Prompt: 14.  Three of the applicants lodged petitions with the Committee on Reopening of Judicial Proceedings (Endurupptökunefnd), seeking to have the proceedings before the Supreme Court reopened. Their petitions were based inter alia on the ground that there had been significant defects in the procedure, as one of the Supreme Court judges, Á.K., had been disqualified from sitting in the case on account of his wife’s and his son’s connection to the case (see paragraphs 33-35 below). On 26 January 2016 the petitions were rejected.


Prompt: 10.  Four other individuals of Kazakh origin, acquaintances of Mr Zelilof, who were also involved in the event, were arrested that night and taken to the police station where the applicant was detained. Among them, Dimitrios and


Prompt: 53.  On unspecified dates the investigating authorities requested various authorities, including the prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 and the military commander of the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy District, to inform them if any special operations had been conducted in Sernovodsk on 26-27 April 2004 and whether


Prompt: 11.  The applicants submitted a handwritten plan of the neighbourhood indicating their house and the location of the military vehicles. They also submitted statements by Khava Rasayeva and their neighbours, I. B., M. M. and P. G., who confirmed their account of


Prompt: 8.  During the shooting the applicant's two sons Bilal (born in 1997) and Ilyas (born in 2002) ran out from their bedrooms into the corridor. At some point Bilal ran out of his sister's bedroom, screaming that Summaya had been wounded and was bleeding. It appears that


Prompt: 29.  On 22 January 2003 the second applicant wrote similar applications to the Military Commander of Urus-Martan, the Head of the Urus-Martan Town Administration and the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. In the applications he provided details of the unlawful apprehension of Mr


Prompt: 9.  Following the prosecutor’s order of 16 June 2008, a special police operation was carried out on 18 June 2008 in two of the company’s offices located in the same street in Varna. The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor. Ya.K., a CSCOC officer and the head of the operation, had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began. Those instructions were to enter the company’s premises as quickly as possible, to overpower all individuals found there in order to prevent them from interfering with any electronic evidence, and to seize the computer equipment found in the offices. A district court judge confirmed the validity of the search‑and‑seizure operation within 24 hours of its having taken place. A number of computers and black boxes, the latter referred to in the search‑and-seizure reports as “computer systems”, as well as one folder of paper documents, were seized in the presence of certifying witnesses during the operation. The manager of the company,


Prompt: 12.  On 4 February 1991, at the request of the Bakırköy Assize Court, the Forensic Medicine Institute drew up a report which concluded that the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova on the contract of adoption was authentic. However, in a further report dated 28 August 1991 the Forensic Medicine Institute noted that its examination of 4 February 1991 had been based on a comparison between the signature of


Prompt: 13.  After the servicemen had left the house, the second applicant followed them and saw several Russian military vehicles – Ural and UAZ cars and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) – parked next to the village cemetery, about 500 metres from the applicants' house. She saw the officers putting Beslan and


Prompt: 14.  On return to the prison after the match, Viktor Trubnikov was found to be under the influence of alcohol. At 7.15 p.m. a prison officer placed him in a punishment cell where he was to be kept in solitary confinement before his inspection by the prison warder the following morning. At 8.20 p.m.


Prompt: 42.  On 21 January 2009 a number of applicants, specifically Mr Adnan Habimi, Mr Ljubomir Simić, Mr Srđan Lomigora, Mr Bojan Vučković, Mr Bajram Baždar, Mr Branislav Radulović, Mr Darko Savić, Mr Qerim Binaj and Mr


Prompt: 9.  The women and children of the applicants’ family were made to stay outside in sub-zero temperatures, and were then allowed to go to a neighbour’s house, but only several hours later. Some more hours later the fifth applicant heard the armed men saying on their radio that the information that a fighter was present in the applicants’ house was false. At around 12.30 p.m. the servicemen left, without finding any trace of Mr


Prompt: 71.  In reply to the requests, on 6 April 2002 the military commander's office of the Kurchaloy District stated that none of its servicemen had participated in any operations on 2 October 2000 and that it had no information about the whereabouts of


Prompt:
10.  The applicant stated that he had travelled to South Africa and, with the help of a smuggler and using a Sudanese passport (in the name of “Mohammed Eider” or similar), which had been kept by the smuggler, had arrived in Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport in Roissy at around 5.30 a.m. on 29 June 2005 on a flight from Johannesburg. He submitted that he had been held in the airport’s international zone until 1 July 2005 and had thus been unable to apply for leave to enter the country. Eight hours after his arrival he reported to the police station, saying that he was Eritrean and wished to apply for asylum. The police officer asked him to “prove where [he] had come from, claiming that [he] was not Eritrean but Pakistani, and for the first time refused [him] permission to leave the international zone”. According to the applicant, over a period of two days (between 29 June and 1 July), he went regularly to the police station – at each change of shift, or approximately eight times – in the vain hope of finding a police officer who would deal with his application. He said that “it was not until 1 July that a new police officer whom [he] had not seen previously finally registered [his] application”.
The Government contested this version of the facts. They said that they had checked the passenger lists for flights from South Africa which landed at Roissy Airport on 29 and 30 June and 1 July 2005 and that there had been no mention of anyone by the name of


Prompt: 8.  On 7 December 2001 the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie, the “Deputy Minister”) notified the first and second applicants of her intention (voornemen) to reject their asylum requests. In the light of various contradictions in the statements given by the first and second applicants, their inability to answer basic questions about the respective tribes they claimed to belong to, and the second applicant’s inability to provide simple topographic details of the city and the surroundings of the place where he claimed he had grown up and/or to provide any details about the M. opposition movement (goal, members, structure, leader) for which he claimed to have been active,


Prompt:
43.  The Kyrgyzstan chapter of the 2013 Annual Report by Amnesty International, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“Torture and other ill-treatment remained pervasive throughout the country and law enforcement and judicial authorities failed to act on such allegations. The authorities continued to fail to impartially and effectively investigate the June 2010 violence and its aftermath and provide justice for the thousands of victims of serious crimes and human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. Ethnic Uzbeks continued to be targeted disproportionately for detention and prosecution in relation to the June 2010 violence.
...
The Osh City Prosecutor stated in April that out of 105 cases which had gone to trial in relation to the June 2010 violence, only two resulted in acquittals. Only one of those cases involved an ethnic Uzbek,


Prompt: 21.  Meanwhile, in late 2005 the Minister of Healthcare was dismissed from his position and charged with a number of criminal offences, including offences involving abuse of official power. On 20 April 2007 the Assize Court convicted


Prompt: 28.  On an unspecified date in 2006 a bailiff enforced a 2003 judgment in favour of the company, according to which it had to be paid by private third parties MDL 25,353 (EUR 1,643). Since the company had debts worth MDL 429,727 (EUR 24,580), on 8 December 2006 a bailiff distributed the amount recovered from the third parties between several of the company’s creditors, including Mr


Prompt: 96.  The President of the Supreme Court considered it unfortunate that the committee had failed to mention that the applicant had been held since his conviction in the Ajarian Ministry of Security prison, in breach of the law. He noted that Mr


Prompt:
15.  On 6 June 2002 two police officers, one of whom was acting as investigator, questioned Dr İbrahim Öner from the Haydarpaşa Hospital in relation to his examination of the applicant on 26 May 2002. He stated the following:
“On 26 May 2002 police officers brought


Prompt: 7.  The first applicant was married to Mr Musa Gaytayev, who was born in 1972. The fifth applicant is the mother of Musa Gaytayev and of the second, third and fourth applicants. The first applicant and


Prompt:
46.  Overall, the Government submitted 17 documents, which included:
(a)  a list of documents contained in the file of criminal case no. 61149, from which it can be ascertained that the file comprised at least 132 document running to 150 pages;
(b)  a procedural decision of 15 November 2002 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with


Prompt: 55.  On 20 December 2005 the Severnaya Ossetia newspaper published an article, ‘Beslan. Who is to Blame?’ which contained a list of names, allegedly produced by the General Prosecutor’s Office, of the terrorists who had taken part in the attack on the school. At no. 32 appeared the name “


Prompt:
29.  The main file on the investigation into A.T.'s disappearance is the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's preliminary investigation file no. 1998/130. It contains 108 documents. The six previous investigation files, which were finally incorporated into this file, are as follows:
(i)the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/748 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(ii)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/70 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(iii) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/6950 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(iv) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/685 (this investigation ended with a decision to discontinue the prosecution);
(v)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (this investigation began following the Ministry of Justice's intervention and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(vi) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/7840 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(vii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (the investigation was reopened and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci).
The main documents in the investigation file concerning A.T.'s disappearance are as follows:
(i) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 9 January 1995 to the Governor's office in Diyarbakır;
(ii) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 8 March 1995 to the Governor's office in Diyarbakır;
(iii) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 8 March 1995 to the Principal Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır;
(iv) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 20 March 1996 to the Principal Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır;
(v) the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Commanding Oficer's letter of 31 March 1996;
(vi) the Diyarbakır Principal Public Prosecutor's decision of 11 April 1996 to discontinue the criminal proceedings;
(vii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's letter of 6 May 1996 to the public prosecutor in Diyarbakır, which states:
“Further to the investigation conducted by our public prosecutor's office in connection with the person named Ali Tekdağ, who is alleged to have been taken into custody in Diyarbakır on 13.11.1994, then taken to the Silvan Armoured Brigade Base and killed in custody, and in connection with the allegations contained in


Prompt:
61.  On the same date, 31 July 2007, the Dagestan MVD requested the Sovietskiy ROVD to confirm the following:
“The investigation conducted by the Makhachkala Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office established that on 28 April 2007, following a special operation, Mr


