Prompt: 148.  A year later, in November 2004, several other police officers from the checkpoint were questioned. All of them confirmed the presence of the FSB officers at the crime scene, but none of them could say whether Mr


Prompt: 138.  In 2004 and in 2007 the military commanders of the Zavodskoy and Staropromyslovskiy districts of Grozny and of the Urus-Martan district stated that they had neither any “discrediting” information about


Prompt: 15.  On 12 September 2005, a superseding indictment was returned which named and indicted the second applicant as the fourth applicant’s alleged co-conspirator in respect of the Bly, Oregon charges (thus charging the second applicant with the same four counts as those faced by the fourth applicant in respect of the Bly, Oregon conspiracy). On 6 February 2006 a second superseding indictment was returned, which indicted a third man,


Prompt:
32.  Following the submission of the indictment against the applicant to the Zagreb County Court (see paragraph 12 above), on 10 June 2011 a three-judge panel of that court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial under Article 102 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“When assessing whether further extension of the detention is needed under Article 102 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the panel looked into the facts of the indictment and found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the accused


Prompt: 13.  According to the Government, between 24 and 26 December 2001 a special operation was conducted in the village of Chechen-Aul to check identity papers and locate members of illegal armed groups. Troops from the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Security Service (FSB) took part in the operation. During that period unidentified persons in camouflage uniform apprehended


Prompt: 44.  Between 13 and 20 March 1991 a number of persons, including the applicant, made statements to Major Dursun Şeker. On 21 March 1991 Major Dursun Şeker issued a report (see paragraphs 125-129). The recommendation contained therein, that gendarme officers Major


Prompt: 30.  With regard to criminal liability for the deaths and injuries caused by the servicemen from the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the Directorate for State Security (Securitate), the decision concluded that it lay exclusively with the persons who had ordered the opening of fire, namely the then Head of State, who was also Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, his Ministers of Defence and of the Interior, the Head of the Directorate of State Security, and “other members of the Executive Political Committee of the Communist Party”, who were not named in the decision. With regard to


Prompt: 48.  On 16 April 2004 investigator B. of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of any evidence that a crime had been committed. It was established that M.P. had committed suicide of his own accord on account of his individual psychological make‑up and for fear of being transferred back to the battery where the conditions of service were more difficult and where he feared oppression by his fellow recruits. The decision relied on the record of the on-site inspection, the record of the inspection of M.P.’s body, a forensic medical examination report, the statements of witnesses


Prompt: 150.  Sharpudi Visaitov was apprehended in his house in the early hours of 22 December 2001. In the morning of 22 December 2001 the eighteenth and nineteenth applicants (Sharpudi Visaitov’s father and mother) learned that on the same night another man,


Prompt:
6.  By judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001, 28 January 2003, 27 March 2001, 25 February 2002, 19 March 2003, 6 July 1999, 5 November 2001, 4 April 2000, 21 December 1999, 12 May 1999, 1 October 1999, 17 April 2002, 17 October 2002, 22 April 2002, 17 July 2001 and 15 February 1999, which became final on 16 November 2004, 26 May 2005, 17 September 2003, 25 January 2005, 25 April 2005, 20 June 2001, 18 October 2004, 20 March 2002, 10 July 2001, 5 January 2001, 9 March 2001, 17 March 2005, 10 May 2005, 21 December 2004, 28 December 2004 and 6 July 2001 respectively, the Republika Srpska[1] was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the relevant first-instance judgment:
(a)  30,000 convertible marks (BAM)[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,410 in respect of legal costs to Mr Čolić;
(b)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,114 in respect of legal costs to Mr Trninić;
(c)  BAM 15,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,782 in respect of legal costs to Mr Punišić;
(d)  BAM 8,580 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,550 in respect of legal costs to Mr Jusufagić;
(e)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,456 in respect of legal costs to Mr Novaković;
(f)  BAM 8,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Vulin;
(g)  BAM 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 718 in respect of legal costs to Mr Vulin;
(h)  BAM 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,175 in respect of legal costs to the Žujićs;
(i)  BAM 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,567 in respect of legal costs to Mr Simović;
(j)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,953 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,000 in respect of legal costs to the Malkićs;
(k)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 600 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of legal costs to the Todorovićs;
(l)  BAM 16,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,374 in respect of legal costs to Mr Milić;
(m)  BAM 11,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 987 in respect of legal costs to Mr Višić;
(n)  BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,015 in respect of legal costs to Ms Bojanić;
(o)  BAM 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,050 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,327 in respect of legal costs to Ms Petrović and the Ivanovs; and
(p)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,241 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,132 in respect of legal costs to the


