Prompt: 21.  On 23 April 2001 the County Court upheld the applicants’ civil claims against the Home Office, holding that the searches constituted a trespass to the person which could not be justified by Rule 86 § 1 of the Prison Rules (see Relevant domestic law and practice below) for two reasons. Firstly, the trial judge held that the strip-searches were an invasion of their privacy exceeding what was necessary and proportionate to deal with the drug smuggling problem. Although he accepted that there were serious drug problems at the prison at the time of their visit and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that


Prompt: 15.  The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. He argued, inter alia, that the evidence that had been requested by him before the first-instance court would have clarified the circumstances of the case and the identity of the owner of the fence; however, the court had wrongfully dismissed that request. Moreover, during a meeting with the administrative authorities, the applicant’s representative had informed them that in his opinion it had not been C.M. but the neighbour whose property had been located opposite his who had blocked the street by building the fence. The applicant had himself been unable to establish the identity of the owner of the fence, because that owner’s property had been empty and no visible postal number had been attached to the entrance gate. The fence had diminished the width of V. Street, preventing vehicular access to the applicant’s property. Consequently, he had been unable to use that property for its practical purpose – namely, to build a home. The authorities had not asked him to provide the name of the owner of the fence; indeed, it was the duty of the public servants – not the applicant – to inform


Prompt: 7.  The same day a scene of incident report was drawn up by the gendarmerie officers. According to that report, a person who wanted to remain anonymous telephoned the gendarmerie and stated that he had seen a female behaving suspiciously. A number of gendarme officers and soldiers arrived at the scene at around 2 p.m. and saw the female in question. When the female saw the soldiers she began to run away. The soldiers unsuccessfully called out to her to stop and then fired fifteen to twenty warning shots in the air. The female responded by throwing a hand grenade at the soldiers and the soldiers continued firing warning shots. When she attempted to throw another grenade, the soldiers shot her. When they searched her the soldiers found a stick, two knives, a screwdriver, a two-metre-long electricity cable, a syringe with a yellow liquid inside and a hand grenade. None of the soldiers were injured in the incident.


Prompt:
45.  Dedeali Karakaya owned half of land measuring 24,702 square metres according to the land registry records. Furthermore the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 7,760 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 122,720,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land and a house measuring 23,010 and 132 square metres respectively. In his declaration of 1994 he stated that he owned a house measuring 120 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government.
(b)


Prompt: 82.  By a decision of 14 July 2005 the Constitutional Court decided that it was competent to examine the question of the compatibility of Article 113 of the Tax Code with the Constitution, having cited the application of an individual, one


Prompt:
41.  On 7 December 1998 the prison governor wrote a letter to the Court, stating, inter alia:
“On 2 December 1998 the prison administration received a letter by [the applicant] addressed to [the Court]. Having acquainted myself with the contents of the letter ... I would like to set out certain considerations as to the facts alleged [therein] ...
It is true that pursuant to the order of 14 August 1998 of


Prompt: 9.  The applicants’ younger daughter cried. The servicemen put machine guns to the second applicant’s chest, told him to calm the children down and ordered him to awaken his elder son. When he did so, they took


Prompt: 24.  The inquest began on 21 September 2009. It did not sit each day and certain witnesses were unavailable through ill-health. On 8 October 2009 the Coroner discharged the jury due to evidence which had emerged. The Coroner had decided to take a statement from a possible eye-witness to the assault. On receipt of the statement, it emerged that Officer M, of the Police Service Northern Ireland (the “PSNI” replaced the RUC in 2001), had taken the statement on the Coroner’s behalf. However, Officer M had been a member of the RUC at the time of the alleged assault. He was also the Deputy Investigation Officer and, in addition, he was due to be called as a witness. The first applicant therefore requested and, in October 2009, the Coroner obtained and disclosed Officer M’s journal entries on the police investigation. It emerged therefrom that Officer M had interviewed a soldier (Private G) in 2000. Private G had told Officer M that, on the day when


Prompt:
9.  The account below is based on the information contained in the application form and written statements by Ms P.S., Ms M.I. and Ms G.S. dated 10 December 2006.
(a)  Disappearance of Aset Yakhyayeva and


Prompt:
46.  He said that he did not know Kenan Bilgin personally. Kenan Bilgin’s lawyer, Ms Hatipoğlu, had asked him while visiting the prison whether he had met Kenan Bilgin at the police station and he had informed her of their conversation.
(c)


Prompt:
110.  The witness was one of the two Public Prosecutors who were deputies to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Bitlis. He was on duty when the Chief Public Prosecutor was on leave. He issued a decision of non-jurisdiction on 12 August 1993 after the body had been found and sent the preliminary investigation file he had prepared to the Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor’s office. He said the case had struck him as a unique and unusual one at the time. However, he could not remember whether he had done anything about the case, but said: “I must have started the investigation”.
(e)


Prompt: 17.  On 7 October 1999 Mustafa Köprü, who survived the shooting, made a statement before the Adana prosecutor regarding the incident. He maintained, inter alia, that he and Erdinç Arslan had rented the flat ten days before the incident and had been manufacturing explosives there. On the day of the incident, when he had heard footsteps on the roof, he had approached the entrance to the flat and opened fire on the police officers who were outside the flat. The police officers had then returned fire and shot


Prompt: 11.  On 24 February 1994, at about 6.30 p.m., Yusuf Ekinci left his office in the central part of Ankara to drive in his private car to his home located in a different part of the town. Before he left his office, he spoke to several persons including the applicant who had telephoned him at about 5 p.m.. He gave his office assistant


Prompt: 47.  On 20 July 2004 the first applicant requested the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor’s office”) to institute criminal proceedings against the servicemen of the Urus-Martan FSB in relation to the torture which had caused


Prompt: 7.  On 10 April 2004 at approximately 9 p.m. the second applicant and Mr Anzor Sambiyev were at home. Suddenly armed servicemen of federal troops wearing camouflage uniform rushed into the yard of the house. There were about fifty servicemen who had arrived in armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a “Ural” vehicle. Some of them surrounded the house. The second applicant told Mr


Prompt: 33.  On 28 February 2008 the military investigations department replied to the investigators that on 30 January 2008 they had refused to initiate criminal investigation into the killing owing to the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the FSB officer A.K. who had opened fire on Mr


Prompt: 42.  It appears from the judgment that Mr Tamaz Jincharadze, the third witness, was unable to appear in court owing to illness and was heard by the judges in the office of the governor of the short-term remand prison of the Ajarian Ministry of Security. He stated that he did not know the applicant and had only seen him on television. It was through Mr


Prompt: 88.  On Sunday 19 July 1998, between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m., he had been at the Kwakoe festival in the company of his sister and Mr Hoeseni. He had left them to fetch something to drink for the three of them. He had heard shouting, and he had seen Mr Hoeseni run towards some police officers present. He had run after Mr Hoeseni and asked him what the matter was. Mr Hoeseni had answered that he would tell him later. He had found his sister in tears and asked her what had happened. She had told him how Mr Hoeseni had been forced at gunpoint to hand over his scooter. 3.  The investigation by Detective Chief Superintendent


Prompt: 184.  In the bill of indictment, the prosecution indicated that they were relying on about 240 witnesses. Out of those, 83 were examined in court. Of these, the interview records of 32 witnesses were subsequently read out at the prosecution’s request, in addition to their oral submissions. Thus, the prosecution insisted on reading out the testimonies of Mr Shchavelev, Mr Pozdnyakov, Ms Rashina, Mr Gidaspov, Mr Vostrukhov, Mr


Prompt: 17.  In spite of this Stelios Kalli Panayi entered into “TRNC” territory by crossing the wooden bridge which only UNFICYP soldiers were allowed to use. Two warning shots were fired by a Turkish-Cypriot soldier (one into the air and one towards the ground); as


Prompt: 25.  Basing himself on the statements of the three accused non-commissioned soldiers, the incident and the body examination reports, on 23 January 1996 the rapporteur submitted his report to the District Administrative Council. He concluded that the security forces had taken all the necessary precautions before


Prompt: 21.  On 15 September 2005 the Indictment Division of the Salonika Criminal Court committed Police Officer Apostolidis for trial on charges of causing severe bodily injuries to the applicant inside the police station, intentionally lodging a criminal complaint concerning facts known to be false, perjury and slander. In particular, with regard to the charge of grievous bodily harm, the Indictment Division ruled that the applicant had recognised Officer


Prompt:
12.  On 6 May 2009 the Samobor Tax Office (Ministarstvo Financija – Porezna uprava, Područni ured Zagreb, Ispostava Samobor) dismissed the applicant’s request, giving the following reasons:
“Section 11(9) of the Real Property Transfer Tax Act ... provides for tax exemption for citizens who are buying their first real property in order to meet their housing needs, under conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied, including the requirement that the taxpayer in question, or his or her family members, do not have another flat or a house meeting their housing needs. During the proceedings it was established that the taxpayer


Prompt:
53.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(j)  As regards application no. 32933/15
(i)  Mr


Prompt: 125.  On 22 March 2006 the statements made by G.G., one of Sandro Girgvliani’s friends who had discovered the body, were verified at the scene of the crime. He explained that the police had arrived before them and there were many footprints in the snow at the cemetery. G.G. pointed out the place under a tree where he had seen what looked like the red imprint left by a bloodied face. The friends had gone through the cemetery and started to explore the river gorges. They asked a young village lad who was out bird-hunting (see paragraph 19 above) to help them. The lad spotted what looked like a large blood stain in the snow some way off. They saw that it led to other stains, some of which indicated that