Prompt: 10.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also


Prompt: 33.  On 7 August 2003 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that on 6 January 2003 the ROVD police officers had arrested Visadi Shokkarov on the basis of a written instruction from the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office. The letter further stated that


Prompt: 14.  On 1 March 2007, the applicant’s solicitor informed the Secretary of State that an application had been made to the High Court for reconsideration of its decision. He relied on the affidavit sworn by an American attorney, which stated that the trial court could in fact impose the death penalty if sufficient aggravating features were found to exist in the first applicant’s case. By way of an order dated 20 March 2007, Florida Circuit Judge


Prompt: 27.  On 27 May 2002 the applicants and their relatives wrote to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office) and provided the following details concerning the circumstances of


Prompt: 79.  According to the applicants, at about 2 p.m. on 20 January 2001 Islam Tazurkayev and three other men were driving in a VAZ vehicle around Grozny when they were stopped by a group of Russian military servicemen in an APC and a white VAZ-2121 (Niva) vehicle for an identity check. Having checked the documents, the servicemen blindfolded


Prompt:
79.  On 28 February 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19015 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“... Between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 26 January 2001 in the village of Komsomolskoye a ’sweeping’ [operation] was conducted by servicemen from the 71st regiment and 46th brigade ... assisted by officers of the military commander’s office, the FSB and the VOVD [temporary department of the interior] of the Grozny district.
In the course of the operation at about 12 noon


Prompt: 19.  On 10 June (or September) 2003 the military commander’s office of Urus-Martan District informed the applicant in reply to her complaint of 11 April 2003 (see paragraph 15 above) that they had carried out an internal inquiry which had not established Mr


Prompt:
24.  On 20 January 2012 the Federal Service for Drug Control issued a decision on the undesirability of the first applicant’s presence in Russia (the “exclusion order”) which read in its entirety as follows:
“1.  On the basis of the materials received from the Komi division of the Federal Service for Drug Control, and in accordance with section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act, to declare undesirable the presence in Russia of the Georgian national Mr


Prompt:
30.  On 7 January 2005 the Directorate sent a letter to the applicant which read as follows:
“ ... The Directorate ... has taken note of the final decision of the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) ... on the admissibility of the application in the case of


Prompt: 18.  The applicant and his relatives had no news of Suleyman Tsechoyev after 25 February 1999. On 16 March 1999 a man who introduced himself as “Aslan” contacted one of the applicant's relatives. According to “Aslan”, he had been detained with


Prompt: 15.  Following orders from Sergeant Serghiou of the SBA police, Constable Duru Chorekdjioglou (a Turkish-Cypriot member of the SBA police) and Constable Petros Kamaris (a Greek-Cypriot member of the SBA police) arrived at the Achna roundabout, where they met


Prompt: 12.  In early 1992 the Head of the Silvan Security Department telephoned Mehmet Emin Ayhan and asked him if a member of the special police unit could be accommodated at the hospital for some time. Mehmet Emin Ayhan replied that police officers were not members of the hospital staff and did not therefore qualify for accommodation at the hospital. The Head of the Security Department expressed his disappointment in strong language and told


Prompt:
155.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Malika Usumova, who was born in 1960,
(2) Ms Aminat Usumova, who was born in 1985,
(3) Mr Zaur Usumov, who was born in 1988,
(4) Mr Zurab Usumov, who was born in 1994, and
(5) Ms


Prompt: 154.  On 3 October 1995 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting on the Commission's decision of 4 September 1995 (see paragraph 4 above), requested the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior to gather and transmit information about the case of


Prompt: 202.  Since that time the investigation has been resumed and suspended on numerous occasions. On several occasions supervising prosecutors criticised the progress of the proceedings, ordering the investigators to take a number of basic steps, such as questioning the ROVD officers, checking the reasons for the officials’ failure to register Mr


Prompt: 16.  On 9 July 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus requested the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (hereinafter, “the GPO”) to extradite the applicant. In its request the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus indicated that “


Prompt: 18.  Aslambek Imagamayev stated that he had run through the forest to tell the villagers what had happened. He stated that he had heard the helicopters shooting for some time. Baymurza Aldiyev testified that he had run towards the river and had hidden there in a bush. He estimated that the attack on the Niva car had continued for about an hour and a half. After the helicopters had left, he returned to the vehicle and found the bodies of


Prompt: 147.  At about 4 a.m. on 4 October 2002, the above-mentioned prison staff were informed that a loud noise was coming from cell no. 88. Mr Dalakishvili instructed a warden to find out what was happening. The latter looked through the peephole in the cell door and saw that the prisoners were dismantling beds and shouting in a foreign language. According to Mr


Prompt: 13.  On 4 September 1998 the applicant’s representative filed a criminal complaint with the Pendik public prosecutor. In his petition, the applicant’s representative maintained that on 26 August 1998 the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment by three police officers at the Pendik Security Directorate Building during his interrogation, before being taken to the Pendik police station to spend the night. The lawyer stated that one of the police officers was called


Prompt:
27.  In his second letter the doctor indicated:
“I refer to the second medical certificate that you sent to me, for my opinion, concerning the state of health of Mr Rachid Aoulmi, issued by Lyon-Sud Hospital on 13 July 1999.
Supplementing the previous certificate that you brought to my attention, this second certificate confirms that Mr


Prompt: 60.  On 17 July 2003 the district prosecutor's office ordered the Urus‑Martan VOVD to conduct investigative operational search measures in criminal case no. 24071 to identify persons who could have seen


Prompt: 20.  The applicant asked his family members and neighbours to preserve the footprints in order to enable the authorities to conduct a crime scene examination and collect evidence. After that the applicant and his elder son went to Urus-Martan and complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office), the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD) and the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office (the military commander’s office) that


Prompt:
50.  By a letter dated 18 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that it had examined his complaint and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the FSB officers. The refusal to institute criminal proceedings was enclosed in the letter and, in so far as relevant, stated as follows:
“...
On 6 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office received the [first applicant’s] request to institute criminal proceedings against FSB officers ... The complaint alleges that upon admission to the district FSB


Prompt:
81.  Following a visit to Romania, the Special Rapporteur in his report of 23 November 1999, found that there were persistent cases of police abuse aimed at extracting confessions from a suspect and that there was evidence to support the allegations that the Roma were more likely to be victims of police abuse than others. He further criticised as ineffective the system of investigation in which the military prosecutors had the exclusive authority to investigate, thus leading to the perception that the military prosecutors lacked independence and impartiality. He also noted that he had received numerous reports alleging that medical certificates were frequently falsified to cover-up ill-treatment by police and stressed that in most cases the investigations resulted in decisions not to prosecute.
In spite of a request to the Romanian authorities, the Special Rapporteur did not receive any statistics on the number of complaints filed and prosecutions brought under Articles 266 (Abusive behaviour), 267 (Abusive investigation) and 267(1) (Torture) of the Criminal Code.
Referring to the case of


Prompt: 76.  In a statement taken on the same day from the traffic police officer Şevket Y., he stated that he did not recall anything about the incident. He considered that it was probable that Yusuf Ekinci's body had been found when he was not on duty. Similar statements were taken on 16 June 1998 from the traffic police officers


Prompt: 82.  After the beginning of hostilities in Chechnya in the autumn of 1999 the applicant’s family moved from Grozny to Ingushetia. They stayed in a camp in Karabulak, which was located in a garage area. The applicant’s husband, Mr


Prompt:
6.  On 12 September 2006 the applicant submitted a written notice to the mayor of Vinnytsia informing him that the Chumatskyy Shlyakh civic youth association (“the Association”) registered in Vinnytsia, of which he was chairman, intended to hold a picket (пікет) outside the Vinnytsia Regional Authority (“the regional authority”) building. The notice read as follows:
“We inform you that, starting from 14 September 2006 our organisation will hold a picket [in front] of the [regional authority] for an indefinite term in view of the unhealthy, in our view, social and economic state of affairs in the region.
Beginning of the picket: 14 September 2005 at 14:00.
Place: square in front of the [regional authority] building;
Responsible person according to the decision of the Association’s management:


Prompt: 29.  The inquiry received evidence on fifty-six days over a period of ten months. It sat in private. It had no powers of compulsion of witnesses or production of documents. Two prison officers refused to give evidence. The inquiry report later noted that one of these had potentially significant evidence and his refusal was said to be “all the more regrettable since he had passed by


Prompt: 21.  Following the preliminary inquiry the case was referred to the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court of First Instance, which on 29 March 2001 decided not to press charges against G.A., considering that


Prompt: 52.  The Committee has held that “in the absence of further compelling circumstances” prolonged detention on death row per se does not constitute a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) (see Hylton v. Jamaica, Views of 16 July 1996, communication no. 600/1994,


Prompt: 36.  With regard to the killing of Murat Bektaş, the trial court rejected the first applicant's allegation that the lights had been on in the flat at the time of the incident and that her husband had not had a firearm. The trial court considered it probable that


Prompt: 69.  On 3 March 2000 the court delivered its judgment. Basing itself on autopsy reports, ballistics reports, incident reports, testimonies, photographs and video footage of the incident, the court found it established that police officer


Prompt: 56.  He further noted that, on 26 March 2004, he had instructed E.G. and Y.A. to go to the applicant's premises and have a “prophylactic conversation” with the latter. He also requested the Sumgayit City Police Office to send some police officers there in order to “avoid any incidents”. However, S.R. insisted that he had not instructed either E.G. and Y.A. or the police officers to evict the applicant's family by force. The applicant's possessions were moved out of the premises only after the act of self‑immolation by