Prompt: 16.  Several minutes later a group of servicemen entered the courtyard, shouting and firing from automatic weapons. They ordered the men, including the 13-year-old Suleyman, to lie down in the snow. They then searched the house and the courtyard, having ordered Aba M. to walk in front of them. After about half an hour, while the first applicant and others were still lying on the ground, the servicemen “calmed down” and the most senior among them, about 35-40 years old, ordered them to leave. The first applicant, worried about his cousins and nephews, asked for permission to go into the street and to look at the two bodies. The servicemen ordered him to stay inside “unless he wanted to be lying beside them”. They then proceeded into


Prompt: 32.  In the Government’s submission, in course of the investigation the investigating authorities questioned the applicant as well as Mr L. Dzhabrailov and Ms R. Dhzabrailova, who confirmed the circumstances of the incident of 10 April 2003. In particular, the applicant had stated, as alleged by the Government, that on the date in question ten unidentified armed people in masks and camouflage uniforms had arrived at the


Prompt: 31.  On 10 March 2004 X., the owner of the Toyota Camry, was questioned. He stated that he lived in Ulan-Ude and on 19 February 2004 he had gone to Irkutsk in his car together with his wife. Upon arriving in Irkutsk he contacted his relative,


Prompt: 43.  The witness, who is the first applicant, stated that on the day of the incident at about 1 a.m. police officers had come to his house, looking for his son Mehmet Şah. He informed the officers that Mehmet Şah was staying at his uncle's house and told his other son Halil to show them the way. About half an hour after they had left, police officers came back and arrested everyone in the apartment, namely Hüseyin, Nefise, Makbule and


Prompt:
17.  On the same day the Osijek County Court accepted the request of the State Attorney’s Office and ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Having considered the [available] evidence, this panel has found that the accused


Prompt: 90.  The second shot fired by M.P. had left a mark on the wall of the church on Piazza Alimonda (at a height of 5.3 metres). The first shot had hit Carlo Giuliani. The ballistics tests had been unable to establish the original trajectory of that bullet. However, the experts appointed by the public prosecutor's office had taken into account the fact that the jeep was 1.96 metres high and that the stone seen on the video had been at a height of around 1.9 m when the image was recorded. They had therefore fired some test shots, positioning the weapon around 1.3 metres from a stone suspended 1.9 metres above the ground: the bullet had been deflected downwards and hit the “collecting tray” (located 1.75 metres from the weapon) at heights of between 1.1 and 1.8 metres. These data tallied with the statements of certain demonstrators who had been eyewitnesses to the events, according to whom


Prompt: 444.  Mr Elçi introduced Mesut Beştaş to Abdülhakim Güven, whom he had known for a long time and who liaised with Mr Elçi's brother. A PKK member (Beriwan) was in charge of the town of Silopi, Cizre, and frequently went to Mr Elçi's house. He had acted as a courier for Mr Güven once the latter was in prison, taking notes and the like, hidden in address books and diaries. He had helped a member, code name Firat, to transport sacks full of guns. Mr Elçi was said to have acknowledged his possession of an “ERNK” document and connections with


Prompt: 23.  On 4 April 1994 the applicant’s husband and his cousin Mehmet Ay were finally brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). At 12.45 a.m. the two were taken for a medical examination. At 9 a.m. the two men signed for their possessions. At approximately 2 p.m. Mr


Prompt: 37.  On 17 April 2003 the republican prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant's query and informed her that the district prosecutor's office was investigating criminal case no. 59232, opened in connection with her son's abduction. According to the letter, the investigation had obtained information concerning special operations in Mesker-Yurt in August 2002, as well as unspecified information from the Shali department of the Federal Security Service (“the Shali department of the FSB”) and the Shali military commander. However, all these efforts had failed to establish the whereabouts of


Prompt: 77.  The Government submitted that although the criminal investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev and the internal investigation conducted by the Zavodskoy ROVD into the circumstances of the disappearance of its officer


Prompt: 74.  At about 3 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Supyan Mukayev and his acquaintance Mr M.Kh. were standing on Groznenskaya Street, across from the Bass petrol station in the village of Shali, when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms approached them and ordered them to put their hands up. They then forced Mr


Prompt:
24.  The Presidium of the Moscow City Court held:
“... having correctly established the facts of the case, the court gave an incorrect legal assessment thereof in the judgment. In procuring the narcotics for his personal consumption and also for [OZ], at her request and with her money, in storing the narcotics and in handing over part of the heroin to [OZ] and keeping part of it for himself,


