Prompt:
26.  On 3 June 2015 the Audiencia Nacional issued a new decision dismissing the súplica appeals lodged by the applicant and confirming the decision on the applicant’s imprisonment pending extradition to the United States. In particular, the decision stated the following:
“The applicant considers that his súplica appeal lodged against the decision of 24 February 2015 has not been answered ... .
This Court refers at this point to what was already established in its decision of 25 March 2015 ... .
Nevertheless, in order to clarify any doubts that the applicant might have concerning whether or not he has received an answer to his súplica appeal, we [the Court] will resolve here the issued raised in that appeal.
...
The guarantees provided have been considered sufficient for the Court. Consequently, regardless of the judgment mentioned by the applicant, we consider that they comply with the requirements established in the ECtHR’s judgment Hutchinson v. United Kingdom [(no. 57592/08, 3 February 2015)], as well as the judgment of 13 November 2014 [Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014)], lodged by a French citizen...
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned reasoning, the Court
Decides
to dismiss the súplica appeals referred to in the present ruling, maintaining the order of imprisonment for


Prompt: 7.  The applicant arrived in Sweden on 4 September 2008. In support of his application for asylum, he stated in essence the following. He risked persecution in Iraq because he had worked as a professional soldier during the regime of


Prompt: 16.  On 8 April 2000 the judge invited the parties to an informal preliminary meeting. The first hearing took place on 29 May 2000. On that date the judge decided that an additional forensic examination was needed to establish the cause of death of


Prompt: 25.  Subsequently, the applicants liaised with a person whom they identified as “a middleman”. According to him, Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva had been transferred from the “DON-2” military unit to the 70th regiment, and then to the Khankala military base. In Khankala FSB officials had tortured them with a view to making them confess to having participated in illegal armed groups.


Prompt:
20.  In April 2005 the Ministry of Youth, Family and Social Matters quashed the decisions of the Budapest XI District Guardianship Authority described in paragraph 16 above, thereby withdrawing the fines imposed and the order to initiate the child’s placement under protection, without the possibility to appeal against the decision. The Ministry established that the decisions of the guardianship authority had been unlawful and it discontinued the administrative proceedings concerning the exercise of the applicant’s access rights prior to 1 March 2004. It nevertheless ordered the Guardianship Authority to take effective measures to ensure the applicant’s rights by using the range of measures at its disposal and not only through the imposition of fines. The Ministry pointed out, inter alia, that:
“... [t]he fact that the administration of minor A.N.’s case concerning access got to a guardianship authority that instantly sanctions the mother for the overdue visits is good, but other measures would be required as well, as it seems that the fines do not lead to any result, the goal being to enable


Prompt:
29.  The court referred to the applicant’s family situation, his residence in Moscow and his health condition, and found that there was no reason for choosing a milder measure of restraint. As to the applicant’s assertion that the prosecution had produced no evidence of his implication in the impugned crimes, the court noted as follows:
“This argument ... shall not be examined on the merits, since the criminal case is still at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, and the court cannot express its opinion as to the guilt [of the applicant], proof of his guilt or the correctness of the legal qualification of Mr


Prompt: 155.  In their testimonies on 30 June 2006, O.M.-ov and A.K.-dze fully confirmed the statements they had made during the investigation. O.M.‑ov said that he had been unaware that their group in the café had been waiting for G.A.-ia. A.K.-dze said that she could not really remember, but did not exclude the possibility that she had gone over to


Prompt: 86.  On 15 April 2003 the investigators sent requests to the Chechnya FSB, the Grozny ROVD and the military commander’s office, seeking information about Islam Tazurkayev’s detention on their premises and the extent of his involvement in illegal armed groups. Negative responses were given; only the FSB gave a substantive response. In their reply of 18 April 2003, they claimed that


Prompt: 10.  The second applicant submitted that her son Islam Dombayev, the first applicant’s son Murad Lyanov and T. had been good friends. The second applicant’s son had a guitar and they often played it in the courtyard of the applicant’s house. They did not normally go out on the street after 9 p.m. because of the curfew imposed by the military. On 28 June 2000 at about 11 p.m. they had gone to T.’s house at 53 Sadovaya Street (also referred to as Pervaya Sadovaya Street), adjacent to their street, to spend the night there.


Prompt:
36.  After holding an oral hearing, at which both parties were legally represented, the Supreme Court in a decision of 4 March 2003 upheld, by four votes to one, the High Court's dismissal of the case.
On behalf of the majority, Mr Justice Mitsem gave the following reasons:
“(23)  By way of introduction, I would point out that this case concerns a further interlocutory appeal, in which the jurisdiction of this court in principle is limited pursuant to Article 404 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this instance, however, the Appeals Committee, and now the Supreme Court, has full jurisdiction, since the lawsuit filed by [the applicant] was summarily dismissed 'because the case is not a matter for the courts of law', see Article 404 (1)(1).
(24)  I will first consider the suit in relation to the conditions for filing a lawsuit under traditional Norwegian procedural law, set out in Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this provision, it is a procedural condition that the suit shall concern 'a legal relationship or a right'. Furthermore, there must be a 'legal interest' in having the case decided, which inter alia means that the plaintiff must have an actual need for a judicial clarification.
(25)  The investigation was opened on 28 February 2002 and had to be carried out as soon as possible and within three, alternatively six, months at the latest, see section 6-9 (1) of the [1992] Act. The final report is dated 18 July 2002 and was sent to [the applicant's] lawyer on the same day, with notification that the investigation was closed.
(26)  [The applicant] has contested the fact that the final report represented the end of the investigation. Reference is made to the fact that the report culminated in a recommendation that family assistance be provided in the home, subject to evaluation within six months, so that there was still a 'case' in progress.
(27)  To this I would comment that the purpose of an investigation, as expressed in section 4-3 of the [1992] Act, is to ascertain whether there is a basis for taking measures pursuant to the Act, and section 6-9 (2), first sentence, states that 'an investigation [pursuant to section 4-3] is regarded as completed when the child welfare services have made an administrative decision to implement measures or it has been decided to drop the case.' Thus such measures do not represent a continuation of the investigation, but its conclusion.
(28)  Since the investigation has been closed, it is difficult to see how a judicial decision could have any legal significance for [the applicant]. It will not affect the implementation of the voluntary assistance measures recommended in the final report. Nor will it make any difference as regards the right to initiate a possible investigation in the future, based on new circumstances, or to decide to implement other measures pursuant to the Child Welfare Act, if warranted by circumstances.
(29)  According to precedent it is undoubtedly the case that the requisite legal interest may cease to exist after legal proceedings have been instituted, with the consequence that the case must then be summarily dismissed. This may even occur - as in the present case – after judicial remedies have been pursued against a decision made in a court of second instance.
(30)  I would add that a decision to carry out an investigation pursuant to section 4-3 of the [1992] Act is not an individual decision in the sense of the Public Administration Act. The same applies to the measures initiated in the course of the investigation, in this instance the obtaining of information pursuant to section 6-4 of the Child Welfare Act. As a general rule, it is not possible to make the lawfulness of such procedural steps the object of a separate lawsuit pursuant to Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, any errors made at this stage could be significant in a lawsuit brought against any administrative decision that might be taken, and could possibly also form the basis for a claim for damages.
(31)  [The applicant] has undoubtedly experienced the investigation as a strain, also because it was started shortly after the end of a prior investigation, and any judgment in his favour might seem like redress. However, this is not sufficient either to justify a legal interest, see Norsk Retstidende (Supreme Court Legal Reports - “Rt”)-2001-1123.
(32)  Accordingly, I conclude that under traditional Norwegian procedural law [the applicant 's] suit had to be summarily dismissed.
(33)  [The applicant] has claimed that a summary dismissal of the case will constitute a breach of the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases relating to 'civil rights'.
(34)  I find it unnecessary to express a view on whether a demand that the child welfare services shall not make an investigation concerns a 'civil right' at all. In any event, the Convention accepts that national law must have some latitude to impose limitations on the right of access to a court. However, this is conditional on the limitations having a legitimate purpose, and a proportionality criterion also applies, which means that there must be a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the limitations and the effects they have. Finally, the limitations must not have such far-reaching consequences that the very essence of the right to a court is impaired, see the judgment of the European Court in the case of O v. the United Kingdom (1987), Series A No. 120, which states that the right to a court cannot be precluded in more substantial disputes.
(35)  In the Rt-2001-1123, the first voting judge points out that 'sparing society – both courts of law and involved parties – lawsuits which, even if they were to succeed, would have no significance for the plaintiff's legal position', constitutes a legitimate aim, and that the proportionality requirement does not militate against maintaining the requirement of a 'legal interest' either. I concur with this. Nor can I see either that the limitation on the right to bring special lawsuits regarding the type of procedural decisions at issue in this case affects the essence of Article 6 § 1.
(36)  In my opinion, therefore, the summary dismissal of [the applicant 's] suit does not represent a breach of Article 6 § 1.
(37)  Accordingly, I shall move on to the question of whether the suit must be allowed in pursuance of Article 13 of the Convention ... . [The applicant] has asserted that the investigation was a breach of Article 8 of the Convention regarding the 'right to respect for his private and family life'. The parties are in agreement that in this case there existed no right to lodge an appeal to a superior administrative body, in connection with either the opening of the investigation or the specific steps that were subsequently taken. Thus any review provided for in Article 13 must be carried out by a court of law.
(38)  The Convention was incorporated into Norwegian law by the Human Rights Act of 21 May 1999 No. 30 and, in the event of a conflict, takes precedence over provisions in other legislation, see section 3. This means, as stated on page 54, first column, of Proposition No. 3 to the Odelsting [the larger division of Parliaemnt] (1998-1999), that 'should a situation arise, after incorporation, where ... Article 13 ... requires the right to a judicial hearing whereas no corresponding right is provided by Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judicial hearing must be allowed'.
(39)  It is my understanding that the Municipality acknowledges that the grounds that would lead to a summary dismissal of [the applicant's] lawsuit pursuant to Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not tenable pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention. I concur. Pursuant to Article 13, the question of whether Article 8 has been breached must be regarded as a legal issue and be made the object of a declaratory suit [fastsettelssøksmål], even if the breach has ceased to exist. The doubt as regards the right to demand a judgment for non-compliance with a convention that existed in Rt-1994-1244, the so-called 'Women's Prison' case, must be regarded as having been dispelled by the adoption of the Human Rights Act and the rule of precedence set out in section 3 of the said Act.
(40)  Nevertheless, under the case-law of the European Court, Article 13 only requires the availability of a remedy before a national authority if there is a reasonable ground for claiming that the Convention has been breached; there must be an arguable claim. This criterion is interpreted in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, pursuant to which a complaint to the Strasbourg Court shall be summarily dismissed if it is 'manifestly ill-founded'; see inter alia paragraph 33 of the judgment in Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom (1990), Series A No. 172.
(41)  Since the right to take legal action pursuant to Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been extended as a result of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, there is reason to consider whether the limitations developed in the Convention case-law should also apply in Norwegian law. The question will then be whether the courts shall summarily dismiss a suit which, after a preliminary substantive assessment, is considered to be clearly unfounded. In that event, it is not a question of limiting rights that are already protected under Norwegian law, but of the degree to which they are to be extended. Thus no conflict with Article 53 of the Convention can arise either, as [the applicant] has argued.
(42)  In the continuation of the passage I cited above from Proposition No. 3 (1998-1999) to the Odelsting, it is stated that '[the Ministry] will however obtain an assessment ... of whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be amended so that it is clearly evident from the statute when lawsuits concerning alleged breaches of human rights conventions are to be allowed and when they are to be summarily dismissed', and that the question was to be considered by the committee that was to be appointed to examine the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to its revision. The report of the Code of Civil Procedure Committee recommends that no substantive 'screening system' should be introduced for lawsuits concerning possible breaches of the Convention; see Norges Offentlige Utredninger (Official Norwegian Report – “NOU” 2001:32 page 201. On the other hand, the Committee points out that lawsuits that clearly cannot succeed could be decided by means of a proposed simplified court hearing. No such possibility exists in our current procedural system, but it will, if it is introduced as proposed by the Committee, largely satisfy the considerations regarding the saving of time and costs in legal proceedings that have been advanced as the main arguments in favour of a screening system.
(43)  How the issue should be resolved in the current dispute seems uncertain. I find it natural to take as the point of departure the fact that Article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes by statute – while at the same time limits – the right to bring any declaratory suit before a court. In the absence of statutory regulation of the issue, it is my view that the relaxation of the statutory conditions for bringing a lawsuit that follows from the Convention cannot in principle go beyond what would be a direct consequence of the Convention and its incorporation into Norwegian law. Admittedly, some might object that it is foreign to Norwegian law to assess the merits of the claim in order to decide whether the case shall be heard. But the question concerns a right to take legal action that until now has not had a clear basis in Norwegian law.
(44)  I would add that filing a suit such as the one at hand, which has aimed at halting the investigations of the child welfare services, could entail considerable disadvantages. It will draw resources away from the real functions of the child welfare services, and might make its work more difficult in situations where it is necessary to react without undue delay. This reinforces the need for a simple, rapid assessment of whether there is any substance at all in the plaintiff's claim. This concern will be met by applying the Convention's own rule of summary dismissal if the claim is not arguable.
(45)  The consequence of my view is that the question of summary dismissal will depend on whether the suit, based on Article 8 of the Convention, must be considered manifestly ill-founded.
(46)  I would add, however, that I have not thereby concluded whether the threshold for summary dismissal should be as low as that applied by the European Court of Human Rights. As emphasized by