Prompt: 73.  T.M. testified that at around 1 p.m. on 26 March 2004 she had heard about the incident in the Commissariat building. She immediately went there together with a camera operator. However, when they arrived, everything was over and they could not get any video footage of the relevant events. Thereafter, she went to the hospital where


Prompt:
26.  In a judgment of 16 September 2002 the Sofia District Court found the applicant guilty of having divulged a vilifying fact about another person in a publication, contrary to Article 147 § 1 and Article 148 §§ 1 (2) and 2 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (see paragraphs 32 and 33 below). The court applied Article 78a of the Code (see paragraph 34 below) and replaced the applicant’s criminal liability with an administrative fine of BGN 500. The court further ordered the applicant to pay Mr M.D. BGN 2,000 plus interest from 4 August 2001 until settlement, as compensation for his injured reputation, and awarded him BGN 550 in costs. The court described the facts set out in paragraphs 12‑19 above, except the part concerning Mr M. D.’s indirect membership of Vitaplant OOD at the time when it had taken out bank loans which it had failed to repay, and held as follows:
“...The actus reus of the offence of defamation is characterised by the divulging of vilifying – and untrue – circumstances relating to a specific individual. The expression used by [the applicant] – ‘credit millionaire’ – is derived from the Information About Non‑Performing Credits Act [of 1997], on the basis of whose section 3 the administration of the [Bulgarian National Bank] has published a list of all debtors, persons who have outstanding credits. Therefore the expression ‘credit millionaire’ has a negative connotation and presupposes intolerance and extremely negative public attitudes. These are people who have prospered financially due to credits from financial institutions which they have failed to repay. In this sense, from a moral point of view these persons do not enjoy a good reputation and are perceived as dishonest. The law bans these persons from holding certain official posts.
The above characterises the expression used by [the applicant] – ‘credit millionaire’ – as vilifying and damaging to the public reputation of the person [in respect of whom it is used] and the esteem of his personality. The vilifying circumstance has been divulged through the press to a large number of readers. The fact that the first version of the article had a smaller circulation than the second, which also contained [Mr M. D.’s] rebuttal, is of no consequence, because the circulation of the printed material has no impact on the criminality of the act.
The act has been committed wilfully, the form of mens rea being recklessness. [The applicant] realised the criminality of her act and its injurious consequences, and accepted that they would occur. [She] pursued another aim, which is not unlawful –informing the newspaper’s readers of the latest news about the candidates for the post of deputy


Prompt: 87.  On 6 November 2009 the applicant provided a statement to local human rights lawyers from the United Mobile Group (Объедененная Мобильная Группа) (hereinafter “the UMG”). She stated that at about 6.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 she had received a call from her neighbour Mr R.M. who had informed her, amongst other things, that a special operation had taken place in their neighbourhood and her house had been burnt down as a result, that the armed men who had carried out the operation had taken away her daughter and that a man’s body had been found among the ruins by the firemen. At about 9 p.m. that evening the applicant had gone to the Leninskiy ROVD, where investigator Mr Timur G. had taken a statement from her about the abduction. The chief of the Leninskiy ROVD, who had introduced himself as Mr Imran, had then told her that the man’s body found among the ruins had belonged to Ms


Prompt: 7.  Under a contract of 8 April 1994 (“the contract of sale”), the applicant ceded to Mr G., by then the Ajarian Deputy Minister of the Interior, half of his house (“the Mazniashvili estate”) for the price of 150,000,000 coupons (the provisional Georgian currency introduced at the beginning of the 1990s for purposes of monetary reform). According to the case file, the purchasing power of that sum corresponded to some 300 euros (EUR) at the material time. The contract of sale was certified by a notary. As further disclosed by a written statement of a witness to that transaction, after the signing of the contract Mr G. gave the applicant 3,000 United States dollars (EUR 2,199[1]) in cash. Shortly after the sale of the


Prompt: 33.  On 9 and 10 March 2005 investigator K. from the Prosecutor General’s Office (следователь Генеральной прокуратуры РФ) examined the corpse and other items found at the scene and decided that a number of expert examinations should be carried out. On 9 March 2005 the corpse of


Prompt: 103.  The investigation also questioned some officials. Officer D., who at the time had worked at the OMON, testified that on 18 September 2000 an unknown woman at a checkpoint had told him that she had heard machine-gun firing in Vostochnaya Street. A group of police officers went there. Upon arrival, they had learnt about the six men's disappearance.


Prompt: 31.  At 10.30 a.m. on 23 April 2005 members and supporters of Ilinden assembled near Rozhen Monastery, building a stage with posters about three hundred metres from the grave of Yane Sandanski. The applicants asserted that at approximately 10.30 a.m. several police officers told them to remove the posters because at 11 a.m. a group of pupils would be coming to lay wreaths at the grave and on the posters they would see that


Prompt: 72.  After examining the documents submitted by the Russian authorities, information from the Georgian Ministry of Security and evidence gathered at the time of arrest, the Georgian Procurator-General's Office identified, firstly, Mr


Prompt:
25.  The applicant believed that an inducement was promised to Gray by the prosecuting authorities in exchange for his testifying against him. In addition to the above letter, which the applicant claimed supported his hypothesis, he referred to the fact that his tariff of imprisonment (that is, the period to be served before review by the Parole Board) under the life sentence had been set at twenty-five years, but was subsequently reduced to twenty-one years. Runham, who had provided the murder weapon and drove the get-away car, received a tariff of sixteen years. Gray, who had shot and killed Nugent, had his tariff set at eleven years and was released in 1999. In April 1999 the Home Office wrote to Runham, refusing to reduce his tariff:
“The Secretary of State holds


Prompt: 83.  Thereafter, the investigator accompanied the seventh applicant and her relatives to the military unit. He entered the premises and soon reappeared. Mr F.A. said that he had checked the premises but


Prompt: 46.  Ms Margvelashvili testified that on the evening of 7 August 2000 a group of men who introduced themselves as police officers had broken into her house and abducted Mr Dvali and Mr Kakushadze. She was left in her house under the surveillance of two intruders. Some time later, on the following morning, the applicant had telephoned her and threatened her and her son with death if she did not say where his father was. The applicant allowed her to speak on the telephone to Mr Dvali and Mr


Prompt: 13.  The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that on 18 September 2000 “unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms” had entered the house at 44 Vostochnaya Street in Grozny and taken away


Prompt: 30.  A booklet published by the THKP-C in July 1992 described the events of 16-17 April 1992 and contained transcripts of telephone conversation between G.Ş. and the deceased Sabahat Karataş, who was a board member and the wife of the leader of the illegal organisation. The booklet, which was entitled “Our flag will fly all around the country”, praised socialism and stated that


Prompt: 81.  When questioned on 8 March 2006, the barman from the Café Chardin explained that the musicians generally played as long as there were still clients in the establishment. A waitress, R.A., said that the percussionist played the bongo drums on Fridays and at the weekend, from 10 p.m. until 2 a.m. On the evening in question R.A. had recognised G.D.-dze and O.M.‑ov as soon as they had walked into the café. Even if she would not have been able to hear an argument with all the noise, R.A. could safely say that there had been no trouble at


Prompt:
5.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of four tenements in Malta. Before the Court he produced a statement made on 19 July 2006 by a notary public, which reads as follows:
“I the undersigned Dr. Paul Pullicino, Notary Public, do hereby certify that in virtue of a secret will made on the 4th day of October, 1966, by


Prompt:
59.  On 8 April 2009, after the applicant had been indicted in the Rijeka County Court, a three-judge panel of that court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 §§ 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The first accused,


Prompt:
34.  These documents concern the criminal proceedings brought against Ahmet Kınay, the applicant's fellow villager, for allegedly setting the applicant's house on fire. Ahmet Kınay was acquitted of the charges in a judgment of 6 May 1997 by the Muş Assize Court.
(i) Copy of a birth certificate belonging to


Prompt: 25.  The applicant applied for refugee status, stating that between 1992 and 2005 he had distributed printed material in Belarus about the Hare Krishna movement and had practised and taught yoga. From 1997 onwards he had started to “have problems” with the Belarusian authorities because of his religion and related activities. He had been arrested on several occasions. In 2004 he had wanted to open an educational institution in Minsk, which would have taught the teachings of


Prompt: 15.  On 18 December 2006 Mr X. requested an urgent hearing, complaining that for the last two weekends the first applicant had denied him contact rights and had changed the arrangements. Consequently, the


Prompt: 77.  Their family’s neighbours in Grozny stated that they had not seen the Yandiyevs after they left Grozny in 1994. One neighbour, Ibragim D., questioned in October 2004, testified that in spring 2003 he had noticed a man resembling


Prompt: 25.  On 16 August 2001 the unit prosecutor’s office sent a request to the temporary department of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District (“the VOVD”), which stated that on 18 July 2001 a group of servicemen commanded by an officer of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) had shot


Prompt: 68.  On 2 April 2005 officer E. of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Nazran Department of the Interior was questioned. He stated that on 20 July 2004 he had been on duty with officer T-v. At approximately 8 p.m. they received a call about a suspicious white car. They left and found a white VAZ 2107 at the described location. They called out but nobody answered. Then they approached the car and saw a man lying on the floor by the back seat. The man had either a mask or a bag on his head. They then opened the door, put him on the seat and removed the bag or the mask. They asked his identity and what he was doing there. He answered that he had been brought there several hours earlier by policemen who had told him not to move. He said that his name was