Prompt:
6.  On 10 August 1999, in Jacksonville, Florida, Joshua Hayes was killed by a gunshot wound to the head in the course of a robbery.
The first applicant was subsequently arrested for the murder of Mr Hayes and, on 3 February 2000, was indicted for first degree murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. On 7 February 2000 the prosecution filed a notice that they intended to seek the death penalty for the charge of first degree murder; that notice was subsequently withdrawn. According to an affidavit filed in support of the United States’ extradition request by Mr


Prompt: 12.  According to Mr Kh. Mikiyev, the applicants’ relative and Mr Isa Mikiyev’s son, on 3 May 2001 the abductors took them to the checkpoint, where both of them, along with the eighteen other detained residents of Tsa‑Vedeno, were put in a military helicopter and taken to the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala. All of the detainees, except for Mr


Prompt: 42.  On the anniversary of Kutlu Adalı's death the applicant organised a ceremony to commemorate her husband. On the day of the ceremony, the municipality brought in digging machines to dig up the road just under their street. The applicant also submits that a picture of


Prompt: 84.  In their observations of 24 March 2008 the Government additionally submitted that the investigation had resumed on 27 March 2006. A number of answers from various departments of the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB testified that these bodies had no information about


Prompt: 123.  The Government stated that the investigating authorities had sent queries to various State bodies, asking them to provide information concerning Khamzat Merzhoyev's apprehension and detention, any requests for medical assistance or any “discrediting” information about him, as well as information on special operations which could have been conducted in Katyr-Yurt on the night of 23 November 2003. In their letters different district departments of the interior stated that “on the night of 23 November 2003


Prompt: 33.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office about the procrastination of the investigation into the abduction of her son and the lack of any information on its progress. She reiterated all the circumstances of the abduction of


Prompt:
24.  On 8 December 2000 the District Prosecutor ordered the preparation of a forensic report. According to that report dated 16 December 2000 Paweł Lewandowski sustained the following injuries as a result of an assault on 3 August 2000:
1) an injury to his head without loss of consciousness with suspected concussion, which was not confirmed by an electroencephalography examination;
2) ecchymoses on the left side of the forehead;
3) an injury to the area of the left eye socket with swelling and reddening of the left upper eyelid;
4) an injury to the left side of his neck with ecchymoses;
5) an injury to the back of his head with pressure pain;
6) an injury to both arms with ecchymoses on the inside area;
7) an injury to the area below the right part of the ribs with pressure pain.
The forensic report concluded that the injuries sustained by


Prompt: 33.  The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the public had a particular interest in being informed and entertained because X was a well-known figure and had played the part of a police superintendent over a long period of time (längerer Zeitraum). However, even if X played that role, this did not mean that he had himself necessarily become an idol or role model as a law-enforcement officer, which could have increased the public’s interest in the question whether in his private life he actually behaved like his character. It was clear that the actor X could not be identified with the fictitious character of


Prompt: 16.  Birutė Mažeikaitė, code name “Vanda” (hereinafter – also B.M. “Vanda”), was born in 1924. From 1945 she was a liaison person (ryšininkė) of the partisans of the Dainava Region, and was later a partisan in that region. She was


Prompt: 10.  On 13 May 2002 Mr Salambek Bisultanov, the deputy head of the Shali district department of fight against organised crime, informed the first applicant that Mr Aslan Ireziyev and Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov had been brought to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala, and promised to arrange their release at 5 p.m. in Argun. At the specified time four camouflaged servicemen brought Mr


Prompt: 24.  Police officer H.Gev.’s account was as follows. After the six police officers had entered the house, Seyran Ayvazyan threatened them and told them to leave. They left – that is to say he noticed that the others had already gone out. Realising that he was alone, he tried to leave the house while holding the table. He had not yet reached the door when suddenly


Prompt: 26.  On the morning of 3 February 2002, when the applicant came to visit her husband in the VOVD as usual, she was informed that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been released the day before, on 2 February 2002. Meanwhile, Mr


Prompt:
21.  On 30 September 2004 the investigating officer completed his work on case-file VII-20/2004. In his findings on the facts he described the unfolding events in detail as follows:
“On 3 August 2004 the operator on duty at the district police station of Samokov Chief Sergeant KB, a witness, took a call from a private person KK who reported that three men were preparing to commit theft from a lorry parked on Tzar Boris III Street. The lorry belonged to Markan Ltd – it was left parked in the street with its signal lights on by GS, who worked as a supplier for Markan Ltd. The operator dispatched patrol officers


Prompt: 6.  The same day, the Aliağa Public Prosecutor started an investigation into the incident. Subsequently, on 17 August 1995 he initiated criminal proceedings in the Aliağa Criminal Court against three persons, including the employer of


Prompt: 20.  John Weir's statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents. He alleged inter alia that RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure had told him that McClure and


Prompt: 70.  On 1 February 2003 the investigator interviewed as a witness the applicant’s other daughter-in-law, Z.I. According to her interview record, at about 4 a.m. on 12 November 2002 the applicant had woken her up to cook. Through a window Z.I. had seen two APCs and an UAZ vehicle outside the applicant’s house. Suddenly a group of armed masked men burst in. They pointed their guns at her. When Z.I. went into the next room she saw the armed men handcuff


Prompt: 18.  On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated that the investigators had: questioned three neighbours of


Prompt: 80.  The Government further stated that in December 2005 the investigators had questioned the head of the Urus-Martan administration, who had stated that on 8 September 2002 he had seen the cordon of servicemen in Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, but had had no information about the detention of


Prompt: 77.  Among a considerable number of other documents, the applicants submitted an undated list of items seized from their house, countersigned by their mother, two attesting witnesses and police officer


Prompt: 16.  The trial before the Hakkari Assize Court started on 12 April 2010. The two applicants who had introduced the complaint with the prosecutor on 22 March 2005 (see paragraph 6 above), namely Halima İncin and


Prompt: 6.  The applicant Sigurður Einarsson was born in 1960 and lives in Reykjavík. The applicant Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson was born in 1970 and lives in Luxembourg. The applicant Ólafur Ólafsson was born in 1957 and lives in Pully, Switzerland. The applicant


Prompt: 38.  In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Hüdayi D., a doorman at the applicant's residence, the witness declared that he had observed nothing suspicious about Yusuf Ekinci and had seen no strangers coming to or leaving


Prompt: 45.  On 9 October 2003 the investigators questioned Mr S.Kh., the head of a special platoon of the Security Service of the Chechen President. The applicant’s son had served in his platoon as an intelligence officer. At some point he had been informed that


Prompt: 43.  On 22 August 2005 the UGA prosecutor’s office replied to another query by the first applicant that, following his complaint, on an unspecified date it had reversed a decision to close the investigation into the killing of


Prompt: 15.  The applicant appealed against the assessments. Initial hearings during early 1989 before the General Commissioners were adjourned on the application of the applicant or Miss J. On 24 August 1989, at the Revenue's application, the appeals were transferred to the Special Commissioners of Taxes. A hearing of one week was scheduled for November 1990. On the date set for the hearing of his appeal, the applicant applied for judicial review of the refusal of the Special


Prompt: 85.  At about 1 a.m. on 16 August 2003 a group of about ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the flats in three grey UAZ vehicles and an APC. They broke into the applicant’s flat, quickly searched it, dragged Mr


Prompt: 8.  At 6.40 a.m. the armoured personnel carrier broke down the gates of the applicants’ house and entered the courtyard, damaging the fence roof, walls, the vineyard and a parked car. The soldiers ordered the applicants, who mostly did not have daytime clothes on (except for the second applicant, who was at work) to come out of the house. They tied up the fifth applicant and made him move around inside the house and its courtyard, threatening him with a gun and demanding to know the whereabouts of his brother, Mr


Prompt:
5.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Khalimat Kosumova (also spelled as Kasumova), who was born in 1978;
(2) Mr Arbi Kasumov, who was born in 1952;
(3) Ms Taus Kasumova, who was born in 1959;
(4) Mr Usman Kasumov, who was born in 1988;
(5) Ms Marina (also spelled as


Prompt:
99.  The witness explained that 12 September was a relatively sensitive date in Turkey and that, at that time of the year, several thousand people were being held in police custody; some of them later disappeared. He said: “At the material time we, the prosecutors, were unable to inspect prisons or police stations. During a visit to the Security Directorate, I heard certain noises and asked the police officers where they were coming from. They replied that they had recorded the sound of people crying out in pain with a view to subduing prisoners. With regard to the present case, I tried to investigate it to the best of my ability. I had strong suspicions but did not manage to get very far. I am of Kurdish origin and my telephone line was being monitored. I was transferred to Elmadağ (Ankara), the district where I worked thirty years ago.”
(o)