Prompt: 17.  On the evening of 20 September 1993 a row broke out in a bar in the centre of the village of Hădăreni (Mureş district). Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş and Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, two Roma brothers, along with another Rom,


Prompt: 19.  On 3 March 2000 Lieutenant-General Shogenov, the Minister of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, forwarded a summary of the findings of an internal inquiry to a human rights activist who had lodged complaints on behalf of the applicant. The summary bore no date and was signed by Colonel


Prompt: 40.  On 5 March 2003 the first applicant again complained to the district military commander. She stated that her son and his two cousins had been abducted by servicemen from a military checkpoint on the way from Grozny to Gekhi; that after the abduction the men had been taken to the district military commander’s office, and that she and the second applicant had witnessed the events. She further provided a description of the abductors’ vehicles and pointed out that Mr L.M. and Mr I.M. had been released a few days after the abduction and that about a week later Mr L.M. had returned his car which had been taken away by the abductors; that when being released from detention Mr L.M. had mistakenly been given


Prompt: 115.  The parliamentary commission next examined the various violent incidents and clashes which had taken place between the law-enforcement agencies and demonstrators on 19, 20 and 21 July 2001 (in particular during a search conducted in a school, described by the commission as “perhaps the most notable example of organisational and operational failings”). With specific reference to the death of


Prompt: 18.  This application was declared inadmissible by the Court on 21 May 2013 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court found that the applicant had failed to lodge a claim with the Chancellor of Justice (


Prompt: 38.  At the trial hearings, Tofiq Yaqublu stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli at or shortly after 4 p.m. on 24 January 2013, together with journalists M.K. and Q.M. (see paragraphs 61 and 64 below) and another journalist. They parked close to a Unibank building located near the IDEA building. They saw a number of police officers in the area. There were also many journalists waiting to interview the head of IDEA.


Prompt:
41.  The witness, who is a resident of Gözeler, stated that since early October 1994, the TKP/TIKKO and the PKK had forced the Ovacık inhabitants to provide food and supplies, to shut down their businesses in the town bazaar and to organize separatist demonstrations. He added that upon the inhabitants’ non-compliance with those requirements, the terrorists had begun to burn down villages.
d)  Witness statement of


Prompt: 41.  Mr Mamuka Mosiava said that he did not know the applicant and had never met him. He explained that he had merely caught a glimpse of the applicant when accompanying Mr David Assanidze to a meeting with him and had heard him instruct Mr


Prompt: 13.  On 25 December 2009 the four men listed in paragraph 11 above, together with the fourth applicant, arrived in St Petersburg from Ingushetia. They went to the flat rented by the second applicant and her husband, where they joined other members of the family. At about midnight the four men listed above left for


Prompt: 40.  In support of his submissions the first applicant presented a written statement from Mr Syngayevskiy, who had been detained in the same remand centre from 18 September 2000 to 19 January 2005, in particular in cell no 121. In his statement Mr


Prompt: 204.  Some time, perhaps in 1996, on an evening before the general election, Mrs Beştaş was followed by Abdülhakim Güven and 2 gendarmes, one of whom was from the JITEM. She and her husband were then followed by other people. She contacted fellow lawyers and the Bar association, and talked to the Chief Public Prosecutor,


Prompt: 15.  On 21 July 1989 the applicant was again taken to court together with nine other people. He had no legal representation and no proper interpretation was provided. The interpreter had difficulties in translating some of the words and was occasionally helped by the television anchorman. One of the accused (


Prompt:
11.  On 28 April 1999, following an amendment on 1 April 1999 to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act 1980 (sekretesslagen, 1980:100), the first applicant submitted a new request to the Security Police to inform her whether or not her name was on the Security Police register.
On 17 September 1999 the Security Police decided to grant the first applicant authorisation to view “seventeen pages from the Security Police records, with the exception of information about Security Police staff and information concerning the Security Police’s internal [classifications]”. Beyond that, her request was rejected, pursuant to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act 1980, on the ground that further “information could not be disclosed without jeopardising the purpose of measures taken or anticipated or without harming future operations”.
On 4 October 1999 the first applicant went to the headquarters of the Security Police in Stockholm to view the records in question. They concerned three letter bombs which had been sent in 1990 to Sveriges Radio (the national radio corporation of Sweden), to her and to another well-known writer (


Prompt: 9.  According to Ruslan’s testimony, the truck travelled during the night, stopped several times and at dawn arrived at Khankala – the main Russian military base in Chechnya. The detainees were taken out and blindfolded with their own scarves or caps. They were then divided into two groups of 10 and 11 persons and ordered into two pits in the ground, 3-4 metres deep. The pits were covered with a metal and then a wooden sheet. In the same pit with Ruslan were


Prompt: 45.  On 14 June 2007 the first applicant again complained to the Dagestan prosecutor about his son’s disappearance. He stated that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested with the two other men on 28 April 2007, taken to the UBOP and had then gone missing. The applicant complained that since 2005 his son had been persecuted by the police, who suspected him of illegal activities, and described the phone calls received in May 2007 in connection with the abduction. The applicant further stated that he had gone to Gudermes to search for his son; that there he had met Mr M.Sh. and Mr U.U. who had driven around in a car with registration number B 192 OM 08 RUS and had promised to help him to find Ramazan, but in the end had advised him to find police officer


Prompt: 9.  The applicants, Chriso Kakoulli, Andreas Kakoulli, Martha Kakoulli and Kyriaki Kakoulli, were born in 1944, 1969, 1972 and 1970 respectively. The first, third and fourth applicants live in Avgorou and the second applicant lives in Paralini. The first applicant is the widow and the other applicants are the children of


Prompt: 107.  The witness stated that the operation carried out by the police against the TDKP between 12 September and 21 November 1994 was routine and had been undertaken on the basis of information and statements received. The police had relatively large numbers of files on persons who were in custody or had been convicted for belonging to illegal organisations. He said that


Prompt:
25.  On 13 January 1995 the Ankara Principal Public Prosecutor, Özden Tönük, sent a letter to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, which was in charge of the investigation. The relevant parts of the letter read:
“The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) interviewed prisoners in Ankara Prison who had been transferred from the anti-terrorist branch at the Security Directorate and who said that they had seen


Prompt: 113. On 30 January 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.A., who stated that in September 2002 a group of Russian servicemen had been conducting a “sweeping-up” operation (“зачистка”) in Tsotsi-Yurt. The servicemen had been wearing camouflage uniform with the emblem of a bear on the sleeves. On 3 September 2002 the village had been fully blockaded by the servicemen. On the same day a group of servicemen had arrived at the witness’s house in an APC whose registration numbers had been obscured with mud. The servicemen had put him in a Ural vehicle and had taken him to the filtration point.