Prompt:
11.  The applicants submitted that early in the morning of 2 June 2002 a convoy including at least six armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and at least one other military vehicle - a UAZ all-terrain car - conducted a “sweeping” operation in the village of Novye Atagi. The local residents noted the hull numbers of three APCs: 569, 889 and 1252, and partially of the UAZ vehicle as “344”. The hull numbers of the other vehicles were obscured. The servicemen went to six houses during the operation and detained five men. The applicants submitted numerous affidavits about the events of 2 June 2002, produced by the family members of the detained and the neighbours. They also submitted a hand-drawn map of the village, indicating the location of the roadblocks and of the houses of the five persons detained on 2 June 2002.
(a) Detention of


Prompt:
275.  The applicants claimed that certain pieces of evidence, referred to by the Meshchanskiy District Court in its judgment, had never been produced to the defence for examination in adversarial proceedings. In particular, the judgment referred to:
(a) the second applicant’s income and expenditure book for the year 2000;
(b) the letter from


Prompt: 99.  The applicant later found out that Mr Demirci had been injured in an incident when his car had been shot at. When he was taken to hospital by local people, Mr Demirci shouted that an attempt had been made to kill him because he had killed


Prompt: 83.  On 21 June 2008 investigators of the district prosecutor’s office interviewed as witnesses R.Sh. and M.Ch., police officers of the ROVD. They stated that at about 4 a.m. on 12 November 2002 unidentified armed masked persons in camouflage uniforms, who spoke unaccented Russian, had arrived at the applicant’s house in two APCs and a grey UAZ vehicle without registration numbers and had abducted


Prompt: 8.  On 8 September 1998, at approximately 07.00 p.m., the applicant and two other Syrian nationals accompanied a friend to the Ano Patissia police station in order to report a robbery. Having waited for a long time to be attended to, the applicant started complaining. He alleges that he was then brutally beaten on his head by a police officer, Mr


Prompt: 17.  In an order dated 11 May 2013, the urgent-applications judge granted their requests. The judge held that, since no advance directives had been drawn up by Vincent Lambert, and in the absence of a person of trust within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Public Health Code, the collective procedure should be continued with his family, despite the fact that the latter was divided as to what should become of the patient. The judge noted that, while


Prompt: 49.  On 16 November 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing, where it decided on the remainder of the restitution claims. It granted to each of the claimants, including the applicant Mr Igor Levstek, compensation for the forfeited immovable property in the value of 269,407.52 German marks at the material time. In addition, it granted to each claimant, including the applicant Mr


Prompt: 64.  On 2 August 2002 the applicant was asked to leave his cell so that the roof could be repaired. When he stated that he could not walk, prison guards offered to carry him out on a stretcher. The applicant, however, refused, saying that he was suffering from headaches and pain in his back and wanted to see a doctor. He had been seen three days earlier, on 30 July 2002, by the prison doctor, Dr


Prompt: 25.  A specialist department within the Istanbul Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute conducted a number of further examinations and adopted its report on 20 October 2008 in response to the prosecutor’s request of 25 December 2007 (see paragraph 21 above). It was established in the report that the hair found in


Prompt: 91.  As to the statements of witnesses Q.M., E.M., R.C., M.K., I.A., N.C. and N.M., who had said that there had been no clashes between protesters and the police in the town at that time and that neither the applicant nor


Prompt: 100.  On 15 May 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that Mr


Prompt: 16.  Also on the same date, sergeant Kolyadova O., M.P.’s immediate superior, was questioned. She stated that she was in charge of the guard dogs’ kennels to which M.P. had been assigned in November 2003. He had been responsible for helping


Prompt: 50.  The Government submitted that on an unspecified date the deputy head of the Temporary Operational Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in the Northern Caucasus (“the Operational Troops”) (the Government did not provide any information concerning the officer’s identity or service rank) had provided the investigation with an information statement to the effect that the newspaper’s information about the killing of the two rebel fighters


Prompt:
27.  The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter. The trial judge noted the following:
(i) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”;
(ii) the public prosecutor called five witnesses, whose statements were translated into Greek for the accused's benefit;
(iii) the witnesses (mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration) declared that the accused had illegally entered the “TRNC” territory, shouted abuse at the Turkish-Cypriot forces and resisted arrest by pulling and pushing; knives and other cutting objects had been found in the bags of some of the demonstrators who had been arrested;
(iv) the applicant stated that he was a journalist, that he had been arrested while he was following the demonstration even though the peace keeping forces had given him permission to do so;
(v) the accused had been told that they could cross-examine witnesses in turn and, if they so wished, choose one of their number to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of all the accused; however, they had not done so; one of the accused had put a few questions to one of the prosecution witnesses;
(vi) before the “TRNC” District Court passed sentence,


Prompt:
46.  The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court Senate, which dismissed his appeal in a judgment of 28 September 2004 in the following terms:
“... In finding that V. Kononov was a combatant and had committed the offence in question on the territory occupied by the USSR, the Criminal Affairs Division based its judgment on the decisions of the higher representative bodies of the Republic of Latvia, on the relevant international conventions and on other evidence, taken as a whole, which had been verified and assessed in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure.
In the declaration by the Supreme Council ... on 4 May 1990 on the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Latvia, it was acknowledged that the ultimatum delivered on 16 June 1940 to the Government of the Republic of Latvia by the former Stalinist USSR should be regarded as an international crime, as Latvia was occupied and its sovereign power abolished as a result. [However] the Republic of Latvia continued to exist as a subject of international law, as was recognised by more than fifty States worldwide...
...
After analysing the merits of the judgment, the Senate ... considers that, to the extent that the Criminal Affairs Division found that V. Kononov came within the scope of Article 68-3 of the Criminal Code, ... his acts were correctly characterised, as, in his capacity as a belligerent and combatant on Latvian territory occupied by the USSR, he has violated the laws and customs of war, in that he planned and directed a military operation aimed at taking reprisals against civilians, namely peaceable inhabitants of the village of Mazie Bati, nine of whom were killed ... [and] whose property was stolen [or] burnt.
As the court of appeal (rightly) noted, neither the fact that Latvian territory was subjected to two successive occupations in the Second World War by two States (one of which was Germany; a 'dual occupation' in the words of the court of appeal), nor the fact that the USSR was a member of an anti-Hitler coalition, changed


Prompt: 36.  In the meantime, on 27 March 2000, two days after the fatal incident, the Thessaloniki police headquarters launched a Sworn Administrative Inquiry (Ενορκη Διοικητική Εξέταση, – SAI) in order to ascertain the exact circumstances in which


Prompt: 108.  At around 9 a.m. on the morning of 10 November 1992 the witness left her house in Kurşunlu village with a fellow shepherd, Hediye Akelma Akodun, and their animals. They followed Mehmet Akkum and


Prompt:
30.  Special Investigation Branch investigations in Iraq were hampered by a number of difficulties, such as security problems, lack of interpreters, cultural considerations (for example, the Islamic practice requiring a body to be buried within twenty-four hours and left undisturbed for forty days), the lack of pathologists and post-mortem facilities, the lack of records, problems with logistics, the climate and general working conditions. The Aitken Report (see paragraph 69 below) summarised the position as follows:
“It was not only the combat troops who were overstretched in these circumstances. The current military criminal justice system is relevant, independent, and fit for purpose; but even the most effective criminal justice system will struggle to investigate, advise on and prosecute cases where the civil infrastructure is effectively absent. And so, in the immediate aftermath of the ground war, the Service Police faced particular challenges in gathering evidence of a quality that would meet the very high standards required under English law. National records – usually an integral reference point for criminal investigations – were largely absent; a different understanding of the law between Iraqi people and British police added to an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion; and the army was facing an increasingly dangerous operational environment – indeed, on 24 June 2003, six members of the Royal Military Police were killed in Al Amarah. Local customs similarly hampered the execution of British standards of justice: in the case of


Prompt:
62.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(k)  As regards application no. 35780/15 (Ms


Prompt: 12.  There the applicant met a local resident, identified by her as A., who told her that at the crossroads of Neftyanaya Street and the 4th Neftyanoy Lane there was the body of an old lady in a handcart. He told her that on 19 January 2000 the old lady had been wounded by shrapnel and that three men had tried to take her out of Grozny. They had walked up to the 8th Lane, where there was a group of soldiers and three armoured personnel carriers (APCs), one of which had been damaged. The soldiers had stopped them, beaten the men and led them away. They had shot the woman in the cart, and then A. had seen shots being fired, so he presumed that the men had also been shot. From his story the applicant deduced that the woman was her mother and that her brother,


Prompt:
13.  On 28 April 2004 the Buiucani District Court partly accepted the plaintiffs' claims. It found that the applicant newspaper had published factual statements. The court cited one fragment of a paragraph from the impugned article, which read:
“...when the communists came to power,


Prompt:
39.  On the basis of the evidence adduced on 7 July 1997 by Principal State Counsel’s Office, the Constitutional Court held that the following further evidence confirmed that Refah was a centre of activities contrary to the principle of secularism:
–  In a public speech on 7 May 1996 Mr


Prompt: 173.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant’s relatives asked the military commander, Mr G.G., to release Khavazhi Elikhanov. The commander promised that the applicant’s son would be released the following day. However,