Prompt:
25.  By a judgment of 16 June 2000 the Lublin Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and a fine.
The court established that on 29 June 1992 the applicant and the victim, who did not know each other, had been selling merchandise at the market‑place in Lublin. The written grounds of the judgment, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
After trading hours had ended, when L.S. and the women who accompanied him were walking out of the market place, the accused came up and demanded that he give him PLZ 500,000. L. S. refused saying that he did not have that amount of money (L.S. testimony, pp. 15-17, 484-486). In reaction, the accused put a knife first to the victim's neck and then to his stomach and told him that he would beat up him and his wife up. As the accused was under the influence of alcohol and behaved in a vulgar and aggressive manner, his threats made L.S. fear for his and his wife's life. He gave PLZ 140,000 to him (testimony of L.S., page 16, of W.K, page 14, of M.C., page 13).
Later on that evening L.S. and his wife went to the train station and saw the accused there. L.S. and a man named W. decided [then] to try to take the money from [the accused]. They approached him and started to talk to him. The discussion ended with [the accused's refusal] and a scuffle; [the accused] hit L.S. in the face. That incident was observed, from the very beginning, by M.C. and W.K. [also present at the train station] who decided to inform the police. After their intervention two uniformed police officers arrived. Seeing them, the accused started to run away. He was apprehended after a while. He behaved aggressively and tried to get away. The police officers handcuffed him and took him to the police station (testimony of W.K., p. 14, 182-183, 321; M. C., p.13, 184; J.S., p. 45, 157; A.M., pp. 44, 156).
The accused denied that he had committed the offence [...] He explained that [on the material date] after selling spare parts, he had been drinking alcohol at the market place with other traders (p. 19, 27-28 153-154, 374). He had met L.S. there and had had a quarrel with him; however, he had stated that they had not been involved in a scuffle and denied that he had threatened him at knifepoint; he had only insulted him (pp. 27-28, 153-154, 185). He also stated that he had proposed that they had a drink to smooth things over (...) L.S. had not wanted to go for a drink but had given him money of his own free will for the purchase of alcohol. Some time later, at the train station, L.S. along with another man had demanded his money back, saying that if he refused things would turn bad for the accused (pp. 154, 541). This demand had so annoyed the accused that he had caught L.S.'s shirt and shaken him violently, but, as he stated, he had had no intention of getting into a fight. (p. 154). ...
The court refused to consider the explanations given by the accused as credible as they were incompatible with L.S.'s deposition made during the investigation. ... After the accused had been apprehended, L.S. had recognised him as the person who had attacked him and had identified some of the banknotes which he had had with him.
It is true that on 10 June 1993 L.S. made a written statement that all charges against the accused were erroneous and were caused by a succession of misunderstandings and that the accused had neither threatened the victim nor his wife, nor used a knife against L.S. (pp. 230). However, when questioned before the Łuck Court, that witness had convincingly explained the motives which had prompted him to make this declaration, saying that he had made it at the request of the accused's wife and his colleagues as he had not wanted to jeopardise his relationship with the couple (p. 486). On the same occasion he made a deposition which had fully confirmed his deposition made on 30 August 1992 (pp. 484-485, 540-541). [L.S.] admitted that the accused had threatened him and his wife and that he had been using some sort of instrument at that time, but did not remember whether it had indeed been a knife. He emphasised that he had given money to the applicant under threat.
The court considers that L.S.'s statements were credible and is of the view that his declaration of 10 June 1993 had been made as a result of pressure exerted on him by the family and friends of the accused. The testimony of that witness is clear, consistent and coherent. (...) It should be emphasised that before the incident L.S. had never met the accused. He did not therefore have any grounds on which to make a false accusation against the accused because he had held a grudge against him. L.S. recognised the accused immediately after his apprehension by the police; he also identified some banknotes which the accused had on him as the same which the accused had previously taken from him. He tried to describe the material events in an objective manner, without over-dramatising or distorting them. It is also of relevance for the assessment of his credibility that the police were informed of the incident by objective by-standers.
The defence, in its final oral submissions to the court, disregarded these factors relating to L.S.'s credibility. The defence lawyer focused on the fact that L.S. had not been questioned by the trial court and on the procedural shortcoming committed by the Łuck Court in that it had failed to summon the applicant and his lawyer to the questioning before that court. Defence counsel stressed the level of education and post held by the accused which, in his view, indicated that he could not have committed the offence at issue.
The court went on to explain the grounds why it did not consider that the applicant's denial of having committed the offence was credible. It went on to say:
The court considers that it is of paramount importance that testimony given by the victim has been confirmed by depositions made by the eyewitnesses to the incident, M.C. and W.K. W.K. was standing at the market place just 1 – 1.5 metres away from the victim (p. 183) and he saw the incident clearly. He confirmed the fact that the accused had put a knife to the victim's throat and demanded money from him, threatening him with murder and that he would rape his wife. W.K. saw the victim give PLZ 140,000 to the accused (p. 14).
When W.K. was questioned at the hearing held at the previous trial (p. 182), he had stated categorically and unequivocally: “I did not have the slightest doubt as to who the perpetrator was and now, looking at the accused, I don't have any doubt that it was him who had committed the offence in the circumstances which I have described” (p. 182).
When that witness [W.K.] was heard again, at the hearing of 9 May 2000, he did not, due to the lapse of time, remember the exact details of the incident; however, he confirmed his earlier deposition.
Witness M.C. also confirmed the version of events given by the victim. Questioned immediately after the incident, he had stated that the accused had threatened the victim at knifepoint and with murdering him and raping his wife, and had demanded PLZ 500,000 from him. L.S. had given him PLZ 140,000 and


Prompt: 7.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Shamkhan Tumayev, born in 1982. The second applicant is Shamkhan Tumayev's common-law wife; they are the parents of two minor children. The third and fourth applicants are


Prompt: 56.  On 25 November 1996 Meliha Dal requested the Diyarbakır Governor to open an investigation into Mehmet Salim's disappearance. On 10 December 1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and filed a further petition with the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council. On 11 December 1996 Hüsna Acar wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and to the Minister of the Interior, asking them to investigate the disappearance of her son


Prompt: 22.  On 25 October 1995 Hacı Mehrap Er told the public prosecutor that on the day of the incident the villagers had been preparing to leave their village as ordered by the military. However, some PKK members had heard about the evacuation and the presence of the soldiers in the village and had attacked the soldiers. During the armed clash that had ensued, Ahmet Er had attempted to leave the village in order to find his son, who was out in the fields. However, the soldiers had misinterpreted Ahmet Er’s intentions and had taken him to Işıklı gendarmerie station. Subsequently,


Prompt:
24.  In the middle of the article, under the heading “Exclusive: the women who accuse”, there were long extracts (over three pages) from statements of employees who worked at Mrs Bettencourt’s house (accountant, secretary, chambermaid, nurse) that had been given during the preliminary investigation. The following statements were highlighted in particular:
“It was as if [B.] had woven his web around Mrs


Prompt: 30. On 11 June 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded part of criminal case file no. 12038 to the district prosecutor’s office to be severed into a separate criminal case. The relevant part of the file concerned the discovery by the applicant on 12 February 2000 of the burnt bodies of her sisters Shema and


Prompt: 23.  On 12 May 2004 the criminal search division of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the second applicant that on 20 February 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”) had instituted an investigation into the abduction of


Prompt:
39.  On appeal by the Minister for the Family, Social Solidarity and Youth, the higher administrative court (Cour administrative) on 1 July 2004 varied the judgment of the administrative court of first instance and declared the action for annulment unfounded, for the following reasons:
“Upon reading the Hague Convention, it must be found that there is no clause as to the possible application of the provisions of that Convention in a case where, at the time of the facts, that is during the implementation of the adoption procedure, it was ratified by only one of the States involved in an intercountry adoption and entered into force only in that State. On the contrary, Article 41 of the Hague Convention expressly states that '[t]he Convention shall apply in every case where an application pursuant to Article 14 [of the Convention] has been received after the Convention has entered into force in the receiving State and the State of origin'. Furthermore, it should be observed that Article 14 of the Convention obliges persons wishing to adopt a child in another State to apply first of all to the Central Authority in the State of their habitual residence, and thereby to take the first step in an intercountry adoption procedure.
In the light of those clear and precise provisions, it is impossible to grant the application as submitted to


Prompt: 10.  On 9 September 2009 police officers found P. in a street in Voronezh, in the company of Sergey Lykov. They asked the two friends to accompany them to the police station. Mr Lykov was invited for the purpose, in particular, of “provid[ing] useful information”, in line with section 11 § 4 of the Police Act of 18 April 1991, then in force.


Prompt: 47.  On 14 November 2006 a forensic psychological-psychiatric report, ordered on 5 October 2006, was completed. It was based on Mr Shchiborshch’s medical file and the materials of the criminal case. The experts stated that at the time of the events of 7 July 2006 Mr


Prompt: 29.  On 20 September 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any implication of Russian servicemen in the abduction of


Prompt: 175.  The next day the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor opened criminal case no. 63027 under Article 127 of the CC (unlawful deprivation of liberty). Several requests were sent to law-enforcement authorities in order to establish whether Mr


Prompt: 31.  The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. In their earlier observations they stated that it had been established that on 8 September 2002 at about 12.30 p.m. unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms had entered the applicants’ house, destroyed some property and taken