Prompt: 155.  By a letter of 22 November 1995, the Diyarbakır Provincial Governor, Mehmet Doğan Hatıpoğlu, informed the Ministry of the Interior that an investigation into the facts alleged by the applicant had been carried out. The conclusions of this investigation were that


Prompt: 154.  At the end of his shift, on coming across demonstrators outside the prison, Mr Dalakishvili learned that prisoners had been extradited. Given his position, he had been surprised that the authorities had not informed him so that, as was customary, he could inform the prisoners concerned on the day prior to their extradition. He explained to the Court that, under normal circumstances, a written, signed and stamped notification was sent to him by the head of the prison secretariat which managed the prisoners' personal files; Mr


Prompt: 50.  On 17 November 2004 the investigators questioned police officers M.M., I.S., A.K. and V.L., who gave similar statements to the effect that on 29 September 2004 they had been the duty officers at the UBOP premises and that they did not recall anyone visiting their office and asking about


Prompt: 32.  On 6 September 2000 the Denizli Assize Court gave its judgment in the case. In the judgment, the assize court noted that M.S. had retired from public service and the other accused were serving as police officers. The Denizli Assize Court acquitted A.Ş., A.Ç. and H.A. of the charges against them, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict them since they had left the police station at around 7 p.m. on 15 October 1994 and since the applicant had visited


Prompt:
21.  On 28 March 1997 an interview with A.P., the then president of the National Judicial Council, entitled “Judges are appointed, but also created” was published in the same daily newspaper. The relevant parts of the interview read:
Question: “-The National Judicial Council has lately been mentioned in public mostly in connection with the ‘Olujić case’. What is the truth about the former Supreme Court President?
Answer: - The decision has been taken and reasons have been given in it. I don’t think that I have to explain a reasoned decision, everything was said in it. For me these proceedings are in the past.
Q: - However, for the sake of the public, which has received conflicting information about this case, could you be more specific?
A: - Since you insist, I shall just say that Dr


Prompt:
50.  Concerning the way the assembly of 6 May 2012 had been organised, the Expert Commission noted the following:
“... the Moscow Department of Regional Security announced on 4 May [2012] that the event would follow a similar route to the previous rally on 4 February [2012]. The participants were to assemble at Kaluzhskaya Square, set off at 4 p.m. along Bolshaya Yakimanka and Bolshaya Polyanka for a rally in Bolotnaya Square, and disperse at 7.30 p.m. The official notification of approval was issued on 4 May 2012 – just two days before the beginning of the event.
That same day, the [Moscow Department of the Interior] published a plan on its website indicating that all of Bolotnaya Square, including the public gardens, would be given over to the rally, while the Bolshoy Kamenny bridge would be closed to vehicles but would remain open to pedestrians. This was the same procedure [the] authorities had adopted for the two previous rallies on Bolotnaya Square on 10 December 2011 and 4 February 2012.
...
On the evening of [5 May 2012], the police cordoned off the [park] of Bolotnaya Square. According to Colonel


Prompt: 8.  According to the applicant, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 10 August 2002 a group of fifteen to twenty men arrived at her house in a UAZ-459 vehicle with the registration number 31-42 CHI. The men were armed with automatic weapons and wore masks and camouflage uniforms. Some of them spoke Russian and others Chechen. They checked the family members’ identity papers and examined the amnesty certificate. Then they locked the applicant and her mother in the house, forced


Prompt:
6.  In 2001 an article entitled ‘Turkey’s Constitutional Court problem in the light of its decision to dissolve the Fazilet [Virtue] Party’ written by the first applicant was published in Liberal Thinking. It read as follows:
“The Constitutional Court has finally delivered its judgment on the Fazilet Party at the end of a long period, which lasted more than two years, and has dissolved the party on the grounds that it had become ‘a hub of activity contrary to [the] principles of secularism’. As a result, the high court has decided that


Prompt:
69.  On 30 July 2013 the applicant’s lawyer, S.V., submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers the matters for consideration when deciding on the applicant’s extradition. He stated, inter alia, the following:
“...the absence of guarantees about [the applicant’s] serving a sentence in the Republic of Latvia ... the service of a sentence thousands of kilometres away would constitute an identical violation as in the case of [


Prompt: 44.  On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) forwarded the applicant’s complaint that her son had been abducted to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. On 16 and 22 May 2003 the latter informed the applicant that “[her] request did not contain any information concerning the involvement of military personnel in the abduction of


Prompt:
18.  The appellate court stated:
“...The Regional Court based its judgment on the following findings:
In 1992 a strong conflict erupted between [M.K.] and her parents on the ground of her contacts with Maciej. [M.K.] regarded


Prompt:
13.  On 6 November 2009 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further nine months, basing its decision on Article 109 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“By the first-instance judgment of this court of 21 April 2009 ... the accused,


Prompt: 24.  On 11 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. The decision stated that the abduction had taken place on 7 May 2002. On the same date the first applicant was questioned again. He reiterated his previously given statement, stressed that the abductors had arrived in two APCs and then had taken his brother Mr


Prompt:
31.  The applicant was the wife of Mohammad Sheriff, who was allegedly killed under torture by the Turkish army between 2 and 3 April 1995. She stated:
“The day of the incident I got ready to go out to herd sheep with my husband and the other shepherds. We had heard that the Turkish army was in the area but we did not feel in danger. We went to do our work. I was going with my husband to the hills to herd the sheep. We all went together. I walked with the other women. We were walking along when the soldiers appeared in front of us. They came all around us and attacked us with their rifle butts and beat us.
They were shouting at us all the time they were beating us. Then we were told to go back to the village and the men were still with the soldiers. We saw the soldiers take our men towards the cave. There were seven men. We were four women. We went back to the village and told the rest of the villagers about what had happened.
I know that some of the men went and asked one of the Turkish army officers to let them bring the flocks of sheep back from the valley and petitioned the officer to release the men. Later that day the men also went to Anshki to the larger military base and asked the officer in charge to let our men go and to return the flocks of sheep, but they did not get any information about our men. The men were warned not to go looking for the shepherds.
The body of my husband was found the next day. His body was in pieces. He had been shot many times. I don't know why the Turks did this to him. He was an innocent man and we were on our way to herd our sheep. The Turks killed my husband and they also killed his four brothers [in a separate incident]. We had no trouble with the army and there was no reason to kill our men.
The body of my husband was brought to the hospital in Dohuk for medical examination. The Turks are gone now, but I am left with my children with no father. I do not know who to petition about the terrible things that have happened to us.”
(f)


Prompt: 23.  The eighth applicant, Ramzan Alaudinov’s mother, approached an unidentified Chechen police officer who worked at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. He confirmed to her that her son had been detained there. Another police officer, by the name of Rashid, suggested that the applicant return on 11 May 2000 with a gun, a sheep and money, and warm clothes for Ramzan. The eighth applicant took the items as proposed. According to the ninth applicant,


Prompt:
16.  On 18 May 2009 the applicant complained of Mr Rustam Kagirov’s abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office (the district prosecutor’s office) stating, amongst other things, the following:
“At about 6 p.m. on 17 May 2009 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms stormed into our house. Threatening us with firearms, they had taken away my brother,


Prompt: 50.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan town court (the town court). She sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to conduct an effective investigation of


Prompt: 9.  According to the applicants, Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended in the following circumstances. In the morning of 6 March 2002 the first applicant asked him to go and see his uncle who lived in the same village and buy something for him in the village shop. When Mr


Prompt:
6.  On 8 May 2002 Mr S., Mr B., Mr P. and Mr F. lodged an action for defamation against the applicant. They claimed that the following extracts from the article were untrue and damaging to their reputation:
“... In autumn 2001 a group of campaigners in Novovoronezh collected signatures for a vote of no confidence in


Prompt: 53.  On 7 April 2008 the applicant's representative sent a letter to the Court alleging that following the communication of the case to the Government the applicant had been visited on a number of occasions by Ms


Prompt: 40.  Shortly after the arrival of Police Constables Evans and Newton, Melanie Joy was approached by Kate Bellamy, a neighbour of Michael Fitzgerald, who was in the company of another neighbour, Amanda Parkin.