Prompt:
41.  In the case of Krombach v Bamberski (Case C-7/98, judgment of 28 March 2000, ECR I-1935), the Court of Justice of the European Union (known as the “Court of Justice of the European Communities” prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009 – hereinafter “the CJEU”), held as follows:
“25.  The Court has consistently held that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law whose observance the Court ensures (see, in particular, Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759, paragraph 33). For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories. In that regard, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ‘the ECHR’) has particular significance (see, inter alia, Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 18). 26.  The Court has thus expressly recognised the general principle of Community law that everyone is entitled to fair legal process, which is inspired by those fundamental rights (Case C-185/95 P


Prompt: 53.  The applicant also filed a petition about his brother's disappearance with the Investigation Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. On 1 December 1995, in reply to a request for information, the office of the Diyarbakır Governor informed the Investigation Commission for Human Rights that the case had been investigated, that the two gendarmerie officers whose names had been given by the applicant and his sister had not apprehended


Prompt: 24.  On 8 December 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116, requesting them to inform it whether an investigation into


Prompt:
18.  On 6 August 1994 the applicant made an application for leave to attend the funeral of his father. The application was in the following terms:
“I kindly ask you to grant me a compassionate leave because my father


Prompt: 31.  At 7.45 a.m. on 21 December 1994, a deputy police chief and a police officer drew up an on-site report. According to this report, a number of persons had informed the police at 7.30 a.m. the same morning that they had seen a person lying on the side of the road, near the Mardinkapı cemetery. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the frozen body of a male, lying on its right side between the road and the wall of the cemetery. It was lying at an approximate distance of 150-200 metres from the entrance to the cemetery. Its hands had been tied at the back with the belt of the coat the deceased was wearing. According to the identity card found on the body, the deceased was


Prompt: 98.  On 10 December 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the president of the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council claiming, inter alia, that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken into detention by Captain


Prompt: 9.  In another article concerning the same subject matter, this time in issue 13 (402) dated 20 March 2004, authored by Z.O. and entitled “The golden grin awards” (“Вручение премии Оскал”), the newspaper published a photo collage depicting Y.L. as


Prompt:
16. On 27 October 2000 the official launch of the Association took place in a hotel in Skopje, the capital of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A promotional leaflet by the Association (which accompanied the letters of invitation for the opening ceremony) was published at the beginning of October. It provided information about the Association’s name, objectives and the ways in which these were to be achieved. It read:
“a. Name of the Association
The founders of the Association have taken as its name the most frequently used pseudonym of Ivan Mihajlov, RADKO.


Prompt: 62.  According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators requested information, inter alia, about special operations conducted in the area between 1 and 5 February 2003 and officers who had served in the Vedeno district at the material time, from various State authorities, including a number of the district prosecutor's officers in Chechnya, the district military commander's offices and military unit no. 20116. The investigators also requested that the Chechnya FSB inform them whether they had detained


Prompt:
16.  Statement of Lance Bombardier Michael John Sanders from UNFICYP:
“... Between two and three hundred Greek-Cypriot demonstrators were in the buffer zone and approached our formation. These people were in an agitated state, abusive, were singing patriotic songs and several were carrying Greek flags. I also saw several television cameras amongst the crowd. ...
The demonstrators were becoming more agitated and were throwing missiles towards UN personnel and Turkish forces. ...
A short time later ... I saw a male person previously unknown to me, this person was between myself and the road and was jogging towards the Turkish-Cypriot fire line [TCFL]. This person was wearing black jeans and a black T shirt ... I also saw that this person was smoking.
This person appeared to be extremely agitated and was verbally abusing UN and Turkish troops. I saw


Prompt: 44.  The first applicant asked where the men were being taken. A serviceman replied that the four men were being taken for “interrogation”. The vehicles then left the schoolyard, taking Suleyman Surguyev,


Prompt:
9.  In its judgment of 25 May 1999 the Velika Gorica Municipal Court upheld K.D.'s claim and declared the applicant's counterclaim inadmissible. It can be seen from the judgment that no arguments concerning the merits of the applicant's counterclaim had been heard before the court. The court found that the applicant had been prevented from seeking the exemption of her personal property from the inheritance because she had failed to file an objection to that effect in the course of the inheritance proceedings. The relevant parts of the first-instance judgment read as follows:
“... the [applicant's] counterclaim ... in the part seeking that her property rights be established over the estate which was subject to the inheritance proceedings in respect of the late


Prompt: 21.  On 14 August 2000 the applicants learned that two more detainees, Yusup Satabayev (Satabayeva v. Russia, application no. 21486/06) and Ch., had gone missing from the Urus-Martan VOVD at the same time as


Prompt:
16.  On 18 January 1995 the applicant was visited at the school of Ayia Triada by representatives of Doctors of the World, to whom she showed the bruises she had on her legs, hands and head. In its relevant parts, the report of Doctors of the World reads as follows:
“Although


Prompt: 301.  At about 5.30 a.m. a group of fifteen to twenty servicemen in a yellow UAL lorry with registration number 75 99 86 broke into the house of the Dashtayev family. Several APCs and a UAZ minivan were waiting on a neighbouring street. They found Mr


Prompt: 47.  Ten police officers mentioned in their pre-trial statements that they had seen the applicant on 24 January 2013. Some of them stated that there had been disorder between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 24 January 2013. They further stated that on the afternoon of 24 January 2013 (according to three of them, at around 4 p.m.; according to two of them, at around 5 p.m.; according to four of them, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.; and one of them did not specify the exact time), they had seen a crowd gathered near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department (only two of them specified the size of the crowd, one of whom stated that there were twenty people, and the other – two hundred people). According to the documents in the case file, at least three of them stated that the people moved to the area close to the Regional Education Department along the “hospital road”, which was the informal name for M.F. Akhundov Street used by locals. All ten of them further stated that they had also seen the applicant and


Prompt: 15.  On the following morning, 25 March 2001, the head of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD arrived in Urus-Martan and spoke with the head of the VOVD. As a result, Mr L.M. was released on the same day; during his release the VOVD officers mistakenly gave him


Prompt: 32.  On 7 June 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor's office”) that they had carried out an inquiry which had not established any trace of military personnel having been involved in the abduction of Ilyas and


Prompt: 7.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, who was born in 1976. The first applicant is his mother, the third applicant is his wife, the fourth applicant is his daughter, and the fifth and sixth applicants are his brothers. The second applicant was Mr


Prompt: 10.  In its reasoning, the Disciplinary Court found that the applicant performed medical operations with a laser technique. In the house where he had his consultation rooms, his wife ran an “excimer-laser-centre”. In May 1994 the journalist Ms K. of the newspaper Schwäbische Zeitung had visited the applicant, upon appointment, in his consultation rooms and discussed his new laser operation technique. Moreover, a photograph was taken of the applicant at his place of work. On 26 September 1994, there had appeared in the said newspaper an article signed by Ms K. and entitled “Cornea under fire – laser restores full vision. In Blaubeuren, the ‘photorefractive keratotomy’ has been applied since three years – operation risks are low - expenses are partly reimbursed by the insurances” (“Die Hornhaut unter Beschuss – Laser gibt dem Auge die volle Sehkraft zurück. In Blaubeuren wird seit drei Jahren die ‘Photorefraktive Keratektomie’ angewandt – Operationsrisiken sind gering – Kosten werden teilweise von den Kassen übernommen.”). In the article, it had been inter alia stated that, according to his indications, the applicant had treated more than 400 patients having defective vision with a laser technique and that in no case had any subsequent corrective measures been necessary and that accordingly he had a success rate of 100%. The article had also reported the applicant’s statement that the long-term success of an operation depended upon the experience of the medical practitioner and on the selection of the patients. The article had been illustrated by a photograph of 12x19 cm in size which showed the applicant at his computer pointing to the monitor. It had the caption: “On the occasion of the ‘mapping’ Dr


Prompt: 7.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The main contenders were the then Prime Minister, Mr Sargsyan, representing the ruling party, and the main opposition candidate, Mr


Prompt: 20.  In a judgment of 22 April 1997, the Civil Court found for the applicant company and declared that the failure to withdraw by the judges composing the Court of Appeal had violated Article 6 of the Convention. It observed that the same judges had been called upon to rule twice on a case concerning the same facts and the same parties. Moreover, in a judgment given on 10 October 1991 in


Prompt:
38.  On 25 May 2004 the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan addressed the following letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia:
“The General Prosecutor’s Office of Turkmenistan presents its compliments to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and issues a guarantee that


Prompt: 9.  In a final judgment of 4 December 1996 the Supreme Court found in favour of the applicant, quashed the decision of the Minister of Industry as unlawful, and, finding that he fulfilled the statutory conditions to purchase the property under the preferential privatisation procedure, explicitly instructed


Prompt: 16.  In the context of the above proceedings, the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office sent enquiries to heads of a number of State bodies, including the Urus-Martan military commander's office, military unit no. 6779, the Urus-Martan Division of the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia (отдел УФСБ РФ по ЧР в Урус-Мартановском районе, “the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB”) and district offices of the interior in Chechnya. The respective officials were requested to verify whether their subordinates had ever arrested


Prompt: 29.  In three applications lodged on 31 January 2014, Rachel Lambert, François Lambert and Reims University Hospital appealed against that judgment to the urgent-applications judge of the Conseil d’État. The applicants lodged a cross-appeal, requesting


Prompt:
24.  In 2006 the court held only two hearings, on 23 January and 4 April. On 28 April 2006 the court requested a new expert medical opinion from the Wrocław Medical Academy. The experts submitted their opinon on 15 November 2006. The opinion reads as follows:
“The above observations [from photographs and an inspection of the room in which