Prompt:
15.  On 31 January 2003 the Jurnal de Chişinău published an article entitled “Vadim Mişin intimidating prosecutors”. The article stated, inter alia:
“At the end of last week, during a meeting at the Centre for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption, the President called on law-enforcement institutions to cooperate in the fight against organised crime and corruption and asked them to ignore telephone calls from senior public officials concerning cases that were pending before them.
The President’s initiative is not accidental. The phenomenon has become very widespread, especially during the last few years, and has been the subject of debate in the mass media and in international organisations.
Recently the press reported on the case of the Communist Parliamentarian A.J., who had attempted to influence a criminal investigation in respect of an old friend and high-ranking official at the Ministry of Agriculture who had been caught red-handed. However, no legal action was taken. ...
Also, the press reported that Mr Mişin had requested the Prosecutor General to sack two prosecutors, I.V. and P.B., involved in the investigation into the disappearance of the Chief of the Information Technology Department, P.D., apparently after they had found evidence implicating officials of the Ministry of the Interior in wrongdoing.
The results of the internal investigation into the activities of these two prosecutors are not yet known. However, sources at the Prosecutor’s Office have told this newspaper that even though I.V. and P.B. have not been found guilty, they have been asked to leave at the insistence of someone in authority.
Now, while the declarations of the President concerning trading in influence are still fresh on peoples’ minds, we reveal a new investigation concerning high-ranking officials.
The Deputy Speaker of Parliament is attempting to protect four police officers who are under criminal investigation. Mr Mişin’s affinity with policemen is not new, since his background is in the police force. Our sources stated that this is not the only case in which Mr Mişin has intervened on behalf of policemen in trouble with the law.
...
The Ciocana Prosecutor’s Office initiated criminal proceedings against four police officers ... after they had used force during the unlawful arrest of a group of people.
... [The] police officers assaulted the detainees by punching and kicking them ... Furthermore, it was found that one of the officers had made false statements in the police report on the arrest ... The four police officers were also being investigated for forcibly extracting confessions ...
The investigation lasted for more than a year. When it was almost over ... the police officers started to seek protection from those in authority.
...
On 20 June 2002 the police officers wrote letters to President


Prompt: 10.  On 21 July 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor the applicant gave information as to his relations with various people but denied that he had been involved in an illegal organisation and that he had taken part in military training in Greece. He claimed that he did not know anything about the code found during the search. He acknowledged that he knew Mr A.T and Mr U.M who had identified him in the police station. He submitted further that he knew Mr A.E.K., Mr M.K, and Mr G.C. because they were in the same prison as his sister. He admitted that Mr A.T and Mr U.M knew him as


Prompt:
10.  The first applicant, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party – “Refah”), was a political party founded on 19 July 1983. It was represented by its chairman, Mr Necmettin Erbakan, who is also the second applicant. He was born in 1926 and lives in Ankara. An engineer by training, he is a politician. At the material time he was a member of Parliament and Refah’s chairman.
The third applicant, Mr


Prompt: 20.  On two occasions the NGO Memorial, acting on the first applicant's behalf, contacted the Prosecutor General with requests for information. Its letter of 5 March 2001 referred to the contradictory information obtained by his relatives from law-enforcement bodies. It indicated that there had been no entries in the register of detainees of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD referring to a Mr Magomadov. They also attached a copy of a statement by the head of the Kurchaloy village administration to the effect that on 2 October 2000 there had been a “special operation” in the village, as a result of which


Prompt: 27.  On 18 July 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter-in-law Ms Amnat Yakhyayeva, whose statement concerning the events was similar to that of her brother-in-law, Mr Alikhan Dudayev. In addition, she stated that her husband, Mr


Prompt:
6.  On 2 December 2002 an article was published in the daily newspaper Utrinski Vesnik entitled “The uncle was stealing, Jovan was standing guard” (Вујкото крадел, Јован чувал стража). A reference to the article appeared on the front page of the newspaper. The text of the article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“


Prompt:
35.  This report aims at indicating the property owned by the applicant. Following an investigation carried out by the authorities it appeared that the applicant did not own any land according to the records of the land registry office and the municipal registry office. The applicant does not have any registered trees either. In his declaration of 12 May 1986 to the municipality the applicant claimed that he owned a house measuring 80 metres square, whereas in his declaration dated 2 May 1998 he noted that he owned a house measuring 140 square metres which had been built in 1980. According to the official records, he did not have any commercial activity given that he did not pay any tax before 1994. Between 1994 and 2002 he lived in one of the natural disaster houses provided to him by the Government. In 2002 he moved into a new house which was built by the Government within the framework of the “Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project”. The local authorities gave the applicant 10 sheep and 323,000,000 Turkish liras’ aid. He also benefited from the food support by the authorities.
(b)


Prompt: 19.  Reinforcements were called in, and several more officers arrived on the spot. A total of about ten officers were now present. Some of them helped with keeping Michael Tekin under control while others remained passive.


Prompt: 54.  On 30 April 2003 the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office dismissed the first applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Visita Shokkarov, stating that Visita Shokkarov had been lawfully arrested in connection with criminal case no. 65034 (it appears that the investigators confused


Prompt: 12.  On 21 February 1995 the first applicant, Ali Duran, filed an objection with the Beyoğlu Assize Court against the decision of 29 December 1994. He maintained that the content of the autopsy report was inadequate as, inter alia, it did not specify how the haemorrhage in


Prompt: 6.  According to the incident report drafted by police officers at 12.15 p.m., the events unfolded as follows. At around 11.20 a.m., while the Chancellor Mr Alemdaroğlu was speaking, some students, from the upper stage of the hall, started shouting out “Freedom to University, an end to investigations” and “Oppression will not intimidate us, decree belongs to the State and the University to us”, and raised banners and placards with similar messages. They also held up enlarged photocopies of disciplinary sanctions given to various students, including one of the applicants, Mr


Prompt: 21.  Turning to the article of 27 February 1996, the District Court noted that it had contained a reference to the first one and had asked how it was possible that a relatively young woman in good physical condition could die as a result of a routine surgery. The article had then cited statements from the pre-trial record which had discussed the surgeon's alcohol problem and the attitude of hospitals to that problem generally. Moreover, although the National Medico-Legal Board[1] had been of the opinion that no one could be considered guilty of Mrs


Prompt: 52.  On 13 May 2003 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who stated that after the abduction he had complained to various law enforcement agencies, but to no avail. He and his relatives had been searching for the abducted men and meeting other people whose relatives had also been abducted. One of these men had informed him that his sons and


Prompt: 7.  The first applicant, Ms Sophie Maumousseau, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Les Adrets de l'Estérel. She lodged the application in her own name and on behalf of her daughter,


Prompt: 22.  On 12 February 1991 the court summoned the Rhineland Communal Accident Insurance Association (Rheinischer Gemeindeunfallversicherungs- verband) as a third party. It further requested Prof. W. to submit an expert opinion on the causes of Mrs


Prompt: 85.  One of the photographs showed M.P. kicking a fire extinguisher away; this was very probably the metal object which had caused severe bruising to his leg. Successive photographs showed a hand holding a weapon above the jeep's spare wheel while a young man (


Prompt: 10.  The first publicly available – though not publicly disseminated – information concerning the fatal consequences of asbestos at MDC appears to be the judicial acts and judgment relating to a lawsuit brought in the names of


Prompt:
21.  On 8 October 1996 Feyzi Doğan, the father of Hürriyet Doğan, and the applicant gave statements to the sergeant. The applicant's statement was as follows:
“On 7 October 1996, at around 3 a.m., I heard guns being fired from the direction of Cüm Hill, which is located to the south of our village. Everybody was sleeping. I went out of the house. It was silent in the village. At around 4 a.m. I heard [people] screaming in the village. These sounds were coming from a distance. Then I heard firing coming from the village. My wife came outside to look for me. There was random gun fire. My wife was wounded in the abdomen. I took her into the house but I wasn't able to do anything as the shooting continued. I waited at home until 5 a.m. When the shooting was over I called my relatives and we set off for Lice in order to take my wife to the hospital. She died when we reached Cüm Hill. After a short while another group of people who was transporting


Prompt:
11.  By a judgment of 25 November 1997, the Paris Criminal Court (Seventeenth Division) found the second and third applicants guilty as principal and accessory respectively of the offence of public defamation of a civil servant. It fined them 20,000 French francs (FRF) each and ordered them jointly to pay FRF 50,000 in damages. It also found the applicant company civilly liable and ordered by way of civil remedy that an announcement informing the public of the content of its judgment be broadcast on France Info every thirty minutes during a twenty-four hour period in the month following the date on which the judgment became final.
With regard to the defamatory nature of the disputed allegations, the judgment reads as follows:
“Mr Junot is alleged ... to have personally played an active role in the deportation of Jews in his capacity as Deputy Prefect of Pithiviers. This allegation, which undoubtedly damages the honour of the civil party, is moreover aggravated by the connection made between the case of Mr Papon – who has been committed for trial before the Gironde Assize Court to answer charges that he participated in crimes against humanity – and that of Mr Junot, with the suggestion that the latter was seeking to evade responsibility for the crimes committed during that period, over which he believes that 'the discreet veil of history should be drawn'.
The fact that it was specified that, 'unlike


Prompt: 7.  In connection with that event, at about 10.45 p.m. on the same day, Paweł Lewandowski was arrested by two police officers, M.K. and A.J. The police officers established the identity of the applicants' son and ordered him to get into the police car. The applicants' son kept asking about the reasons for his arrest. He rang his sister from his mobile phone to inform her about the situation. One of the police officers asked


Prompt: 36.  The parties appealed against the judgment. The applicant challenged the amount of the court award as insufficient and insisted on a larger sum. It appears that the respondent submitted, among other things, that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegations concerning the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention. In his objections to the respondent's appeal the applicant stressed that his submissions represented well-known facts and needed no proof, because they had been acknowledged by the Russian Government in the


Prompt: 28.  On 17 August 2002 the investigator took a statement from officer K.Z. in his capacity as a witness. Officer K.Z. confirmed that he had summoned Suren Muradyan and serviceman K.E. to his office for a talk in connection with the lost watches. During their talk


Prompt:
6.  The applicant company’s representative was present at an examination hearing (ispitno ročište) held on 15 September 1999 where the bankruptcy administrator assigned to the case (stečajni upravitelj) was to accept or reject each of the claims. No objections were raised as to the accepted claims. The relevant parts of the transcript of the hearing read as follows:
“It is established that the following creditors’ representatives are present at today’s hearing:
... attorney