Prompt: 12.  On the same day various Internet sites relayed the news. In France, information from the forthcoming Paris Match article was included in an article on the RTL radio station’s Internet site entitled “Le prince Albert II aurait un fils, silence au Rocher” (“


Prompt: 81.  An affidavit dated 6 November 2007 by Lakis N. Christolou, a lawyer of the firm representing the applicants in this application, was submitted to the Grand Chamber. It stated that the son of the missing man, Mr


Prompt: 26. Ruling on the civil party claim, it quashed and annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal solely on the issue of the capitalisation of the interest on the sums owed by J.-L. Lagardère’s heirs. On that occasion it noted that the Court of Appeal had “found


Prompt: 10.  On 12 June 2012 the investigator at the Department of the Interior of the Andizhan Region of Uzbekistan charged the applicant with establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations (Article 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code). The applicant was accused, in particular, of membership of a banned religious extremist organisation, “the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan”, and a terrorist organisation, “O’zbekiston Islomiy Harakati”, between late 2008 and October 2009. According to the relevant investigator’s decision, the applicant, together with his brother and two other persons, “planned to destroy the constitutional order of Uzbekistan” and then “to create an Islamic State on the territory of Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia”. For these purposes they had moved to Russia and started to “study the ideology of the head of the terrorist movement,


Prompt: 52.  According to the Government, it follows from the investigation file that on 10 June 2003 there was an armed confrontation between federal servicemen and a group of around ten insurgents in the vicinity of the village of Galashki, as a result of which two insurgents were killed and three wounded. An intelligence squad under the command of Lieutenant S.P. participated in the confrontation. In their submissions of 25 December 2007 the Government submitted that it had been impossible to either prove or refute the involvement of S.P. or other federal servicemen in the killing of


Prompt:
19.  The Court of Appeal found that the statement that Mr Kern had abused power was within the justifiable bounds of criticism since public opinion was particularly sensitive to all aspects of abuse of power, and the opinion about Mr Kern was given by a professional i.e. a lawyer; therefore, it did not require verification by the publisher. The allegation of abuse of power was also justified given the extraordinary actions undertaken by Mr Kern in a private matter. Following the case-law of the European Court relating to Article 10 of the Convention, a politician should show more tolerance when exposed to criticism than private persons. Then the court stated as follows:
“It is a different matter, however, with regard to the allegation that Mr Kern was a liar. It is obvious that this description does not have the character of a legal opinion. What is more, the context of the statement does not clarify in relation to what case the plaintiff was alleged to have lied. It was thus a generality suggesting regular untruthfulness on the part of the plaintiff. The explanations for this statement provided by Mr


Prompt: 60.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no. 42027, providing only copies of the decision of 20 February 2003 to institute an investigation; the applicants' relatives' complaint of 19 February 2003 about the abduction of


Prompt: 27.  In 2001, the Communist Party were successful in elections and became the governing Party in Moldova. The new President of Moldova, Mr Vladimir Voronin, entered into direct negotiation with Russia over the future of Transdniestria. In November 2003, the Russian Federation put forward a settlement proposal, the “Memorandum on the Basic Principles of the State Structure of the United State” (referred to as the “Kozak Memorandum”, after the Russian politician, Mr


Prompt: 53.  The Government submitted that on unspecified dates the investigators had sent 33 queries to various State bodies requesting information as to whether these agencies had arrested or detained Bekkhan Alaudinov and whether any special operations had been conducted in respect of him. According to the responses received on various dates from the Urus-Martan ROVD, various district prosecutors’ offices and district military commanders’ offices in Chechnya, the military commander’s office of the security zone in the Urus-Martan district, departments of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the Chechnya MVD) and the Russian Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit, the Urus-Martan district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), military unit no. 6779, military unit no. 90567, the head of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) in the village of Khankala, Chechnya, and the head of detention centre IZ-20/2 in Chernokozovo, Chechnya,


Prompt: 17.  The Government submitted, with reference to the information obtained in the course of the investigation in criminal case no. 30012 (see below), that on 14 January 2004 unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had abducted


Prompt: 18.  On 13 August 2000 the first and the second applicants and three relatives went to the Urus-Martan VOVD and waited there all day together with the families of the other detainees. At about 5 p.m. they submitted a parcel for


Prompt: 74.  According to a transcript of an interview with a former investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB, Mr A., on 17 June 2001 he had taken the decision to dispense with criminal proceedings against the applicant’s son, given that the latter had voluntarily ceded the pistol. Mr A. stated that he had not personally seen


Prompt:
6.  On 4 April 2002 the official newspaper of the Moldovan Government, Moldova Suverană (“Sovereign Moldova”), published an article written by a historian and former deputy minister for education, S.N., headed “Commentary on Mr Petrenco's reply on the Internet” (Comentariul la răspunsul de pe Internet al domnului Petrenco). The article made negative remarks about the applicant's competence as a historian. It went on to suggest that the applicant's university place as a postgraduate student and his subsequent career as a historian were the result of his cooperation with the Soviet secret services. In particular, the article contained the following statements:
“That is, Mr Petrenco, it is not a political question but has to do with your 'feeble' memory or the lack of professional dignity.”
“But, you see, they did not properly understand this exorcising priest ...”
“... for his special merit (confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b)[1] – KGB[2]), [the applicant] was sent for postgraduate studies ...”
“... as a student, he excelled ... due to his 'special accomplishments' (he was a well-educated person who knew how to knock politely and respectfully at his superiors' doors: knock-knock-knock?!? [stuk-stuk-stuk][3]), and he became a member of CPSU[4] – AUCP (b) during his student years ...”
“...the Party once sent a 'Volga' especially for [the applicant] (how much faith did those from the CC – KGB have in comrade Petrenco


Prompt: 53.  On 27 October 2009, at the close of an internal investigation into the police officers’ conduct, the Internal Security Service of the Voronezh regional department drew up a report; its conclusions can be summarised as follows: referring to the decision of 21 September 2009 (see paragraph 17 above), the regional department considered that


Prompt: 77.  Immediately after the arrest, the first applicant went to the Azeri market and the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office but his arrested relatives were not there. Then he went to the district prosecutor’s office, where he was told that the two men had been taken to the IVS at the Urus-Martan ROVD. In the evening, an official from the local administration confirmed this information to the second applicant, adding that both young men would be released as soon as they had had their fingerprints checked. Mr


Prompt: 22.  That decision was cancelled by the Prosecutor General's deputy on 16 January 2008, who noted that neither the photographs taken during the forensic examination of the body nor the camera film had been added to the investigation file. Nor had any more information been retrieved about


Prompt: 13.  On an unspecified date one of the applicant’s brothers and a paternal cousin joined the PKK. At that time the applicant and İhsan Haran approached the Lice public prosecutor’s office and told the prosecutor that they were not in the least responsible for anything the brother and the cousin did and that the brother and the cousin had become involved in the PKK without the knowledge of the applicant or


Prompt: 48.  On 25 November 2009 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.M. whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted before the Court. In addition, she stated that the abductors had spoken Chechen and that she had subsequently learnt from the first applicant that when the abductors had arrived at their house, Mr


Prompt: 29.  Mr Grande Stevens further noted that the CONSOB had accused and punished him for being involved in publication of the press release of 24 August 2005 as the executive director of Exor. Before the CONSOB, he had argued unsuccessfully that he did not have that role and that he was merely a lawyer and consultant for the Agnelli group. Before the appeal court, Mr


Prompt: 27.  On 4 June 1994 the Yığılca gendarmerie took statements from 13 persons who claimed to have seen three luxury cars travelling in the direction of the spot where the bodies were later found. One of these witnesses,


Prompt: 15.  According to the applicants, after the servicemen left together with the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev, the second applicant discovered that they had taken money in the amount of 12,000 United States dollars (USD) and 40,000 roubles (RUB) that was kept in the wardrobe. The servicemen also took Mr


Prompt:
77.  On 9 July 2014 the investigative authority decided to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s kidnapping. The decision described the events as follows:
“On 9 June 2014 at about 7 p.m. persons who have not been identified by the investigation, acting jointly and by common accord, approached a car which has not been identified by the investigation parked near house no. 7/2 at Bolshoy Kharitonyevskiy Lane in Moscow, in which Mr


Prompt:
38.  Gendarme Major Yüksel Sönmez informed the Chief Public Prosecutor that the houses belonging to Reis Toprak, Kamber Çelik, Veli Çelik and Süleyman Toprak in Halitpınar village and in Toprak hamlet had been burned down by terrorists wearing military uniforms. In his opinion, the terrorists aimed at pacifying the security forces and creating hostility between the latter and the people in the region.
(d)  Investigation report of 4 June 1995, prepared by police superintendent


Prompt: 129.  It transpires from the case file that despite the dismissal of their prior claims, the following applicants (List B) failed to apply to the administrative courts: Ms Songül Garip, Ms Hayriye Kesgin, Ms


Prompt: 232.  On 6 February 2009 several eyewitnesses to the abduction were questioned by the investigators. Mr Sh. M. told the investigators that at about 5 p.m. on 30 April 2001 he had been in the courtyard of his house when he had seen


Prompt: 45.  As matters stand, the applicants are resident in Latvia without valid residence permits. According to the information supplied by the applicants, which has not been disputed by the Government, Svetlana Sisojeva has been unemployed since 1992.