Prompt: 54.  On 9 July 2004 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unsubstantiated and premature and ordered the investigators to resume it and take a number of steps, such as identifying the servicemen from military unit no. 3737 who had participated in the military operation in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny in January 2000. The prosecutor also ordered the investigators to provide an explanation of the differences in the witness statements given by the applicant, her sister


Prompt: 102.  In the instant case M.P. had had only one means of countering the attack: his firearm. He had made proportionate use of it, since before shooting he had called out to the demonstrators to leave, in an attempt to put a stop to their actions; he had then fired upwards and the bullet had hit the victim as the result of a tragic twist of fate (per una tragica fatalità). Had he wished to be sure of harming his assailants he would have fired through the side windows of the jeep, next to which numerous demonstrators had gathered. It followed that he had acted in self-defence. That being so, it was of little relevance whether M.P. had had a partial view of


Prompt:
7.  The circumstances in which the applicant’s brother disappeared are disputed. In accordance with former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties and obtained documentary evidence and oral depositions.
Delegates from the Commission heard witnesses on 17 September 1999 in Strasbourg and from 20 to 22 September 1999 in Ankara. They also visited the offices of the anti-terrorist branch at Ankara Security Directorate on 20 September 1999. Evidence was taken from the following witnesses: the applicant, eleven people who had been in custody at the material time at Ankara Security Directorate and who alleged that they had met


Prompt:
80.  In November 2003, the Cypriot Ombudsman published a report on “artistes” in Cyprus. In her introduction, she explained the reasons for her report as follows (all quotes are from a translation of the report provided by the Cypriot Government):
“Given the circumstances under which


Prompt:
27.  On 14 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no. 24012. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“...on 4 February 2003, during a special operation in Makhkety in the Vedeno district, unidentified military servicemen took away all property from the household at 37 Zarechnaya Street, and detained


Prompt: 15.  The investigation into the attack on Donnelly’s Bar did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. The police arrested a reserve police constable


Prompt: 18.  On hearing the gunshots, a UNFICYP soldier came out of his observation post, located 250 metres south of the scene of the incident and started to look around; as he did not have a clear overall view, he proceeded towards the place where the gunshots had been heard and was about to cross the bridge. However, he was warned by means of two shots fired into the air by the Turkish soldiers not to advance any further. In fact, the situation was still critical as it was not known whether


Prompt: 6.  The first applicant is the mother and the remaining two applicants are the sister and brother of Ms Nilgün Hasefe, who was employed by Sabancı Holdings in Istanbul. On 9 January 1996 a number of armed persons raided the Holdings' premises and killed


Prompt: 68.  The Government submitted that neither the investigation in criminal case no. 44073 nor those of any law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya, including the Chechnya FSB and the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, had obtained any information about the involvement of


Prompt: 41.  On 28 March 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the third applicant that, as stated in the FSB’s reply of 13 March 2003, the FSB had no information to the effect that Mr


Prompt: 83.  On 17 April 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office wrote to the first applicant in response to her complaint. It stated that following her son’s kidnapping by unknown persons wearing camouflage on 20 March 2002, criminal case no. 61058 had been opened on 25 March 2002 by the district prosecutor’s office under Article 126, part 2 of the Criminal Code. On 25 May 2002 the investigation had been adjourned owing to a failure to identify the culprits. On 30 January 2003 the investigation had been reopened and accepted for further examination by an investigator from the district prosecutor’s office. During this additional investigation the first applicant had been granted victim status and the second applicant and other witnesses had been questioned about the circumstances of the abduction. The letter further stated that the investigation had forwarded requests for information to the various military and police authorities in order to identify APCs nos. 237 and 246 and the UAZ vehicle with registration number 378-02 that had been involved in the abduction. Additional requests for information had been forwarded to the Orenburg Region. The letter concluded that, unfortunately, these investigative steps had not led to the identification of the culprits or to the establishment of


Prompt: 15.  In his decision, the public prosecutor considered that the case was comparable to another case. According to the judgment in that case, which contained a reference to the Court’s judgment in Prager and


Prompt: 10.  The applicants were informed of the incident on that same day. They immediately contacted the Bakırköy public prosecutor and the Yeşilköy police headquarters to find out more about the kidnapping. They were informed that the three persons had not been taken into custody. The same day, the brother of


Prompt: 88.  On 1 October 2001 Mr Arbekov, the assistant to the district prosecutor, wrote to the Chechnya FSB that, according to the registration log of the Khankala FSB department, both Mr Ramzan Chankayev and Mr


Prompt: 14.  On 17 May 1994 the applicant and his son İkram İpek were tending their sheep away from the village of Türeli when soldiers approached them and asked them for identification. After being shown identification, the soldiers went on their way. The applicant's other son,


Prompt:
20.  Lord Steyn dissented on all three points. On Articles 3 and 8 he approved the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. On the status of the Code of Practice, by section 118(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (which directs the Secretary of State to prepare such a code) he found:
“...in section 118(1) Parliament had authorised a Code with some minimum safeguards and a modicum of centralised protection for vulnerable patients. This is inconsistent with a free-for-all in which hospitals are at liberty to depart from the published Code as they consider right. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Parliament would have authorised a regime in which hospitals may as a matter of policy depart from the Code. After all that would result in mentally disordered patients being treated about seclusion in a discriminatory manner, depending on the policy adopted by the managers and clinicians in particular hospitals.”
He also found Article 5 to be applicable, stating as follows:
“Under English law a convicted prisoner, sentenced to imprisonment, retains all his civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication: Raymond v Honey [1983] AC 1, at 10G, per Lord


Prompt: 40.  In a letter of 12 February 2003 the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB again informed the applicant that their personnel had never detained her son or brought criminal proceedings against him. The letter continued that on 7 June 2001


Prompt: 51.  The applicants’ lawyers submitted to the Court a report which was prepared on 7 July 1993 by Dr Peter Vanezis, a forensic expert at the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School in London. The findings of this report were based on a number of photographs of the bodies of


Prompt:
20.  By a letter dated 10 July 1997 Major P. forwarded the preliminary investigation file to the Military Prosecutor's Office in Constanţa. The case file contained the following documents:
(i)  an undated statement by the applicant according to which, after he had left Steluţa's flat in the evening of 4 July 1997, he had met her relatives, who had beaten him up;
(ii)  the report dated 4 July 1997, 8.15 p.m. drawn up by police officer


Prompt: 56.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant gave detailed submissions to an investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office relating the arrest and detention of his brother, as described above. In addition, he submitted that on 3 April 1999 his brother had told him in great detail what had happened on the night of 24 to 25 February 1999 and named other persons who had been detained with him and questioned by the relatives of Magomed K. He also allegedly told him that he had been taken to several detention centres in the Northern Caucasus prior to being admitted to the pre-trial detention centre no. 1 in Nalchik because he had suffered from the beatings and the officials had refused to accept him. The applicant named Mr


Prompt: 47.  On 9 March 2005 the head of the Urus-Martan District Office of the Interior (ROVD) replied that he had no information about either the institution of criminal or administrative proceedings against T.,


Prompt: 58.  On 24 April 2004 the investigators granted victim status to Ms Z. Kh., the grandmother of Magomed Kudayev, and questioned her. She stated that the abductors, who had been armed and who had been dressed in camouflage and black uniforms, had arrived at the house in two UAZ vehicles, one of which had been a minivan. They had spoken unaccented Chechen and Russian. The abductors had said that they had been looking for Zelimkhan. When Magomed had told them that was him, they had not asked for identity documents and had simply taken him outside. The first and second applicants had asked the abductors not to take their relative away. But the men had ignored their pleading and the women had then started throwing rocks at them. In response the abductors had opened fire and had gone away, taking


Prompt: 153.  It follows from the Government’s submissions that the investigation made several attempts to establish Mr Nikolenko’s whereabouts. However, in all queries the investigating authorities wrongly referred to him as Mr


Prompt: 14.  At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned


Prompt: 106.  Between September 2009 and September 2010 the investigators asked various district investigations departments, the various police departments in Chechnya, detention centres and hospitals in the North Caucasus and the nearby regions of southern Russia whether they had discovered or stored the body of


Prompt: 109.  Ercüment Erbil, a private in the gendarmerie, stated that he had been on guard duty for some of the time that Yakup Aktaş had been detained. While on duty, he would open the doors of the cells when detainees were served meals or water, when they needed to go to the lavatory or when they were sent to the interrogation centre. He had taken


Prompt:
20.  The applicant was arrested at around noon on 27 September 2008. The relevant part of the official record of the applicant’s arrest (cinayət törətmiş şəxsin tutulması barədə protokol) of 27 September 2008 reads as follows:
“... At around noon on 27 September 2008,


Prompt: 9.  The first applicant is the mother of Khalid Khatsiyev, born in 1969, and of the third and fourth applicants. The second applicant is the mother of Kazbek Akiyev, born in 1970, and of the fifth and sixth applicants. The seventh applicant was married to


Prompt: 44.  On 30 May 1996 the Edirne Security Directorate informed the Edirne public prosecutor that Talat Türkoğlu had been arrested in 1980 in Ankara for membership of the prohibited TKP/B party (Türkiye Komünist Partisi Birlik). He was released on bail after having been detained for 13 months and 17 days. He was arrested again for the same reasons in Istanbul in 1984. He was released on bail in 1989. Without giving any dates, the letter further states that