Prompt: 40.  According to the Government, in the course of the investigation requests were sent to various State agencies and remand prisons of Chernokozovo and Stavropol with a view to establishing the whereabouts of


Prompt: 83.  The report then summarises witness statements made by officers of the FSB, according to which the FSB had not carried out any operations related to the investigation into the attack on the House of the Government of the Chechen Republic and had not detained


Prompt:
30.  Subsequently, the local police officer frequently questioned the first applicant about her husband, from which she inferred that the authorities had abducted Khamid Mukayev, because they were still looking for her husband, despite the fact that the latter had been amnestied meanwhile.
(b)  Investigation of the abduction of


Prompt: 13.  On 27 August 2003 the Ministry of Finance returned the documents along with the writ of execution to Mr Nikolaychuk on the ground that his lawyer had not submitted all the necessary supporting documents. According to the applicants all the necessary documents were submitted. In October 2003 the applicants' lawyer re-submitted the documents of Mr


Prompt: 13.  In support of her statement the applicant enclosed the following documents: a statement by Mr R.V. dated 18 November 2004; a statement by Mr T.E. dated 18 November 2004; a copy of two medical statements, undated and dated 16 May 2001, respectively; and a copy of


Prompt: 56.  One resident of a nearby village, R.B., who had been in the town on 24 January 2013, stated, briefly, that there had been disorder in the centre of the town between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and that he had seen the applicant and


Prompt: 17.  On 3 August 2006 the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office instituted a criminal investigation under Article 108 § 2 (murder committed in excess of necessary self-defence or in excess of measures required to arrest a person who has committed an offence) and Article 286 § 3 (abuse of official powers) of the Criminal Code. The decision stated that, by storming the flat and using rubber truncheons, which led to Mr


Prompt: 18.  The applicant appealed and the Court of Appeal examined the case on 12 March 1996. The court held that the applicant had not established on the balance of probabilities that the State of Kuwait was responsible for the threats made in the United Kingdom. The important question was, therefore, whether State immunity applied in respect of the alleged events in Kuwait. Lord Justice


Prompt: 42.  On 1 November 2013 the investigators questioned Shakir N., an officer with the Dagestan CPE, who stated that he did not have information pertaining to the abduction, but that he had participated in the search of the applicants’ house in June 2013 (see paragraph 8 above). The witness also confirmed that in June 2013, about two days after the search, he had spoken with Mr Ub.Ub. who had visited the CPE with his son Mr A.Ub., who had been suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups. Mr Ub.Ub. had requested his assistance in the criminal case against his son Mr A.Ub. but the witness had refused to help him. Due to the passage of time the witness could not recall where he had been on the evening of 20 May 2013 but stated that he had not met Mr


Prompt:
34.  On 1 October 2012 the investigation was resumed again after criticism from the deputy head of the Dagestan Investigations Department, who stated, inter alia, the following:
“... in violation of part 5 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code the investigation failed to take all the investigative steps possible to establish the [identity of the perpetrators]; therefore, the decision to suspend the proceedings should be overruled as unlawful.
It is necessary that the investigation take the following steps: 1. Question


Prompt: 24.  By a decision of 1 March 2005 the Kyiv Migration Service accepted, for examination on the merits, the applicant’s request to be granted refugee status, having noted that the request had contained fully-reasoned grounds. The Service also noted that the decisions submitted by the Belarusian authorities in connection with the use of preventive measures against the applicant and the charge against him gave rise to doubts, on account of their vague and unsupported nature and the failure to recognise the principle of the presumption of innocence. In addition, the Belarus authorities had not supplied information regarding the expiry of the statute of limitations, given that the offences with which the applicant was charged dated back to 1995. Referring to the observations of the Belarus Helsinki Committee, the Service noted that the applicant’s friends,


Prompt: 9.  Meanwhile, on 25 June 2010 the second applicant and her husband Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov were visiting their relative Ms F.Sh. in Kaspiysk. At about 9 p.m. on that date, a group of five to seven men, some of whom were in black masks, arrived at the house of Ms F.Sh. in a black VAZ-2107 (‘Приора’) car with the registration number containing the numbers 256 or 259 and the letters PH. One of them told the second applicant that they were from the police. The men abducted Mr


Prompt: 44.  On 17 September 2002 the first applicant again wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 and the heads of administration of Novye Atagi and the Shali district, with requests for information about


Prompt:
8.  The story continued inside the newspaper with a longer article across two pages. This article was headed “Naomi's finally trying to beat the demons that have been haunting her” and the opening paragraphs read:
“She's just another face in the crowd, but the gleaming smile is unmistakeably


Prompt:
39.  As regards the specific conduct imputed to the applicant, the court stated, inter alia, the following:
“According to that which has been related above, it is considered proved beyond doubt in the case that the great danger facing the Icelandic banks and thus the welfare of the State was not discussed at cabinet meetings in the period from February 2008 until the end of September the same year. As stated above, it must also be considered a fact in the resolution of the case that various issues that were up for discussion in the consultative group on financial stability and contingency planning, and which there was due reason to discuss in the cabinet, were not dealt with at those meetings. That was all the more urgent as the defendant did not convey important information which he possessed about the affairs of the banks to


Prompt:
75.  In its 2002 Annual Report, Human Rights Watch stated:
“ The Georgian authorities allowed organized groups of civilian militants to conduct a sustained campaign of violent assaults and intimidation against members of several non-Orthodox religious faiths, chiefly Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentacostalists, and Baptists. The assailants broke up religious services, beat congregants, ransacked or looted homes and property, and destroyed religious literature.


Prompt: 45.  On 26 February 1990 the same doctor C. from the military hospital submitted a “report” to the head of the Braşov county police, following a request from captain [P.]. In this report, he stated that “on 23 December 1989, between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., the body of


Prompt: 5.  At the time of the events the first applicant Mr Mustafa Erdoğan was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hacettepe in Ankara. The second applicant Mr Haluk Kürşad Kopuzlu was the editor of the quarterly publication Liberal Thinking and the third applicant Liberte A. Ş. was a joint-stock company and the publisher of Liberal Thinking (hereinafter: “the publishing company”). Mr


Prompt: 227.  Detective Chief Superintendent Van Duijvenvoorde had returned to the scene of the incident with Ms Rijssel and Ms Lieveld and with Mr Chitanie and his wife after taking their respective statements. They had shown him where they had been standing and Detective Chief Superintendent


Prompt: 65.  Despite specific requests made by the Court on several occasions, the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files concerning the deaths of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and Mr Khasayn Minkailov and the injuries sustained by Mr


Prompt:
104.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Kisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1951,
(2)  Mr Adlan Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1987, and
(3)  Mr Suleyman Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1974.
The applicants live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Mr


Prompt: 31.  One month later the applicant heard that a person called Ramazan Ayçiçek, who had previously been held in custody in Lice Boarding School, had been transferred to Lice Prison. The applicant went to see him there and


Prompt: 7.  The applicant, Tinna Romlin, is a Swedish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sollentuna. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ulf Jacobson, a juris candidate, practising in Stockholm. The Government is represented by Mrs


Prompt: 45.  It appears from the exchange of letters between the Investigating Committee and the Ministry of the Interior that the investigation on several occasions tried to secure further participation of Mr


Prompt: 25.  According to the Government, the pilots reported this to the command centre and having received the respective order fired warning shots at a spot situated fifty metres away from the car and the people. The men immediately got into the car and started driving away, instead of staying where they were and waiting for the arrival of ground troops for an identity check. The pilots again reported to their superiors, received the respective order and fired warning shots for the second time, but the car continued moving. In order to prevent the Niva car with unidentified armed men inside from driving further without authorisation in the close vicinity of the zone of the rescue operation, the pilots, pursuant to their superiors’ order, fired at the car with the result that


Prompt: 65.  With a view to examining the possibility that representatives of the State had been involved in the applicant's son's abduction, on unspecified dates the investigating authorities made enquires with various State bodies, including the commander of military unit no. 6779, the military commander of the Urus-Martanovskiy District, the ROVD, unspecified remand prisons, detention centres and hospitals in the region as to


Prompt: 140.  The interveners, including the applicant, did not attend this hearing. The court examined five master sergeants, Yusuf Karakoç, Mustafa Ten, Süleyman Altuner, Murat Gömek and Ramazan Baygeldi. They all stated that a military doctor carried out examinations every day in the detention area of the interrogation centre. Some of them added that the interrogation centre conformed to the requisite standards and that the rooms where interrogations were conducted were not equipped with sound insulation. Therefore, if


Prompt: 5.  Ms Emma Tunyan (hereafter, the first applicant) owned a flat which measured 89.25 sq. m. and was situated at 9 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The flat was in a house situated on a plot of land measuring 240 sq. m. leased by the first applicant. The applicants alleged that Mr


Prompt: 18.  In a report of 5 November 1996, the trustee stated that full coverage for the Partnership creditors was expected in connection with the closing of the partners’ estates. He was therefore endeavouring to obtain a compulsory composition so that the bankruptcy proceedings could be finalised pursuant to section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act. The accounts of the applicant’s bankruptcy estate could not be prepared, however, until formal accounts were available in the estates of the co-partners


Prompt: 9.  The first applicant is the wife of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is a librarian by profession, but is currently unemployed. The sole breadwinner of the family was her husband