Prompt: 51.  The Chief Public Prosecutor further referred to a statement taken from Ahmet Güzel, Fatma Koku’s brother, by the Pötürge Prosecutor on 28 April 1995. According to this statement, Mehmet Çolak, the father of C.E., had told Mr Güzel on 22 October 1994 that, “... they fucked him up and got rid of him ...”. This had been understood to be a reference to


Prompt: 28.  The Government maintained that investigations were initiated to find the perpetrators of these killings. In this respect, they referred to the correspondence between the Lice public prosecutor and the Lice Gendarmerie Command. Copies of several letters, written by the prosecutor to the gendarme commander, asking the commander to conduct an investigation into the killings of


Prompt:
13.  The presenter then asked the applicant about the relationship between the Moscow City Bar and the Ministry of Justice, implying that it was rather strained. The applicant denied that any tension existed and added:
“I have to say that we have now examined the matter of lawyer A. There was no attempt to pass any note from Mr


Prompt: 10.  Later the same day the FSB servicemen transferred Ayub Murtazov to the police. He was kept in the temporary detention facility of the Naurskiy District department of the interior. The police opened a criminal investigation into the discovery of the explosive materials. At some point


Prompt:
47.  On 19 March 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA suspended the investigation. The decision read, in particular:
“During the period from 6 to 13 March 2002 servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi... aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the FSB who had gone missing.
...
During the period when the special operation was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted [the following] residents of Stariye Atagi:


Prompt: 27.  When the policemen entered Barış Kalkan’s flat to arrest Aydın, he tried to escape but lost his balance and fell, hitting a wall in the process. He was arrested at the entrance to the building. A false identity card was found on him. This version of events was confirmed by


Prompt: 148.  Returning to the prison's administrative wing, Mr Chikviladze saw that the director of the Prisons Department was already there, together with about ten or so other people. He was then officially informed that four prisoners were to be removed with a view to their extradition. A vehicle was apparently ready in a neighbouring courtyard and the airport authorities had been informed. Accompanied by the director of the Prisons Department, the prison governor and their deputies, the wardens again gathered in front of the cell. The prison governor entered first, with four sealed files under his arm, one for each of the prisoners affected by the extradition order. The others followed him into the cell. According to Mr


Prompt: 8.  The applicant claimed that his home had been in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Farmagusta (northern Cyprus). He had lived there with his parents, who ran a grocery store, and six siblings in a house with a yard (covering an area of 532 square metres), registered under plot no. 81, sheet/plan 13/40 and owned by his father. On 7 September 1999, the applicant's father transferred ownership of this house to Mr


Prompt:
15.  Oxana Rantseva arrived in Cyprus on 5 March 2001. On 13 February 2001, X.A., the owner of a cabaret in Limassol, had applied for an “artiste” visa and work permit for Ms Rantseva to allow her to work as an artiste in his cabaret (see further paragraph 115 below). The application was accompanied by a copy of Ms Rantseva’s passport, a medical certificate, a copy of an employment contract (apparently not yet signed by Ms Rantseva) and a bond, signed by [X.A.] Agencies, in the following terms (original in English):
“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I [X.A.] of L/SSOL Am bound to


Prompt: 36.  On 15 March and 17 March 2004 privates Pribylov V. and Nikitin D., carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no. 52157 since November 2003, submitted that by the time they joined the battery M.P. had already left for the kennels. Their subsequent statements were identical to those given by the witnesses Shkola V.,


Prompt: 56.  According to the applicant, the events which came after the speech of Mr Saakashvili, who was elected President of Georgia in January 2004, were as follows: the son of Zurab Ts. immediately resigned as deputy chairman of the CAA, the applicant was placed under investigation in March 2004 on the aforementioned charges and the same Zurab Ts. was re‑elected to parliament from Mr


Prompt: 6.  On 24 October 1967 the authorities adopted a new local construction plan (imar şuyulandırması) and decided to merge plots nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and to register them as plot no. 24 in the İncesu neighbourhood in the Çankaya district of Ankara. Previously the applicants’ predecessors had been the owners of plot no. 9. Following the implementation of the said plan, the applicants’ predecessors had kept a share measuring 480 square metres on plot no. 24 (which measures 5280 square metres in total), and owned a two-storey house on the plot in question. Given that the aforementioned decision designated plot no. 24 as a school area and indicated that the buildings on this plot would be expropriated, the applicants’ predecessor, Mr


Prompt:
9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below) that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held as follows:
“In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt. [...]
The State has not complied with its obligation to provide [the applicant] with a car as specified in a special-purpose settlement order.
Article 55 of the Constitution [...] stipulates that in the Russian Federation no laws shall be adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the Federal law of 2 June 2000 amending the [State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995] cannot be regarded as well-founded and lawful insofar as it provides for the payment of the compensation in the amount equalling to a part of the car's value specified in the special-purpose settlement order.
These [amendments] do not comply with the constitutional principles [cited above]”
The court accordingly refused to take account of the amendments of 2 June 2000 and chose to apply the price scale for the cars to be purchased under the settlement orders as in force on the date of delivery of the judgment. Similarly, in the case of Mr Titov the Mirninskiy Town Court held on 16 October 2001 that the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 “constituted an interference with the citizen's rights to receive a car” and “contradicted to Article 55 of the Constitution”. When determining the claim by Mrs Gladkova, the first instance court reached a similar conclusion and ruled that the amendments in question were adopted “in violation of [...] the Constitution, the Civil Code and the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995”. In the case of


Prompt: 7.  The second and third applicants are the parents of Mr Apti Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1969, Mr Musa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1956, and of the first, fourth, fifth and twelfth applicants. The sixth applicant was the wife of


Prompt: 47.  In a reply of 17 May 2001 the applicants said that the Youth Office had systematically sought to separate them from their children for good, whereas the opinion of the majority of the experts had been that separation could only be temporary and that the children needed their family of origin. They added that if the experts considered that contact of one or two hours a month under strict supervision was sufficient, then the expert evidence was of little value. Lastly, Ms


Prompt: 37.  The second applicant objected to the psychiatric report in her written submission to the I. Municipal Court, arguing that it was based on five‑year‑old medical documentation and a twenty-minute observation by the psychiatrist and that the conclusions of the report were therefore superficial, imprecise and untrue. She maintained that the first applicant could pronounce words, had good hand movement and was able to sit and dress with help. She also claimed that the psychiatrist saw the first applicant in the afternoon, when the first applicant was tired and drowsy, under the influence of medication and alarmed by the presence of an unknown person and of


Prompt: 38.  The Government replied that on one hand, the applicant’s assertions were too vague and unsubstantiated, and on the other hand, that she had not acted with specific diligence to transfer her embryos from Prof. Dr.


Prompt:
20.  The first applicant was arrested in London on 5 August 2004.  On 23 March 2005, the United States Embassy in London issued Diplomatic Note No. 25. Where relevant, the note provides:
“Pursuant to Article IV of the Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States hereby assures the Government of the United Kingdom that the United States will neither seek the death penalty against, nor will the death penalty be carried out, against


Prompt: 52.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not informed the investigators that at the material time the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny had been under curfew which had prevented the transportation of


Prompt:
151.  İlhan Ezer declared:
“I live in the village of Üçtepe. I do not share any property with Mehmet Salim Acar, but we have a cotton field in the village of Ambar. We planted cotton in the same place as him. I do not know his brother


Prompt: 15.  The Diyarbakır public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) commenced an investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Özdemir. The prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to inform him whether


Prompt:
32.  On 28 April 2010 the court-appointed experts delivered their joint report, finding as follows:
“The book ‘The Tenth Word: The Resurrection and the Hereafter’ from the Risale-I Nur Collection by Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, 2005 edition, is a popular exposition of the Qur’an. Its aim is to acquaint the reader with


Prompt: 8.  According to the applicants, however, they were all arrested at 11.00 p.m. on 11 May 1996. Ülkü Doğan, the first applicant, was arrested by members of the anti-terrorist department when he was on his way home,


Prompt:
36.  Lord Mance observed (at paragraphs 133 to 136) that:
“... Gateway (b), as expressed in paragraph 110 in Kay was, as I see it, phrased so as to exclude any direct application of the Convention rights or of the Strasbourg Court's test of proportionality, and to confine attention to common law grounds for judicial review, informed though they may increasingly be by ideas of fundamental rights: see also per Baroness Hale of Richmond at paragraph 190 and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood at paragraphs 208-211, and contrast the approach of the minority as set out in paragraph 39 of Lord Bingham of Cornhill's speech in Kay.
The general distinction which thus emerges is recognised and described in R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 ... per Lord Steyn (para. 27) and Lord


Prompt: 41.  Following the institution of criminal proceedings into Mr Apti Zaynalov’s disappearance (see below), Mr S. Kh. had been questioned as a witness on 23 September and 15 December 2009. He had confirmed his previous statements and had informed the investigator that on 2 August 2009 his son, Mr Z. Kh., had left for an unspecified European country. Mr S. Kh. said that he had preferred it this way as he had been worried for the latter’s safety. Later his other son, Mr Sh., had also left the Chechen Republic. He had also stated that he had not known of Mr Z. Kh.’s acquaintance with Mr


Prompt:
31.  On 6 January 1994 prosecutor Tanju Güvendiren charged Ali and Orhan Ertaş with politically motivated murder of the applicant's parents and brother Orhan, under Articles 31, 33 and 448 of the Turkish Penal Code and Article 13/2 of the Law No. 6136.
On 21 January 1994 the State Security Court instructed the Mazıdağı Court of First Instance, inter alia, to take statements from Ali and


Prompt: 11.  In 1972 twenty-six persons including Mahmut Nalbant (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) filed an action with the Lüleburgaz Cadastre Court and requested the latter to set aside the decision of the Land Registry Commission. The date of petition submitted by


Prompt: 7.  On 1 September 1997, as editor of the newspaper Günlük Emek (Everyday Work), the applicant published in issue number 297 an article entitled “Giving the conscripts a send-off, and collective memory” (Asker uğurlamalar ve toplumsal hafıza) signed by


Prompt: 12.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. At the same time they submitted that she had not witnessed the events and had obtained the information from third persons, that the body of


