controlled). decision_date / application_number / importance / ecli attached from HUDOC (~94-98% coverage).
Full judgments/decisions only (HUDOC doctype 001); Information Note summaries (002) excluded.

Columns

item_id, case_name, respondent, article, violation_label, verdict_free_text, decision_date, application_number, importance, ecli, group (+ length fields).

Usage

from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("overthelex/echr-livehrb-static-2k", split="train")
regular = ds.filter(lambda r: r["group"] == "regular")
ukr     = ds.filter(lambda r: r["group"] == "ukr")

Changelog

v1.3 (2026-08-26) — verdict leak repaired

186 of 2000 rows (9.3%) still contained the Court's reasoning and have been re-cut. Verdict removal was marker-driven ("The Court's assessment" and similar); where no marker fired, the entire legal analysis survived into the field models are scored on. BALL v. ANDORRA retained 18,160 characters after THE LAW, including the conclusion, against a no_violation label.

The v1.1 leakage audit missed this because it was lexical. A lexical probe fails in both directions: it fires on domestic courts quoted in the facts ("the City Court finds no violation of Article 6") and misses the Court phrasing its own conclusion as "did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations". retention_percentage is not a usable filter either — affected rows appear at 49% and 66% retention.

The skew mattered more than the rate. Leakage was concentrated in exactly the dimensions this data is compared on: regular 18.5% against ukr 0.1%, no_violation 2.4–2.6x more often than violation, importance-1 judgments 21.3% against 4.9% for importance-4, and per-country rates from 52% to 0%. Measured impact on affected rows: no effect on violation cases, +14.3pp on no-violation accuracy, +7.1pp balanced.

What changed: text is now cut at the last THE LAW header following the last THE FACTS, ignoring table-of-contents repetitions. Only affected rows were touched — every other row is byte-identical to v1.2. Row membership is unchanged, so results from v1.2 remain comparable except where the text itself changed. verdict_free_length, retention_percentage and verdict_removal_method were recomputed to follow the text.

Reproduce the audit with scripts/leak_audit/audit_leak.py in the LiveHumanRightsBench repository.

Downloads last month: 35