Prompt: 260.  The court also admitted Mr Pleshkov’s testimony about the Apatit investment programme. In the court’s view, the evidence by Mr Pleshkov did not contradict the court’s earlier findings. Finally, the court admitted testimony by Mr


Prompt:
9.  The first applicant, Mr Daruish Auni Al-Nashif, a stateless person of Palestinian origin, was born in 1967 in Kuwait. He resided in Bulgaria between September 1992 and July 1999, when he was deported. He now lives in Syria.
The second and third applicants, Abrar and


Prompt:
99.  The Report contains one page on which information on Yusuf Ekinci's personal background and activities is set out. This pages states:
“Yusuf Ekinci
Son of Kamil, and born in Lice-Diyarbakır in 1942.
In June 1963 he was a second year student at the Ankara University, Faculty of Law. He was known as a pro-Kurdish socialist. In December 1963 he was a member of the “youth branch” of the TIP (Türkiye İşçi Partisi - Turkish Workers Party) which was established in Ankara. He was further the editor of the “Emekçi” newspaper, the official bulletin of that party.
After his graduation in April 1969, he went to Diyarbakır in order to finish his traineeship. In Diyarbakır he participated in an organised demonstration against the Law on the Protection of the Constitution.
He was detained on remand in 1970 <or> 1971 and subsequently prosecuted on charges of involvement in pro-Kurdish activities in the Eastern Revolutionary Cultural Grouping (Doğu Devrimci Kültür Ocakları).
As from 1972 he worked as a lawyer in Diyarbakır, where he tried to direct the Kurdish movement.
In April 1971, during the 4th TIP General Assembly, he declared that he opposed the ideas of his brother


Prompt: 52.  The Government further submitted that the investigating authorities had granted the status of victim to the applicant, but failed to specify the date. According to them, the applicant had been questioned on 30 June and 18 October 2001 and then at some point in late 2005. During her interview, the applicant had stated that, following her son’s apprehension, she had found out from the head of the local administration that he was being held in the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB and would be released three days later. She had also talked to Mr G., the military commander of the Urus-Martan District, who had said that her son had been taken away by officers of the FSB. Mr G. had also stated that “they had been hunting


Prompt: 50.  Between 31 January and 11 February 2007 the district prosecutor's office interviewed as witnesses other residents of Sernovodsk. According to copies of their interview records, on 27 December 2004 the witnesses had learnt from their fellow villagers and


Prompt:
90.  On 30 September 1999 E.D. had sent the Prison Director a second statement which he had written the day before, submitting that the first statement might have been incomplete because it had been written while he was still “in shock”. His second submissions had diverged somewhat, particularly as regards the afore-mentioned hunting rifle. Having pointed out that during the operation some of his fellow prisoners had wanted to surrender, E.D. continued as follows:
“but the bosses shot at them to stop them surrendering. There were several firearms and knives in the dormitory; there was even a hunting rifle. Apart from that there was some bomb-making equipment. I know that Habib Gül, the former leader of the Ekim organisation ... had a very much frowned-upon romantic relationship with the prisoner Fatime [Akalın] and that there were conflicts between the members of different organisations. Habib didn’t want to compromise and had been excluded from his own community ... At 11.30 p.m. on the evening before the operation they brought Habib to our dormitory, no. 4. C.Ç.,


Prompt: 45.  In June 2005, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 61149 that had been opened into the abduction of


Prompt: 48.  As regards the article of 10 December 2009, the court noted that it had been published the day before B.’s appearance in the criminal court and that it clearly suggested that he was guilty, as he was portrayed as an individual against whom there was “a series of sufficiently strong presumptions [that he had committed] the offence of undue influence”. It took the view that the court below had wrongly regarded the aim of informing the public as prevailing over the means used, namely illegal methods whereby extracts had been selected from statements collected in an investigation in order to show that B. had committed the offence of undue influence, whereas there had been no judicial decision to that effect. It could be understood by the reader that B. was not telling the truth about Mrs


Prompt:
9.  Warned by the journalist interviewing him that his words were strong, the applicant nevertheless continued:
“I am saying things which will not surprise my colleagues. It is a public secret that one of the prosecutors I mentioned is known among barristers and “clients” of the prosecution not so much with his own name, but with another one.”
The applicant then explained that the prosecutor at issue was known as “Prosecutor


Prompt:
25.  The court further observed:
“Obviously, there was also another legal problem in the case. The conduct of the city in the present case had caused a situation in which the owner could not use his land freely, as provided for in Article 140 of the Civil Code. At the same time, the property serves one of the purposes [road construction] which normally should be ensured by the local municipality; what is more, it is the owner who bears the costs of achieving of this purpose.
It can be argued that a situation worse even than a so-called de facto expropriation obtains in the present case. This is so because under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the term “expropriation” covers not only formal expropriation or restriction of ownership carried out in proper expropriation proceedings. The case‑law of the Strasbourg Court also distinguishes a category of de facto expropriation, namely such acts by the public authorities which lead to a practical deprivation of possessions or to restrictions on their use (


Prompt: 16.  At the hearing held on 24 July 2003, the applicant made his defence submissions in relation to the merits of the case and denied the allegations against him. He further stated that his only mistake had been not registering


Prompt: 9.  The mistake was not revealed in 1954 when identity cards were introduced in Hungary. The applicant’s renewed identity card issued in 1974 also contained the name Tiborné Daróczy. The applicant used this name in all official and private business. In particular, her social security card and tax identification certificate were issued in the name


Prompt: 35.  The applicant, in a comment on the Iraq Office’s information, maintained that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to extrajudicial execution if returned to Iraq due to his previous connections to


Prompt:
41.  In a judgment of 22 May 2007, the Guardianship Division of the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed the father’s appeal. Having carried out an additional investigation, and taking into account the expert’s report by Dr B. of 16 April 2007, it took the view that the child’s return carried a grave risk of psychological harm, whether or not he was accompanied by his mother, and would also place him in an intolerable situation. It therefore considered that the conditions of Article 13, sub-paragraph (b), of the Hague Convention were met. Finding, however, that the child could not be deprived of all relations with his father, it prescribed measures with a view to rebuilding the personal relationship between them. Its judgment read as follows:
“4.  (d) ... In response to the questions put to him, expert B. ... states in his conclusions that Noam’s return to Israel with his mother would expose him to psychological harm, the intensity of which cannot be assessed without knowledge of the conditions of such return, in particular those awaiting his mother and the repercussions which they might have on the child; as regards the child’s return to Israel without his mother, [the expert] is of the opinion that it would expose him to major psychological harm, as described in detail in the report. In the ‘discussion’ part of his report the expert emphasises that Noam’s situation seems at present to be completely blocked. On the one hand, given his young age and his complete lack of recollection of his first years in Israel, including of his father, any visit to that country without his mother, even a brief visit, and even if the legal situation allowed it, would be psychologically highly traumatic, involving extreme separation-related anxiety and a major risk of severe depression. On the other hand, the possibility of the mother’s return to Israel with Noam, even for a short period, is totally out of the question for the mother. In answer to the question whether Noam’s return to Israel might place the child in an intolerable situation, the expert replied that it was ‘clearly’ the conditions of the child’s possible return to Israel that would or would not render the situation intolerable. He observed that, likewise, it was the conditions of his continuing residence in Switzerland that would or would not render his situation there intolerable and that the maintaining of the status quo represented a long-term major psychological risk for the child, with the result that, if there were no understanding between his parents, an agreement would urgently be required between the child protection services of the States of the parents’ residence in order to make up for their failure to act.
In accordance with Article 13, third paragraph, of the Hague Convention, this court also requested the Israeli Central Authority to provide information about the child’s social background, by answering the following questions: ‘in the event that, as she has stated, the mother does not return to Israel, who will take care of the child and where will he stay? As the father does not appear to be in gainful employment, who will provide for the child’s upkeep? As the right of access has been restricted by judicial decisions, what measures will be taken to ensure that the exercise of the right of access does not harm the child’s physical and psychological welfare?’ In its letter of 12 March 2007 the Israeli Central Authority did not really answer the questions put to it, so it is impossible to be satisfied about the interests of the child. The Central Authority merely mentioned the appellant’s intentions concerning his son if his son should return to Israel without his mother, in the following terms: ‘[I]n the event that Noam’s mother refuses to return to Israel, the father will take care of the child. He currently lives in an apartment with a roommate; however if the child is returned to Israel, he states that he will immediately secure an apartment to live in with the child. He is currently working and studying at an institution for religious learning, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The child would be in day care/nursery school during those hours. Mr Shuruk points out that prior to the child’s abduction to Switzerland, he was in day care as the mother worked. Mr Shuruk advises that his extended family would provide a back-up system for him in the event that he needs assistance from time to time.’ As to the issue of how


Prompt: 187.  At 3.15 a.m. on 11 August 2003 between two and five APCs, three UAZ cars and several Ural lorries arrived at the house. A group of fifteen to twenty men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house. Those who were unmasked had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. The servicemen took


Prompt: 15.  Following their detention, Ali and Umar Musayev were brought to a temporary operational headquarters of the military commander's office situated near Gekhi. According to the first applicant, who referred to unnamed witness statements,


Prompt: 8.  At about 4 a.m. on 7 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 May 2003) masked men in camouflage uniforms with machineguns and rubber truncheons arrived in two APCs and a UAZ car in the village. They split in two groups of up to ten persons and broke into the two houses. The men spoke unaccented Russian. They took Mr