Prompt:
78.  In addition to his written statement he had made a deposition in prison in which he had stated that he could identify the police officers who had dragged Kenan Bilgin back to his cell. The same officers had undressed his wife before his eyes and he was certain he would recognise them.
(i)


Prompt:
37.  The applicant subsequently appealed to the Privy Council. On 27 March 2006, the Board dismissed the appeal by a majority of three judges to two. Delivering the leading judgment for the majority, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry concluded that:
“15. ... while Mr McGrath specifically acknowledges that from the outset the appellant’s position was that he disputed making the statement to the police officers, Mr


Prompt: 185.  It appears from the case file that between 2003 and 2009 the applicants and their relatives complained to different authorities, asking for assistance in their search for Apti Dombayev. Following their complaints they were informed that the investigation was in progress and all the necessary measures were being taken to establish


Prompt: 70.  The applicant submitted two expert opinions, one dated 29 August 2001 by Dr I. Szentmariay, a forensic pathologist practising at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Semmelweis University in Budapest (Hungary), and the other dated 10 March 2005 by Professor


Prompt:
19.  On 18 November 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal, following an appeal by Dr. G., quashed that decision. The relevant part of its decision reads as follows:
“In acting on a request for service, the State to which the request is made is exercising sovereign powers. This applies even if the court documents in question are addressed to that State and the authority responsible for acting on the request for assistance (in this instance the Department of State) refuses to forward them to the authority empowered to represent the State in private-law proceedings (in this instance the Department of Justice). This is not a case of refusal to accept service (§ 20 of the Service Act) but rather a case of refusal to comply with a request for legal assistance. Such refusal is a sovereign right of the foreign State, against which a remedy can be sought only through diplomatic channels ...
The Supreme Court endorsed this legal stance (8ObA 201/00t), stressing that, as international law currently stands, compliance or refusal to comply with a request for legal assistance is to be regarded as a sovereign act, irrespective of the subject-matter of the claim. The nature of the act is the defining factor. It is beyond doubt that the service of documents in court proceedings falls within the scope of so-called acta iure imperii and not acta iure gesionis, as a private individual cannot perform an act of this nature. Although negotiations have been in progress for some time on an international agreement concerning service of process on foreign States (which might make it sufficient for the action to be served on the country’s foreign ministry), no such agreement has to date been concluded, with the result that the issue remains unregulated by any treaty between Austria and the United States.
In a commentary on this decision, which had been published in JBl 2002, 57,


Prompt: 20.  On 7 April and 18 June 2005, the applicant submitted written comments in reply to the Ajarian prosecutor's request for quashing. He argued that the prosecution authority, being a party to the confiscation proceedings, had learnt of the decision of 18 November 2004 in the course of the Supreme Court's hearing of 17 January 2005 at the latest. Consequently, the Ajarian prosecutor's request for quashing was belated, as provided by Article 426 §§ 1 and 2 of the CCP. He further noted that the


Prompt:
19.  On 6 June 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. The appellate court was silent as to the first applicant’s particular complaints relating to the breach of his right to freedom of expression. It further appears from the transcript of the Court of Appeal’s hearing held on 6 June 2007, which was submitted to the Court by the first applicant, that the representative of the ABA, I.K., again stated at the hearing that the members of the Presidium had considered that the first applicant should not be admitted to the ABA because of his stance on the functioning of the ABA. His statement reads as follows:
“I.K.: You [the first applicant] have the transcript (stenoqram). After the examination of your documents, you were questioned by the Presidium, which then unanimously decided that


Prompt:
17.  Following the revolution which broke out in Libya in February 2011, forcing a large number of people to flee the country, the quality of contact between the applicants and their representatives deteriorated. The lawyers are currently in contact with six of the applicants:
(i)  Mr


Prompt: 7.  On 7 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Achkhoy-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) opened a criminal case against Timur Beksultanov under Articles 205 § 2 (terrorism), 208 § 2 (participation in an illegal armed group), 222 § 2 (aggravated possession of weapons) and 317 (assault on a law-enforcement officer) of the Criminal Code (“CC”). The case file was assigned the number 44050. It appears that


Prompt: 78.  The incident was described as an armed clash with members of the PKK, which took place on 13 January 1994. It was stated that three Boyunlu village guards set out for Kaforme hill where they came across a group of seven to eight terrorists. A clash occurred during which


Prompt: 10.  On 10 September 1975 a fresh requisition order concerning the same tenement was issued to Mr. Charles Edwards. The authorities instructed that family P. be allotted both floors. The housekeeper, who was in correspondence about the matter with the applicant (Mr


Prompt: 30.  On 20 July 2005 the investigator requested an expert opinion on Chichek Mammadova's mental condition prior to her death and how it might have affected her actions leading to the suicide. In an expert opinion of 10 August 2005 an expert psychiatrist, having studied


Prompt: 78.  On 5 October 2006 the investigators questioned Mr Z.T., who stated that he was a friend of Ibragim Uruskhanov. About a month prior to the abduction Ibragim had returned to Urus-Martan from his temporary residence in Ingushetia. Some time later the friends had met and the applicant’s son had told the witness that he had seen his own photograph on public display in Urus-Martan. According to the witness,


Prompt:
10.  On 22 May 1997 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče). In their appeal, they made no reference to Mr Ude's opinion.
On 1 April 1998 Mrs Wedam-Lukić was appointed as a justice at the Constitutional Court.
On 24 March 2000 the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Mr Ude was the president of the three-judge bench which examined the admissibility of the case and Mrs


Prompt: 19.  On 30 October 2000 the applicant received a letter informing him of the decision dispensing with a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. On 2 November 2000 he lodged a complaint with the prosecutor of


Prompt:
20.  Lord Hope went on to examine the factors which would have had to have been taken into account when considering whether to prosecute the applicant by court-martial in Germany or by jury trial in England:
“The timing of any consideration of the matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions would, in my view, have been of critical importance to a decision as to whether there was any unfairness in this case which might be said to render the conviction unsafe. It cannot be assumed that the Director would have been willing to take proceedings in England without knowing more about the factors which he would have wished to take into account. One obvious factor, I would have thought, was the availability of witnesses. In his letter of 14 June 1994 to the Attorney General the Director of Army


Prompt: 41.  On 5 February 2000 at about 11 a.m. four servicemen came into the applicants' house. They were aged about 25-30. They greeted the applicants, checked the passports and left. The fourth applicant then decided to visit her husband's relatives, the


Prompt: 194.  On 5 March 2001 the district prosecutor’s office decided to transfer the investigation to a military prosecutor’s office, given that servicemen had been involved in the abduction. Referring to witness statements, the decision stated that Mr


Prompt: 22.  The Human Rights Association of Turkey released a report on 27 January 2005 on the killing of the applicants’ five children. It was stated in the report that the authorities had refused to hand over the bodies of


Prompt: 45.  The Prosecutor and the doctor had regard to an arrest report drawn up at 6 a.m. on 6 October 1994 in relation to the arrest of Aydın Kişmir. This report was also not made available to either the Commission or to the Court. It appears from the summary of this report, which was reproduced in the autopsy report, that


Prompt: 90.  On 25 November, while he was in the canteen, he had been informed by Master Sergeant Yusuf Karakoç, the duty officer at the interrogation centre, that Yakup Aktaş had fallen ill. He had ordered a vehicle and had informed Colonel


Prompt: 27.  On 25 March 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 informed the first applicant of the outcome of the inquiry conducted at her request. The inquiry had established that military personnel had not been implicated in


Prompt: 49.  On 27 June 2007 the investigators also questioned Mr A.B., the head of the Special Task Unit (the OMON) of the Sovietskiy ROVD, who stated that he had participated in the special operation on 28 April 2007, as a result of which two men had been arrested. According to the witness,


Prompt: 38.  Following an instruction received from the Ankara public prosecutor, the anti-terror branch of the Ankara police headquarters sent a list of names and email addresses found on Hüseyin Başbilen’s computer to the Istanbul police headquarters. They asked the latter to carry out an examination of the files of the military espionage and Ergenekon[1] investigations with a view to determining whether those names and the deceased’s name appeared therein. On 14 April 2011 the deputy director of the Istanbul police headquarters sent a report prepared by three police officers according to which some of those names, including


Prompt: 4.  The first applicant, Mrs Darina Solárová, was born in 1952 and resides in Košice. She is the wife of the second applicant, Mr Juraj Solár, born in 1947 and resident at the same address in Košice. The third applicant, Mrs


Prompt:
101.  The case file does not contain a copy of the applicant’s first complaint about the abduction of Shaaman Vagapov. However, it follows from a copy of the applicant’s complaint to the Special Envoy, dated 29 July 2000, that she reported her husband’s abduction at 2 p.m. on 23 February 2000 to the temporary department of the interior of the Grozny District (“the Grozny District VOVD”), but no action was taken despite her repeated and numerous complaints. Moreover, a copy of her complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation (“the General Prosecutor’s Office”), which was received by the latter on 19 October 2000, reads in the relevant parts as follows:
“... During [the past] 6-7 months I have been writing numerous complaints about the fact that on 23 February 2000 my husband,


Prompt: 85.  On 28 February 1996, the brother of Yusuf Ekinci, Tarik Ziya Ekinci, and the lawyer Tahsin Ekinci wrote to the President of Turkey voicing their continuing concerns and suspicions, and complaining that the investigation into the killing of


Prompt: 23.  A letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan dated 18 November 2010 (see paragraph 35 below) enclosed the statements of nine individuals who had previously given statements to Mr B. or to Ms


Prompt:
17.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation decided:
-  to uphold the first-instance court's judgment in respect of 13 of the applicants (Baha Çetintaş, Yılmaz Ergül, Mehmet Üresin, İbrahim Arslan,


Prompt: 7.  The applicants submitted that on 10 December 2000 a large-scale sweeping operation (“zachistka”) had taken place in the three neighbouring villages of Raduzhnoye, Pobedinskoye and Dolinskiy, situated about 25 kilometres north-west of Grozny. The operation was carried out by 60 to 70 armed men wearing masks and camouflage uniforms, in a convoy of military trucks and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with obscured number plates. On that day a total of 21 men were detained in the three villages, including three relatives of the applicants:


Prompt: 18.  On an unspecified date the Chechnya Department of the Interior issued a notice which stated that Ayubkhan Magomadov had been detained on 2 October 2000 by officer R. of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, accompanied by the staff of the Kurchaloy district department of the FSB, on suspicion of having committed a crime. The detainee had been delivered to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, where he had been checked and it had been established that he had no involvement in the crime.