Prompt: 14.  The applicant alleged that he had not been able to read the contents of the above documents, including his written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which he had admitted committing the alleged acts, since he did not have his reading glasses. Nor were the contents of those documents read out to him. The documents had allegedly been prepared by the police officers who asked him to sign them, which he did on the understanding that this would result in his immediate release from the police station. The applicant further alleged that the chief of police told him that he would be detained since there were instructions from


Prompt: 24.  The Federal Court of Justice noted that the impugned advertisement provided a satirical, derisive slant on the applicant’s scuffles outside his “Gut Calenberg” property and on Lamu Island. The media had reported on these events, mentioning the applicant’s name and publishing photographs of him, because there was a particular public interest in information about the incidents on account of the applicant’s relationship with the daughter of


Prompt:
38.  The appeal decision referred to the applicant's detailed submissions concerning the conditions of his detention. The court reasoned as follows:
“It follows from the materials of the case and was established by [this] court that claimant


Prompt: 64.  On 30 January 2006 the department of military counter-intelligence of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) informed the first applicant that the examination of her complaint had failed to establish


Prompt: 45.  When re-interviewed on 24 January and 4 February 2008, the second applicant, Sh.D. and I.D. confirmed their earlier statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction of Beslan Baysultanov. In addition, the second applicant submitted that in May 2007 she had been assaulted by several people who had told her to stop searching for


Prompt: 29.  Ms Carson appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal on 17 June 2003 (R (Carson and Reynolds) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797). For similar reasons to the High Court, the Court of Appeal (


Prompt: 85.  On 10 March 2006 L.B.-dze was questioned again, with no lawyer present, the prosecutor simply explaining that he had the right to be represented, before proceeding with his questions. He was questioned, inter alia, about the contradiction between his statements to the authorities and those he had made on television concerning the moment when they left the café. On television he had stated that he and


Prompt: 35.  On 29 March 2004 the republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that her complaint about her sons’ abduction had been examined; the investigation in criminal case concerning the abduction of


Prompt:
9.  On 7 August 2002 all the applicants except Mrs Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Mrs Ana-Maria Apetrei and Mrs Paraschiva Vintilescu, together with M.C.V. and E.P., brought court proceedings to have the sale declared null and void. The plaintiffs, as heirs of H.P., considered that the State had no title to that property and invoked the provisions of section 46 § 2 of Law no. 10/2001.
The applicants


Prompt: 23.  The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back and the Government’s submissions in that regard were identical to those in the case of


Prompt:
14.  On 31 March 2000 International Prison Watch (IPW) issued the following press release:

“No early release for prisoners with serious illnesses
On 7 March 2000 the Minister of Justice refused applications for a pardon lodged on behalf of a prisoner suffering from a rapidly progressive disease.
52-year-old


Prompt: 55.  On 5 May 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the district prosecutor’s office instructed the investigators in case no. 25482 to carry out a crime scene inspection, identify and question the servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoint on the day of the applicant’s son’s abduction, verify information to the effect that Chechen TV and radio channels had disseminated information on


Prompt: 111.  On 2 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that on the night of 12-13 June 2003 police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD had apprehended him and taken him to the police station, where they had asked him about Mr


Prompt: 107.  The witness, who signed the autopsy report, was at the time the Sivrice Public Prosecutor in Elazığ. Although it was not the usual practice, he had photographs taken of the body for identification purposes following the post-mortem examination. At the beginning of his testimony, the witness stated that he had not taken any steps to see whether the body he had found matched any person reported as missing. After consulting the doctor and having heard the witnesses, he decided that a systematic autopsy was unnecessary as there was nothing suspicious about the incident and that he had come across similar drowning incidents in the past. However, he had not encountered a case where the identity of the victim was unknown and the identity card missing. Later he said that he had instructed both the gendarmes and the police to investigate whether anyone had reported a relative missing. He had the body sent to the morgue of the Elazığ State Hospital as there was no suitable morgue in Sivrice. He was informed later that the body had been buried because of a technical problem in the morgue. However, he did not know when the body had been buried and who had ordered the burial. He did not know anything about


Prompt: 41.  On 16 July 2003 the first applicant complained to the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (the UGA). She provided a detailed description of her son’s abduction by federal servicemen, his subsequent detention in the military commander’s office and the VOVD and complained that the investigation had failed to examine the evidence proving the authorities’ involvement in her son’s abduction. She stated that on 5 June 2002 her son had been seen in a bus next to Chervlyenaya station in the Shelkovskoy district of Chechnya. According to the woman who had spoken with


Prompt:
51.  In the particular circumstances of the case, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the accused’s fair trial rights, in particular because he had not even been cautioned by the police. However, following a request for retrial which was upheld by a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 31 January 2014, no violation was found because the accused, who had given a statement in the absence of a lawyer, had not been forced to reply to the questions put to him by the police, nor was he particularly vulnerable to the extent that he would have required the assistance of a lawyer. The accused was fifty-five years old and therefore mature. While he had never been to prison or been questioned, he had already been found guilty of minor charges and therefore was acquainted with the law. Lastly, his statement had not been the only evidence, as some police officers had been eyewitnesses to his handling of the drugs in issue.
The Police vs


Prompt:
56.  On 25 May 2006 the District Court dismissed the second applicant's claim. The court's reasoning, in its relevant parts, was as follows:
“[The court] obtained copies of materials from criminal case file [no. 30012].
From the decision of 4 February 2004 to institute criminal proceedings it transpires that on 14 January 2004 four unidentified men in camouflage uniforms, armed with automatic weapons, arrived at the entrance to the [MVD] building in a dark blue VAZ-21099 vehicle without licence plates and took


Prompt:
30.  At his first hearing on 8 August 2009, R. stated the following, as regards the prison officers’ intervention:
“Michael Tekin arrived in prison yesterday in a state of high nervous tension. In fact the police officers accompanying him described him as very dangerous.
On arrival


Prompt: 64.  According to an interview record dated 21 June 2007, on that date investigator D. interviewed the fourth applicant as a witness. She confirmed her previous account of the events concerning the abduction of


Prompt: 7.  The applicant was one of the parties to civil proceedings instituted against, inter alia, him (as possessor), concerning the recission of a contract of perpetual emphyteusis of a hotel owing to a failure to effect the relevant payments, namely


Prompt: 10.  On 18 September 2000 Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev, Kharon Musayev and Khasan Batayev were at Khasan Batayev's home at 44 Vostochnaya Street, Grozny. Two cars, a VAZ-21099 used by


Prompt: 7.  It appears that six of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “corridor”: Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, and Mr


Prompt: 51.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mrs A.M. who stated that on the night of 8 November 2001 she had been at home. At about 4.30 a.m. she had been woken up by screams coming from outside. The witness had heard her neighbour, Mrs


Prompt: 31.  During the period from February to April 2013, the applicants examined their tapped telephone conversations which were stored by the Special Prosecutor and discovered that among the phone calls were four calls between


Prompt: 15.  The applicants appealed. They submitted that the court had wrongly found that the contested articles had suggested that M.S. had accepted a bribe and that the prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation into the matter. They further argued that the first-instance judgment had breached Articles 54 and 61 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. They averred that the court had failed to take into consideration the standards set in the Court’s case-law. They referred to the judgments given in the cases of Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Prager and


Prompt: 18.  In or about January 1999 John Weir, who had been released from prison on licence in 1993, made a statement to a journalist alleging RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment (“UDR”) collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the Portadown area in the mid-1970s. This statement was published in the Sunday Times newspaper in March 1999. It was obtained by the Patrick Finucane Centre, a human rights non-governmental organisation in Derry (hereinafter “the Centre”). A copy was provided by the Centre to


Prompt:
159.  On 3 July and 14 October 2008 the district investigation unit requested a forensic assessment of the ninth applicant’s injuries sustained during her husband’s arrest. On 17 November 2008 a forensic expert concluded that there were no visible injuries to report.
(f)  Requests for information on


Prompt: 38.  On 11 November 2003 the Head of the Directorate sent a letter to each of the applicants explaining the procedure to be followed in order to regularise their stay in Latvia. The relevant passages of the letter sent to the first applicant (


Prompt: 71.  In May 2004 B. (see § 30 above) testified that he had known Yandiyev since their childhood in Grozny. In December 1999 and January 2000 he met him in Grozny on several occasions. At that time Yandiyev was wearing his hair long, had a beard and wore an army camouflage jacket, but he was not armed. At the end of January 2000 the witness left Grozny through a “safe corridor” towards Alkhan-Kala. En route the column was shelled and the witness was wounded in the right arm. In Alkhan-Kala he was admitted to hospital, where he again met


Prompt: 63.  On 9 August 2007 the Dagestan MVD replied to the investigators’ request of 6 July 2007 (see paragraph 57 above) stating that on 28 April 2007 the police, working with the FSB and the Sovietskiy ROVD, had arrested Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. at 41 Salavatova Street, whereas ‘the arrest of


Prompt:
8.  The article related the versions of the traffic accident by Judge Baskova (as described in her statement of claim), by traffic police officers, by Mr and Ms P. and by eyewitnesses. It concluded as follows:
“So far the Zavolzhskiy District Court [of Yaroslavl] has held three hearings... The date of the next hearing is not fixed yet. Mr and Ms P. remember menacing words that