Prompt: 153.  This report states that following information received by telephone at 8.30 p.m. on 25 November 1990 to the effect that an individual had died whilst being taken to Mardin State Hospital after being taken suddenly ill at the investigation and interrogation unit at the Mardin provincial gendarmerie headquarters, the chief public prosecutor had, in view of the seriousness of the incident, instructed Public Prosecutors


Prompt:
8.  At the same time the applicant enclosed a copy of her application to the Chairman of the National Public Commission for Investigation of Offences and Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus of 25 August 2000 where she provided a detailed account of the circumstances of her husband’s alleged detention and contended that he had been apprehended while queuing at a centre of distribution of foodstuffs. The application read as follows:
“I ... ask you for help in searching for my husband, the father of my children,


Prompt:
12.  On 3 February 1996 Emin Yıldırım was admitted to Diyarbakır General Hospital in a coma. A computed tomography brain scan revealed a severe haemorrhage in the left frontoparietal region.
An explanatory note attached to the back of the scan image referred to the haemorrhage as “chronic”, in other words resulting from bleeding over a prolonged period.
A life-threatening clinical presentation emerged from subsequent examinations. Two days later,


Prompt:
11.  The applicant had been consulted in advance in writing about the proposed transfer. On 28 August 1998 the applicant’s counsel had informed the Cathedral Chapter as follows (translation from Finnish):
“As the representative of the parish priest


Prompt: 90.  In 1998 the applicant allegedly succeeded in contacting an eye‑witness, namely a person who had been working at a petrol station situated on the road between Yusuf Ekinci's office and his home. According to this witness, whose identity was not disclosed by the applicant, he had seen that a red Toyota –


Prompt: 23.  The first applicant appealed, repeating his previous arguments. He further complained that the District Court had not conducted an in-depth examination of the case. In particular, the District Court had not taken into account the opinion of 18 February 2014 of the St Petersburg childcare authority. It had not even cited the opinion, let alone explained why it disagreed with it. The only reason advanced by the District Court for its decision to grant the residence order to the child’s mother had been the child’s age. The child’s age was only one of the criteria mentioned in Article 65 of the Family Code (see paragraph 58 below) that the domestic courts were to take into account when deciding on a child’s residence arrangements. The District Court had not taken into account the other criteria mentioned in Article 65. Nor had it ordered a psychological expert examination to establish the child’s relationship with each parent and his best interests. Moreover, given that the second applicant had been more than one and a half years old at the time of the District Court’s decision, there had been no justification for automatically preferring residence with his mother over residence with his father. Such automatic preference of the mother over the father in a case where the father could provide better living and development conditions for the child had amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex. The first applicant also disputed some of the facts established by the District Court. In particular, the second applicant’s medical documents indicated that breastfeeding had stopped at the age of one. In any event, the official medical guidance recommended that breastfeeding be stopped at the age of one and a half years old at the latest. Moreover, M. was unemployed rather than on parental leave because she had not been in employment since 2009. In any event, M. had returned to work in December 2014 and since then the second applicant had been taken care of during the day by his maternal grandmother. By contrast, the first applicant had sufficient non-work income and a flexible schedule for his social-volunteer activities and could therefore take care of the child himself. Lastly, the first applicant argued that inherent in the concept of the child’s “best interests” was the right for a child not to be removed from one of his or her parents and retained by the other (he referred to


Prompt: 9.  The first applicant, Pavittar Singh, a British citizen born in India in 1955, and the second applicant, Paramjit Kaur, an Indian national born in 1955, are married and living in the United Kingdom. The third applicant,


Prompt: 49.  On 19 June 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office ordered the district prosecutor’s office to check the first applicant’s submissions that her husband had been detained by the officers of the FSB during a special operation aimed at detention of their neighbour, A. The letter referred to her statements that during the special operation A. had wounded two officers of the FSB and then escaped. The FSB officers had then carried out unlawful searches in the neighbouring houses and detained


Prompt:
19.  In the meantime, one of the members of the bench hearing the case was appointed Minister of Defence, and the Supreme Court decided to reopen the proceedings. The appeal was heard for a second time on 9 July 1999. The verbatim record of the hearing reads as follows:
“Mr Efstathiou: Your Honours, the facts of this case are, in simple terms, as follows:
...
I will deal with grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal and grounds 5 and 3 emanating from them. I will deal with all of them ...
Ms Koursoumba: In the previous court session, grounds 1, 2 and 5 were withdrawn.
Mr Efstathiou: Indeed, as I have said.
...
Judge


Prompt: 22.  According to the applicant association, on 24 December 1999 the Parishioners' Assembly consisted of 27 individuals: Mr B.S., Ms B.I., Mr B.M., Mr G.S., Mr G.V., Mr D.S., Mr Ye.S., Ms Z.N., Mr K.A., Ms K.L., Mr K.V., Ms L.V., Mr


Prompt: 10.  Three servicemen walked straight to the back room, and two others stayed in the front room. The first applicant was told to stay still on his bed and a machine gun was pointed at him. One serviceman then announced that it was an “identity papers check”. Another serviceman in the back room pointed at


Prompt: 27.  On 20 November 2004 lieutenant colonel B. filed an official report concerning the circumstances of the wounding of patrolling officer Kh.‑A. Akhmadov. According to the document, the applicant’s son had been shot by a group of about thirty men in camouflage uniforms, who had introduced themselves as police officers from the OMON of the Chechnya MVD who were carrying out a special operation. The OMON officers, who were driving around in ten to fifteen cars of VAZ‑2121 (‘Niva’) and VAZ‑21099 (‘Zhiguli’) models, had taken away the service guns of


Prompt: 53.  On 1 October 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings relating to case no. 38043. The decision granting her such status stated that at about 2 a.m. on 19 September 2004 about fifteen armed masked men in camouflage uniforms, who had been driving a VAZ-2131, a UAZ-469 and an all-terrain UAZ vehicle, had arrested


Prompt:
73.  The court also examined information given by the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS, described in the judgment as follows:
“According to letter no. 2/117 of the Ismayilli District Police Department dated 1 April 2013, on 24 January 2013, at places where people were densely gathered in front of the Education Department in Ismayilli, [


Prompt:
24.  On 1 June 2005 the Dokuchayevsk Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The court further decided:
“In accordance with part 3 of Article 42 of the C[riminal] C[ode] of Ukraine in the wording of 1960, the ultimate punishment shall be determined for the multiple offences, by the partial addition of the sentences under the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk of 30 December 1999 and under this judgment, as nine years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all personal property.
The period of serving the sentence under this judgment shall include the part of the sentence served under the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of 30 December 1999, which was one year, six months and seventeen days, and the ultimate [remaining] sentence shall be determined as seven years five months and seventeen days’ imprisonment and confiscation of all personal property.
The term of the sentence of the convict


Prompt: 19.  After a short while the first lieutenant had asked his soldiers to stop firing and they had walked towards the river bed where they had found an injured person whom they later identified as the tenth applicant Rıza Çiçek. They had left behind some of the soldiers to guard the tenth applicant and to provide him with first aid and continued their search. After searching for one and a half to two hours they had found the second person, who was later identified as the first applicants’ relative


Prompt: 22.  According to a report of 18 October 1956 by the Chairman of the KGB of the Lithuanian SSR to the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, which was relied on during the criminal proceedings against the applicant, from 1945


Prompt: 28.  In an interlocutory decision of 13 January 2010, the CDS noted that the applicant’s situation had not changed and that the reply from the Eupen judicial assistance unit gave no grounds for hoping that he could receive appropriate treatment, in a secure establishment or elsewhere, in the foreseeable future. It considered that it was necessary to attempt one last plea to


Prompt: 11.  According to the records submitted by the Government, on three occasions in 1994-1995 Viktor Trubnikov had been found to be under the influence of alcohol and placed in a punishment cell. During his second disciplinary confinement,


Prompt: 46.  Geoghegan J dissented. He accepted that neither the Department nor its inspectors had any knowledge of the assaults. He noted that, for all practical purposes, most primary education in Ireland took the form of a joint enterprise between Church and State and he considered that that relationship was such that there was a sufficient connection between the State and the creation of the risk as to render the State liable.


Prompt: 57.  On 14 August 2006 the investigators again questioned Mr V.Ts., who stated that on 27 February 2000 he had been taken from home by military servicemen who had arrived in an APC. The witness and his neighbour Mr Sh.Ts. had been transferred from the vehicle to an Avtozak lorry, in which they had met a number of their fellow villagers, including


Prompt: 85.  On 25 July 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District informed the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 that the preliminary investigation in criminal case no. 56031 had established, inter alia, that the servicemen who had detained Mr


Prompt:
27.  The court also rejected the second applicant’s contention that, because of A.T.’s involvement in drugs operations, he might have become aware of the second applicant’s previous conviction for dealing in heroin, noting:
“49. ... there was nothing to support this surmise. Had the juror known anything about any of the defendants we think that he would clearly have made this fact known to the judge, as he did his knowledge of [M.B.]. Furthermore,


Prompt: 47.  On 10 November 1994 a reply was given to the Secretary of State for Human Rights, who had apparently enquired on 2 November 1994 whether Hüseyin Koku had been treated at the Kahramanmaraş State Hospital for injuries sustained as a result of torture. The reply stated that between the dates of “20 November 1994 and 10 November 1994”,


Prompt:
26.  On 22 July 2004 the prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 49002 (in the documents submitted the case is also referred to under no. 490002). The text of the decision included the following observations:
“... at about 4 a.m. on 4 July 2004 a group of about ten unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the crime scene in the village of Assinovskaya. The group arrived in a UAZ-462 vehicle and an APC and unlawfully detained