Prompt: 74.  According to the applicants, in the morning Ms Estamirova, a member of the NGO Memorial, managed to speak to the commander of the regiment over the phone. The man confirmed that Musa Temergeriyev had been brought to and registered at the grounds of the military unit. In the evening Ms Estamirova passed through the checkpoint and spoke to two servicemen. They explained that


Prompt: 17.  On 10 December 2003 the Üsküdar Post-Sentencing Judge upheld the Prison Disciplinary Board’s decision. The judge held that the letter had been written as propaganda in favour of the PKK terrorist organisation and its leader, because it contained allegations that


Prompt:
7.  The applicants in case no. 15441/05 are:
1) Ms Malayka (also spelled as Malika) Adamovna Basayeva, born in 1956,
2) Ms Nura Basayeva, born in 1937,
3) Ms Limon Lechayevna Basayeva, born in 1979,
4) Ms


Prompt:
61.  With regard to the role of the DSO, the IPCC stated:
“20.77 The order given by Commander DICK was to stop the suspect getting onto the underground station and subsequently the underground train. When interviewed she was asked to explain the word ‘Stop’ and her response was that ‘Stop’ is a common word in policing terms and it was meant as ‘stop and detain’. This opinion is supported by DCI C and Trojan 80 and 84. 20.78 However, the way the order was received by [SO19] must be considered. Following a full briefing, many of the [SO19] officers have described that they believed that they would have to confront a suicide bomber. The [SO19] officers have stated that they believed the man being followed on the bus had been identified as one of the suspects for the failed bombings on 21 July 2005. They had been in a situation of trying to ‘Catch up’ with the surveillance team since their briefing had finished. And as they approached STOCKWELL underground station they hear that the suspect had entered the underground station and they received an order to stop him getting on the underground train. I do not believe that the use of the word ‘Stop’ can be related to normal policing duties. With the mind-set of the [SO19] officers believing that a suicide bomber had entered the underground station, to receive such an order to stop him from DSO cannot be related to normal duties. They had not had the benefit of a rider to their briefing of the sort to which I refer at paragraph 20.8. If they had received such a briefing they might have been more cautious in the way they approached and dealt with Mr DE MENEZES.
... ... ... 20.82 I [Senior Investigator


Prompt:
37.  At about 16.00-17.00 hours on the day of the incident, there were gunshots near Ormandışı. She was in front of the house. Bullets began to hit the house. Soldiers and village guards from Boyunlu arrived and began to set the village alight, firing haphazardly in all directions. Everything they fired at burst into flames. They set alight the wheat and then again raided her house. They entered her house and took them all outside. They broke and burned the fridge, TV, radio-cassette player, butter maker, curtains, quilts, mattresses, rugs and kitchen implements. They set the house alight and meanwhile insulted and threatened them. They told them to leave the village or they would kill them all. They also burned crops and shot up the farm equipment. After the incident, the family moved to Silvan.
Statement by


Prompt: 12.  The applicants and other members of Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev’s family learnt of his detention when he failed to arrive in Moscow. They immediately contacted the airport authorities in Beslan, prosecutors’ offices and other law-enforcement agencies. On 2 January 2005 the second applicant went to Beslan airport and spoke to the head of the airport police. The latter told her that her husband was not on a wanted list and that on 28 December 2004 he had checked in for his flight. He claimed that he had been absent at that time. After his return, his subordinate officers had informed him that unidentified persons had called the airport authorities requesting that Mr


Prompt: 94.  On 8 December 2004 the investigator took a decision to formally identify Shamil Basayev as an accused in case no. 20/849, having described in detail the events of 1 September 2004 as established by the investigation and having also stated that


Prompt: 71.  Between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. that morning an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) with the registration number 110 appeared at the market. It was accompanied by two other vehicles: a Ural truck and a UAZ all-terrain vehicle. A group of servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns disembarked from the vehicles. The servicemen detained several persons, mostly women, put sacks over their heads and loaded them into the APC.


Prompt: 7.  According to the first applicant, on 15 November 2002 at around 6 a.m., when she was at home with her daughter and son, Mr Adam Ilyasov, armed servicemen of the Russian federal forces approached the Ilyasovs’ house in three armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with licence plates covered with mud. They were wearing masks and uniforms without any insignia. They were armed mostly with small arms and some of them had portable radio transmitters. The servicemen broke into the house and smashed everything inside: they broke doors, tore out window frames, turned the furniture upside down, scattered things everywhere and broke the windows of Mr


Prompt: 70.  At about 4 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of about ten servicemen arrived at their house in several UAZ vehicles and a GAZEL minivan. The servicemen, who were armed and in camouflage uniforms and masks, checked the identity documents of the family members and then dragged Mr


Prompt: 15.  When the first applicant removed his blindfold he realised he was in an old brewery building between Shali and Novye Atagi. He climbed out of the building, hitched a lift and returned home the same day. There he found out that he and his son were the only two men detained in the village on that day and that his son had not returned home. The family has had no news from Mr


Prompt: 52.  The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that at about 4 a.m. on 22 December 2001 unidentified armed men wearing masks had taken


Prompt:
7.  On 17 January 2003 the newspaper published an article by the applicant under the headline “A year later they impounded the car” («Через год арестовали автомобиль»). The article was prompted by the following letter written by a Ms P. and reproduced in italics in the opening passage of the article:
“On 22 September 2001 my husband... had a traffic accident. Ms


Prompt: 28.  On 7 December 2007 the Sivas Assize Court considered that the gendarmes had exceeded their powers on the use of firearms by firing at Nermin Karabulut's back rather than at non-vital parts of her body. The Assize Court also considered that alternative and non-lethal methods could have been employed by the gendarmes to catch


Prompt: 7.  In an indictment dated 11 November 1996, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court accused Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State and requested their conviction and sentence under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of taking part in armed attacks on various political party buildings and police stations and of being responsible for the death of Mr


Prompt: 21.  On 15 January 2015 the Chancellor of Justice rejected the applicant’s claim. As concerns the lack of an oral hearing, the Chancellor of Justice noted that the Social Insurance Office and the County Administrative Court had held an oral hearing and consequently, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, a less strict standard applied to the requirement to hold a hearing before the appellate court. Thus, in view of the character of the case and the fact that the applicant had been given the opportunity to finalise his submissions in writing and the court had had access to substantial written evidence,


Prompt: 133.  The first applicant considered that the comfort and leniency clearly shown to the four accused by the authorities was designed to prevent them from incriminating the senior Ministry of the Interior officials and the Minister’s wife who had been at the Café Chardin. She submitted that, in actual fact, G.A.-ia, A.A.-uri and A.Gh.-ava, three of the accused, had gone to the café after being summoned there by telephone to punish her son for having insulted


Prompt:
16.  Four years later, on 19 March 1997, the request was rejected by the Kuopio County Administrative Board. It reasoned:
“The civil servants of the former Sonkajärvi Police District ... have ... requested compensation for the losses arising from the incorporation of police districts, in response to which the Provincial Police Command, endorsing the request, submitted documents to the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior. By a letter of 25 March 1991, the Ministry of the Interior recommended to the Ministry of Finance the retroactive payment from 1 November 1990 of individual wage supplements to those civil servants whose duty station, after the incorporation, is Iisalmi.
By a letter of 3 July 1991, [the Ministry of Finance] informed the Ministry of the Interior that it had found that it could not grant the request.
Following the [Ministry of Finance’s] decision, competence to decide on individual wage supplements was transferred to the County Administrative Boards. On 28 January 1993, in a negotiation meeting held by the Provincial Police Command at which the applicants were represented by Mr


Prompt: 7.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ali Uspayev and the mother of Mr Amir Magomedov. The second applicant is the sister of Mr Aslan Dokayev. Aslan Dokayev was married to the third applicant. The fourth applicant is the father of Mr


Prompt:
43.  Appendix IV also sets out seven categories of applicant (List B) broken down by the number of days sick leave prescribed, as follows:
–  one day for Halil Doğan and Veysel Eroğlu;
–  five days for


Prompt: 62.  The report also states that the scene of the incident was inspected on 27 October and 29 October 2001, and that the “Niva” vehicle was inspected on 9 November 2001. It can also be ascertained from the report that in the first few days following the incident of 27 October 2001 fragments of bullets and cases were collected at the scene of the incident and in the “Niva” and examined by experts. Also during the first days following the incident investigators seized and examined documents relating to the combat mission of 27 October 2001, as well as firearms and ammunition used by the servicemen involved in the events in question. Over the same few days a number of expert studies were ordered and carried out and a number of witnesses were questioned. The report reveals the names of some of those witnesses, whilst the other witnesses, apparently the servicemen involved in the events of 27 October 2001, are identified only by the first letter of their surnames. According to the report, one