Prompt: 6.  On the day of the incident a private security guard was called to the office premises where Mr Pashaliysky was later found dead in order to investigate a brawl reportedly happening there. The security guard knocked on the office entrance door and an individual, S.V., opened it. The security guard caught a brief glimpse of Mr


Prompt: 36.  On 29 April 2003 the third applicant in application no. 6382/09 complained about the abduction of her brother to the deputy head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, the head of the republican Security Council and a member of the State Duma. In her complaints she averred that her brother was disabled and could not have been involved in unlawful activities. She also stated that, according to some sources,


Prompt: 15.  The Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that during HADEP's annual general meeting in 1996 a non-HADEP member wearing a mask had taken down the Turkish flag and replaced it with a PKK flag and a poster of the then leader of the PKK,


Prompt: 8.  The applicant comes from the Afghan province of Baghlan and is a member of the Tajik ethnic group. His family were land-owning farmers. His father was a member of the communist party and was a party representative in Ghuri. After the fall of the communist regime of


Prompt:
6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova[1], born in 1953;
2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940;
3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924;
4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva[2], born in 1929;
5) Mr


Prompt: 51.  On 11 January 2003 the inter-district prosecutor’s office ordered the forensics bureau of the Chechen Republic to carry out an expert post-mortem examination of the remains identified as those of Ramzan and


Prompt: 65.  The investigation requested information on Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction from various law enforcement agencies. The branches of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutors’ offices of different districts and towns of the Chechen Republic replied that they had not arrested


Prompt: 57.  On unspecified dates the district prosecutor's office requested the Shali department of the FSB, the ROVD and the military commander of the Shalinskiy District to provide information on whether those bodies had carried out any special operations in Mesker-Yurt, whether they had arrested


Prompt: 21.  On 25 November 1994 the Ministry of Health wrote to the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting information about the preliminary investigations being conducted into the killings of


Prompt: 17.  At about noon the same day S.T., A.B. and S.M., who were driving from Grozny to Shali, approached the above-mentioned checkpoint. The three men were residents of Shali and personally knew Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev. They also knew that he had a silver-grey Volga and had seen


Prompt: 24.  On 9 December 2009 an investigator took a statement from Adnan I. The latter explained that he had come to Goyty on 21 October 2009 at the applicant’s request; that he had seen a large group of Ministry of the Interior soldiers and the body of a young man with long hair; that his paralysed mother had been taken to the neighbours; that he and the applicant had been taken to the Urus-Martan ROVD for questioning; that they had been released on the same day and had seen their houses in Goyty burned down; that he had been called late at night to return to the Urus-Martan ROVD and that from there he had been brought back to Grozny, to the “oil regiment” headquarters in Mayakovskaya Street. The witness then went on to describe in detail the interior of the building and the office where he had been questioned, and where he had last seen


Prompt: 48.  The information recorded on the sketch map of the scene of the killings appeared to be incomplete. In contrast to a remark in the post mortem body examination report and the testimony of Dr. Sedat İşçi, the sketch map did not indicate a large blood stain on the spot where the body of Orhan Önen had been found. Furthermore, although both


Prompt: 40.  On the same day, Zeyneti Türkoğlu gave a statement at the Ayşekadın police station in Edirne. She declared that her son had left her home on 1 April 1996 in order to return to Istanbul and that he had since disappeared. She confirmed that on 15 April 1996 she had filed a petition with the Edirne public prosecutor. The family unsuccessfully searched for her son and she feared for his life. She described


Prompt:
25.  On 8 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:
“... the information about M.I. Melnychenko’s habitual place of residence for the past five years in Ukraine, referred to in the said documents, is contested by the Central Electoral Commission and the Court. This information is substantially lacking in truth in respect of a candidate for election as a member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and therefore paragraph 2 of the Central Electoral Commission’s Resolution no. 94 of 26 January 2002 complies with the requirements of subsection (2) of section 8 and sections 41 and 47 of the Law on the election of the people’s members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
On the basis of the foregoing, ... the Court
Holds:
that the complaint of the Socialist Party of Ukraine concerning paragraph 2 of the Central Electoral Commission’s Resolution no. 94 of 26 January 2002 on the refusal to register


Prompt: 6.  Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because the sentencing courts did not count the time he had spent in pre-trial detention towards the overall duration of his sentence, in breach of the applicable domestic provisions. In response to Mr


Prompt:
18.  On 20 March 2004 the Naurskiy district department of the FSB (“the Naurskiy FSB”) wrote to the head of the Naurskiy OVD informing him of a special operation carried out in respect of Timur Khambulatov by FSB officers with representatives of the Naurskiy OVD and the military servicemen. The letter read as follows:
“FSB special unit servicemen arrested


Prompt: 68.  The Trabzon Assize Court further held 21 hearings until 3 March 2000 and heard testimonies from six more witnesses, mainly journalists who had reported the incidents. The defendant police officers


Prompt: 70.  On 14 May 1993 Mr Turan took another decision declining jurisdiction and sent the file to the Kayseri State Security Court. The offence in question was referred to in this decision as “the killing of


Prompt:
20.  The Government produced a number of documents, including:
(a)  a map and some photographs of the area where the incident had taken place;
(b)  a list of the “incidents that took place at the Greek-Cypriot Guard Post”, giving details of 69 episodes, including firing into the air, provocation by throwing stones and use of abusive language;
(c)  several articles published by Turkish and/or Turkish-Cypriot newspapers concerning the circumstances of the killing of


Prompt: 50.  According to the criminal case file submitted to the Court, the memo in question was a classified internal document sent by D.A.-aia to the Minister of the Interior. It revealed, inter alia, that D.A.-aia was the person responsible in the Ministry of the Interior for elucidating the important aspects of the case. In the first part of the note D.A.-aia reported the same facts to the Minister as those described by L.B.-dze in his statements concerning the kidnapping and the assault that caused


Prompt: 140.  On 27 January 2001 statements were taken from Eyüp and İdris Tanış at the Silopi Security Directorate. Eyüp Tanış described the men who had attempted to force him and Serdar Tanış to get into their car.


Prompt: 55.  On 20 July 2003 the head of the Avtury municipal administration informed the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”) about the abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr


Prompt:
22.  On 23 December 2004 the judge at the Khatai District Court, relying on the prosecutor’s request, extended the length of the applicant’s remand in custody by a period of two months, until 28 February 2005. The court decision, which is almost identical in wording to the prosecutor’s request, reasoned the necessity for the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows:
“The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained, certain witnesses, depending on the conclusions of the audit, must be questioned, confrontations must be conducted, if necessary, accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out, relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused,


Prompt: 43.  On 9 October 2003 the investigators granted Mr V.M. victim status in the criminal case and questioned him. He stated that from May 2003 he had worked as an officer (an intelligence agent) in the Security Service of the Chechen President. On 13 August 2003 he and


Prompt: 44.  On the other hand, a number of factors suggested that the proceedings instituted had also been based on the fact that he had been killed, and an investigation had been carried out in that connection. Thus, the descriptive part of the wording of the decision to institute proceedings had mentioned the fact that


Prompt:
23.  The hearing, which had been set down for 1 April 2011, was postponed until 18 November 2011 at the applicant’s request. In a judgment of 5 April 2012 (finalised on 7 May 2012 and certified as authentic on 4 July 2012) the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law. In response to the ground of appeal alleging a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d), it held:
“... However, these requests [by the defendants], as formulated, were wholly vague and the court ... was not obliged to reply to them in detail. Nevertheless, the court rejected the requests in the following terms, on sufficient and substantiated grounds: ‘The defendants’ request to call the graphologist [M.M.K.] and the witness [D.P.] cannot be accepted as it is not deemed necessary in view of the evidence gathered so far. The graphologist [M.M.K.] has produced a detailed analytical report, which has been read out in court ... The defendants who are asking for the above-mentioned witnesses to be called to testify in court have, moreover, not stated the reason for their request ...’ Accordingly, the ground of appeal submitted to that end by


Prompt:
10.  On 28 May 1999 the applicant company published another article headlined “Techno-Z: Scandal concerning media professor - bank disclosed trick- ... The business dealings of Mr Bruck.” (Techno-Z: Skandal um „Medienprofessor” – Bank deckte Trick auf – [...] – Die Geschäfte des Herrn Bruck). The relevant parts read as follows:

(German original)

„Die Geschäfte des Herrn Bruck
Der Skandal rund um den sogenannten “Medienprofessor”


Prompt: 18.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Prosecutor complaining about the slow progress of the proceedings. On 20 March 2000 she sent another letter to the Minister of Justice (Minister


Prompt: 79.  On 25 January 2005 “TNRC” Nicosia police headquarters were informed by the Turkish Ministry of Internal Affairs that a Red Notice had been published by Interpol in relation to the first four suspects. The above-mentioned Ministry requested confirmation of


Prompt: 43.  On 23 May 2003 the republican prosecutor’ office, in reply to the applicant’s query, informed her that on 14 February 2002 criminal case no. 25082 instituted in connection with the abduction of her son had been joined with two other criminal cases and given the number 24071. On the same date the criminal proceedings were suspended, as it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators. On 22 May 2003 the criminal proceedings were resumed and at present the investigation and search for


Prompt: 247.  The applicants, Ms Khadisht (also spelt Khadishat) Saltuyeva, born in 1955, and Mr Abdul-Khalim Saltuyev, born in 1946, live in Urus‑Martan, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr


Prompt: 49.  On 29 September 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to a copy of his witness statement submitted to the Court, the applicant stated that at about 8.15 a.m. on 29 January 2003 a group of fifteen masked men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons had broken into his house. The men had put everyone up against the wall, and then ordered everyone to lie on the floor face down. After that they had demanded everyone's passports and checked them. The men had returned all the documents, expect for the passports of his sons Aslan and


Prompt: 7.  On 30 June 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration at the junction of Banulescu-Bodoni and Stefan cel Mare streets, not far from the Government building, between 1 and 31 August 2006, to protest against the refusal of the Ministry of Culture to install a monument dedicated to the poet


Prompt:
19.  Having examined an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on 19 February 2009 upholding the aforementioned order and declared the warrant enforceable. Having noted that the extradition concerned acts (committed outside Belgium) other than those for which the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted in Belgium, the Court of Appeal argued that:
“There are no serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was submitted for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing


Prompt: 6.  At the material time Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of federal military forces. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. Military units of the 58th Russian army were stationed in the fields next to Achkhoy-Martan. At the time,


Prompt: 56.  Between 7 and 29 September 2005 an expert evaluation of the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt was conducted. According to the report of that examination, dated 29 September 2005, the clothes belonged to


Prompt:
12.  In a judgment of 29 November 2000, the Employment Tribunal began by refusing to allow the objection to admissibility raised by the State of Kuwait, finding as follows:
“A plea of inadmissibility has been raised on grounds of jurisdictional immunity.
Whilst Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provides that diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State, and also from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, the latter immunity does not cover actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
Mr


Prompt: 6.  In 1995, a general civil disobedience movement, called the “Initiative for freedom of expression” (IFE) commenced following the trial of the famous writer, Yaşar Kemal, who was prosecuted for his article published in the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. One thousand and eighty intellectuals protested against


Prompt: 39.  On 28 or 31 August 2009 the investigators again questioned Abdul‑Yazit’s wife, Ms El.Yu., who stated that her husband had been abducted by three men armed with Stechkin pistols, who had arrived in a VAZ-Priora car. She also stated that on 5 August 2009 the applicant had complained about the abduction to the ROVD and that her relatives had been told by the ROVD officers that


Prompt:
7.  By a decision of 6 November 2007 the misdemeanour court judge in Leskovac (sudija Opštinskog organa za prekršaje u Leskovcu) found that at about 5.30 p.m. on 12 October 2006 in Leskovac R.C. had verbally insulted the applicant’s children, and the applicant had then punched him several times on the head and injured him. The judge concluded that these actions had been in breach of public order and peace and had thus been contrary to Article 6(3) of the Public Order Act 1992 (see paragraph 21 below under Relevant domestic law and practice). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Defendant[s] R.C. ... and


Prompt:
51.  Reference was made to the applicant's complaint about the Orhans' apprehension on 24 May 1994 and their subsequent disappearance. It had been reported that the Orhans were, at the time, detained by the military units billeted in Lice Boarding School. The addressee was requested to investigate whether the Orhans were detained by/in the company of the units billeted at the school and whether the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office had any current proceedings against the Orhans.
(e)  Letter dated 22 July 1994 from Kulp Deputy District Gendarme Commander (


Prompt: 37.  On 6 August 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the town court”) examined the first applicant’s complaint concerning the suspension of the investigation into her son’s kidnapping. It noted that the investigators had taken certain measures to resolve the crime. In particular, they had questioned witnesses and sent requests to law-enforcement agencies. The department of the Federal Security Service of the Urus-Martan District, the military commander’s office, the department of the interior and some other law-enforcement agencies had replied that their officers had not detained


Prompt: 119.  After the other police officers had arrived, Officers Brons and Bultstra had been taken back to Flierbosdreef police station where they stayed for some time, estimated by Officer Bultstra as three hours. Officer Brons had been required to hand in his service weapon. They had had talks with a number of fellow police officers, including Police Commissioner


Prompt: 59.  In cases which followed the Privy Council accepted a claim that a period of four years and ten months also warranted a finding in favour of the appellant (Guerra v. Baptiste and Others [1996] 1 A.C. 397) but dismissed appeals concerning shorter periods (Henfield v. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas [1997] A.C. 413; Fischer (No. 1) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others (Bahamas) [1998] A.C. 673; and Higgs and


Prompt:
8.  The details are indicated in the table below:

APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF THE APPLICANT
DATE OF REMAND IN CUSTODY
DATE OF TRANSFER TO THE SECURITY DIRECTORATE
DATE OF RETURN TO PRISON
33412/01
Ekrem Zerey
26/07/2002
26/07/2002
09/08/2002
30229/02


Prompt: 8.  On 19 July 2001 the court ruled in his favour. The court found that the defendant had not proved the truthfulness of the published allegations as to the husband’s relationship with G. Biriuk, or that the information about the husband’s state of health, indicating his full name and residence, had been made public with his consent, or met a legitimate public interest in drawing society’s attention to the rising number of HIV cases in Lithuania. Having assessed all the relevant evidence, the court decided that there was no proof that the husband was the father of


Prompt: 35.  On the same day the prosecutor’s office ordered the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 68799 to examine the vehicle registration logs kept at the FSS’s checkpoints in order to check whether UAZ vehicles and a Gazel vehicle had left or entered the FSS on the night of 28 to 29 October 2009. If so, the military prosecutor’s office was to ask the FSS servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoints at the relevant time and the servicemen who had travelled in those vehicles where they had been driving to and whether they had detained Mr


Prompt: 177.  On 22 February 2012 the NGO Materi Chechni contacted the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons on the applicant’s behalf, seeking assistance in the search for Mr


Prompt: 65.  Ms Ružena Kokyová, HB, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Ms Renáta Kokyová and Ms Renáta Čonková completed their respective depositions of 13 and 20 March 2002 and declared that they had no compensation claim to join to the proceedings, as they themselves had not sustained any material damage. Ms


Prompt: 13.  On 28 September 2004 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the Military Administrative Court”). They argued, in particular, that


Prompt: 9.  At about 3.20 p.m. on 18 December 2003 Bashir Mutsolgov, who was heading from the grocery store to his home, met a neighbour, Kh. Kh. The men were talking next to Bashir Mutsolgov's house when a white VAZ-2121 (“Niva”) vehicle with blacked-out windows and a dark blue VAZ-2106 car pulled over. Although the vehicles' registration plates were covered with mud, the Niva had part of its number, “26”, visible. Five to eight masked men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the cars. They were armed with AK assault rifles and spoke unaccented Russian. The men ran up to


Prompt: 35.  According to the applicant, early in October 2002 she accessed the file in case no. 25082 and found a letter dated 15 June 2001. In this letter an investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB requested the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD to order an expert examination of a pistol and cartridges that had been seized from


Prompt: 18.  On 21 September 1998, the applicant complained to the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekansler) about the delay in the proceedings, amongst other things. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice found, in his decision of 30 October 2000, that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as excessive, taking into account the fact that the criminal investigation lasted about two years and a half, the prosecutor’s decision whether to prosecute or not took about a year, the District Court’s first judgment was issued in about one year, the Court of Appeal’s decision to refer the case back to the District Court was made in a few months, the District Court’s second judgment was issued in less than ten months, the Court of Appeal re-examined the District Court’s judgment in about a year and three months, and the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal in about two months. Thus, the court proceedings, including five different court decisions, lasted less than four years all together. Even though the proceedings were lengthy, it had to be noted that the case was complex and that it had proceeded at all times without any unnecessary delay at any stage. He emphasised that it was in the interests of the applicant that the criminal investigation was also carried out in a profound and appropriate manner. As the applicant’s application was still pending before the Strasbourg Court,


Prompt:
6.  The summary reads as follows:
“The other day I was editing a news item concerning the two luxury cars used by the Speaker of Parliament, E. O., and I became more and more convinced that the term 'parvenu' had Moldovan origins. Our political scene is full of examples.
For example, the first thing done by E .O. after becoming Speaker of Parliament, was to solve her housing problem. By abusing her position she was able to lay her hands on a huge apartment in downtown Chişinău, paid for by public money. Who was E. O. before becoming Speaker? A modest baker with a modest work history. Who is she now? A big boss! She cannot fit into a BMW and so she also needs a Mercedes Benz. Let's take another example.
Who was


Prompt: 34.  On 1 June 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic replied to the second applicant. The letter stated that following her request, which had been forwarded by the Security Council, criminal case no. 12113 had been re-examined. The investigation in that case had been twice suspended under Article 195 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for failure to identify the culprits. Each time these decisions had been quashed by a supervising prosecutor. In November 2000 the investigation had concluded that the kidnapping of


Prompt: 15.  On 25 August 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice, maintaining that the court was particularly slow in dealing with the case. In a letter to the applicant of 29 September 2000


Prompt: 14.  The Government did not contest the basis of the applicant’s account concerning the circumstances of the abduction. At the same time they pointed out that the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov had taken place during “peacetime” in the absence of curfew and that unidentified armed culprits driving a civilian vehicle had been responsible for the incident. They stressed that in his initial complaints of the abduction lodged with the authorities between 18 and 21 May 2009 the applicant was not consistent in the description of its circumstances by submitting that the abduction had taken place from home, then that it had taken place from the street and then that Mr


Prompt:
12.  By a letter of 3 June 2008, the OFPRA replied to a letter from the applicant dated 24 January 2008 in the following terms:
“I have the honour to inform you that on 23 July 2007 the Office certified your family’s situation to the visa section. You are registered with the Office as the husband of Mrs