Prompt: 23.  Mustafa Döleksoy’s parents also informed the prosecutor that their son and his wife had been involved in prolonged court proceedings in the course of which his wife had refused to divorce him. They alleged that


Prompt: 8.  On 11 October 2007 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. It was later revoked, as the applicant was cooperating with the investigators and was living permanently in Germany. In particular, on a number of occasions in 2008 and 2009 the applicant was questioned by investigators at the Belarus consulate in Berlin, and provided witness statements which, according to the applicant, were used in proceedings against others, including several former high-ranking KGB officers and the former


Prompt: 17.  Relying on Zammit v. Malta (no. 16766/90, Commission decision of 12 January 1991, Decision and Reports 68) the court held that state intervention in socio economic matters such as housing is often necessary in securing social justice and public benefit. In this area the margin of appreciation available to a legislature in implementing social and economic policies was necessarily a wide one, both with regard to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting a measure of control and as to the choice of the rules for the implementation of such a measure. Recognizing that a balance between the right of owners, the state, and the person occupying the apartment needed to be struck, and that according to the European Court of Human Rights such balance had not been struck in the case of


Prompt:
66.  On 29 July 2002 the doctor in charge of the OCTU at La Santé Prison provided the Ministry of Health with the following summary of the medical care the applicant was receiving:
“This patient, who, as you are aware, is in the segregation unit, receives two mandatory medical visits from a member of the OCTU medical team every week, as required by the French Criminal Code.
He is currently in excellent somatic health. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his mental health.
In addition, Mr


Prompt: 61.  The witnesses alleged that they had been kept in a military detention centre in Diyarbakır for twenty-two days. On the fourth or fifth day of his detention, Mr Dağdelen had seen a man called “journalist” by others. The journalist was chained by his hands to a water pipe and his body was bloody. He was unable to move or speak. Interrogators were torturing him and putting questions to him concerning his involvement with Özgür Gündem. Following their detention on remand, the witnesses read in Özgür Gündem that


Prompt: 23.  In 2010 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the 1979 amendments, which prohibited landlords from refusing to renew existing leases or from raising their rent when the tenant was a Maltese citizen, had breached his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He submitted that the amendments introduced in 2009 had not improved his situation, even assuming they (in particular Article 1531C of the Civil Code) applied to the case in question, a matter which was unclear in the domestic context. With a new rent of EUR 185 per year (see Relevant domestic law below), he remained a victim of the alleged violation, not least because he was also prevented from refusing to renew the lease. He cited the then recent case of


Prompt: 66.  On 8 July 2003 an ROVD officer questioned the second applicant and Mr U., a relative of the Benuyevs. They both stated that at about 11 p.m. on 24 November 2002 armed men speaking Russian had arrived at their house in two UAZ vehicles – one grey and one khaki – and had taken away


Prompt: 20.  On 6 August 2002 forensic medical expert M.B. started the post‑mortem examination, including an autopsy, of Suren Muradyan’s body and on the same day sent a telegram to investigator G., saying that


Prompt: 51.  On 14 July 2006 the investigators formally seized the visitors’ logbook from checkpoint no. 1. The decision stated that the preliminary investigation had established that at 10 a.m. on 8 June 2006


Prompt: 45.  The civil parties appealed against the order to the Investigation Division of the Versailles Court of Appeal, asking for further inquiries to be made with a view to bringing charges against all those responsible for the offences of manslaughter, endangering the life of another and failing to assist a person in danger. In a memorial of 12 March 2002 they expressed doubts, in particular, about the 45-day disciplinary sanction imposed on


Prompt: 26.  On 14 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been suspended for a failure to identify those responsible and that the ROVD had been instructed to search for


Prompt: 41.  Malizh Byutukayeva and other members of the family tried to escape the fighting through the exit towards Valerik. On 5 February 2000 they reached the roadblock but were not allowed to pass. The eighth applicant and other residents were advised by the servicemen to wait in three empty houses near the roadblock. On 6 February 2000 these houses were shot at from passing military vehicles, as a result of which both


Prompt: 20.  On 4 July 2000 the Malgobek Town Court in Ingushetia, at the first applicant's request, certified the deaths of Khasmagomed Estamirov, born in 1933, Khozhakhmed Khasmagomedovich Estamirov, born on 12 February 1963,


Prompt:
9.  The judgment was based on the applicant's written statement of 28 May 1996 in which he confessed and the two other statements given to the police by H.Ć. and B.J. The applicant's contention, that he had signed the statement under duress since he had been interviewed by his colleagues for the whole night, that the notes of the interview had been amended several times and that he had been given no right such as to make a telephone call, was dismissed. The disciplinary court ordered the applicant's dismissal. The reasoning of the judgment reads as follows:
“Through a request for the institution of disciplinary proceedings submitted by the Chief of the Karlovac Police Department ... of 29 May 1996 the defendant


Prompt: 89.  On 30 March 2004 the investigation was resumed by a supervising prosecutor who ordered additional investigative measures to be carried out. In particular, the investigators were asked to identify potential witnesses and to question them in connection with


Prompt: 76.  In 2001 the applicant’s son Mr Zelimkhan Batariyev was studying in Grozny and rented a flat there. According to the applicant, on the night of 4 May 2001 Russian servicemen conducted a special operation to arrest a Mr T. who resided in the same block of flats as Mr


Prompt: 43.  In a statement taken by the police on 28 February 1994 from Ahmet Murat İ., a paternal cousin of Yusuf Ekinci, he declared that he had visited Yusuf Ekinci in his office on 24 February 1994 at 2 p.m., and that


Prompt:
16.  On 16 March 2010 the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia submitted an opinion to the Supreme Court on both appeals, however, this opinion was not communicated to the defence. The opinion reads:
“Please find enclosed the Zagreb County Court’s case file no. K-124/04 concerning the criminal proceedings against the accused


Prompt: 7.  According to a certificate issued on 12 March 2002 by the head of the Grozny SIZO-I remand prison, from 1998 to 1999 Mayrudin Khantiyev was employed as a junior inspector in the security department of that facility; he left his job in 1999 because of the hostilities. According to the applicants,


Prompt: 26.  On 6 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office requested the Sunzhenskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and the Ingushetia FSB to inform them whether they had arrested or detained the applicant's son. According to their replies of 16 and 18 May 2005 no special operations in respect of


Prompt: 20.  According to certificates issued by the Grozny expert medical commission and the head of the Valerik local administration, Ali Vadilov had had a disability of the first degree since childhood and required permanent help. In particular, he suffered from a club hand, a club foot, dislocation of the left hip and deformity of the elbow and knee joints. According to the applicants,


Prompt: 60.  On 22 February 2007 Mr M.M. was questioned. He stated that on 1 August 2000 he had been detained by officers of the Urus-Martan VOVD since he had had no identity documents. He had been held in a cell with Mr G. and


Prompt: 106.  On 5 and 30 November 2004 Ms Mukhashavria submitted copies of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 14 September and 11 October 2004 respectively in the cases of Mr Khashiev (Mr


Prompt: 26.  On 4 June 2008 the US Department of State edited its 2007 Country Report on Terrorism in BH, in which the applicant (known as Abu Hamza al-Suri) had been wrongly identified as convicted terrorist


Prompt: 8.  It appears that on the next day Suren Muradyan, who remained in the barracks throughout this period, was visited by the head of the military unit’s medical service, A.H. (hereafter, military unit doctor A.H.). The outcome of this visit is unclear. It further appears that on 27 July 2002, when


Prompt:
63.  In support of this allegation the Government submitted copies of newspaper articles and a copy of a one-page report by a police officer in Smolyan, addressed to his superiors. The report, dated 14 January 1999, stated as follows:
“I report hereby that I received the following information through a third person:
...[A] Mr


Prompt: 19.  According to an arrest report drawn up on 24 October 1997, police officers at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters established, on the basis of intelligence reports, the address in Istanbul’s Moda district where the applicant – who was wanted by the authorities – had been living. When a number of police officers went to the address, they saw a man leaving the building in which the applicant’s apartment was situated. The police officers approached the man and asked to see his identification card. Upon this, the man started to run away but was caught by six police officers after “a chase and a scuffle”. When the man refused to get into the police car, the police officers “used force to make him get into the vehicle”. An identification card, in the name of


Prompt: 6.  In 1997 the Department of Justice of the Irkutsk Region registered a non-profit non-governmental association, “The Art of Living” (hereinafter “the association”). The goals the association set out in its charter included the “promotion of social adaptation”, the popularisation of a healthy lifestyle, helping people in stressful situations and improving social and family relations. In practical terms the activity of the association consisted of training sessions, lectures, personal consultations and the like. Participation in the “programmes” of the association was offered to anyone interested and was free of charge, although participants were encouraged to make voluntary contributions to support the activities of the association. The association also issued a number of brochures containing information about its goals and basic principles. The brochures explained that the association was inspired by the teachings of


Prompt:
118.  On 3 April 2006 the Shali Town Court partially allowed the complaint and instructed the prosecutor’s office to provide the applicant’s lawyer with access to the criminal case file, with the exception of documents containing state secrets. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“... at about 6.10 p.m. on 1 August 2003 unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with automatic weapons, with the support of armoured vehicles and a GAZ-53 automobile arrived at the crime scene and opened fire at random at the houses in Kutuzova Street ... as a result,


Prompt: 21. Valid Dzhabrailov was buried soon afterwards before anyone had contacted medical institutions or law enforcement authorities. Two certificates were issued in connection with his death: the medical statement confirming