Prompt: 11.  On the same day, the applicants lodged an appeal. They stated first of all that the article in question had been written on the fourth anniversary of the killing of journalist Metin Göktepe, who had been beaten to death by the police in 1996 whilst in custody. The applicants argued that the purpose of the article had been to raise concern over the fact that some high-ranking officials had not been tried and that those accused in


Prompt: 19.  On 10 August 2004 another individual – who had been detained in the EBI between 26 June 1998 and 24 December 2003 – brought a civil action in tort (onrechtmatige daad) against the Netherlands State before the Hague Regional Court. One of the grounds on which he claimed payment of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for unlawful acts for which he considered the Netherlands State to be liable was that, from his arrest in March 1998 until the end of December 2003, he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention, including having had to undergo humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches. He based this part of his claim on, inter alia, the Court’s findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of


Prompt: 21.  On 22 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Visadi Samrailov’s sister, Ms M.I., who stated that on 4 August 2000 an employee of the Leninskiy district military commander’s office, Ms Ya.Ya., had told her that Mr


Prompt: 9.  On 13 April 2004 the Mayor of Sandanski, without giving reasons for his decision, advised the organisers that Ilinden could hold a rally between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on 18 April 2004, and that it could include laying flowers on the grave of


Prompt: 88.  On an unspecified date in 2002 a neighbour of the applicants’ who had been detained in Chernokozovo remand prison, Ms I., returned home. According to a statement by Ms I. produced by the applicants, while in detention in Chernokozovo she had seen two inscriptions made with a sharp object on the cell wall reading “


Prompt: 23.  On 13 December 2012 the expert examination of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s police identity card collected from his vehicle (see paragraph 16 above) concluded that the document had been forged. On 28 February 2013 the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior confirmed to the investigators that the police identity card had been forged and that Mr


Prompt: 44.  According to the Government, the military prosecutors examined the registration logs of the Nadterechny district temporary detention ward and of the ROVD. Copies of the relevant documents were contained in the investigation files. They demonstrated that


Prompt: 29.  On 7 July 1993 the Mazıdağı public prosecutor Yekta Çobanoğlu, decided that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. The decision listed Ali and Orhan Ertaş as being suspected of the offence of “politically motivated murder” of the applicant's parents and brother. It noted that, following its investigation, the District gendarme command had concluded that unidentified members of the PKK terrorist organisation had committed the killings, but that, according to the respective accounts of the applicant and her sister Mekiye, their father had recognised the perpetrators as Ali and


Prompt: 56.  On 7 February 2003 the investigators requested information about the arrest of Ramzan Babushev from the Chechnya FSB and the Khattuni OVD. They also requested to be informed whether the applicants' relative was suspected of participation in illegal armed groups. According to the replies from the Khattuni OVD of 11 February 2003 and the Chechnya FSB of 14 February 2003,


Prompt: 4.  The applicants, Mr Srbislav Marčić (the “first applicant”), Mr Stevan Kostić (the “second applicant”), Mr Slavko Pešić (the “third applicant”), Mr Radoslav Pesić (the “fourth applicant”), Mr Časlav Stošić (the “fifth applicant”), Mr


Prompt: 34.  On 13 June 2000 the lawyer instructed by the applicant to represent her son in criminal proceedings requested the Chechnya Prosecutor to grant him access to Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev and to investigate the legality of his detention. He referred to the information from Mr


Prompt:
102.  On 26 November 1999 three Ankara deputy prosecutors responsible for investigating the first case (no. 1999/101539) brought against State agents (see paragraphs 82 and 83 above), declined jurisdiction ratione materiae. On 1 December 1999 they transmitted the case file to the Governor of Ankara, who was competent to determine the expediency of criminal investigations pursuant to the Law on the prosecution of civil servants.
On 8 December 1999 the Prosecutor followed suit as regards the other complaints which had been lodged against the said agents and were subsequently joined to the second case (no. 1999/107587) (see paragraph 84 above). In so doing he declined jurisdiction ratione materiae and, in turn, referred the case to


Prompt: 27.  On 19 May 2007 the prosecutor, following a request by the applicant, decided to order another medical examination of Levon Gulyan’s body to be performed by two foreign experts from Germany and Denmark. That decision stated that on 12 May 2007


Prompt: 22.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant’s lawyer claimed that the applicant had been questioned contrary to Article 135 of the Criminal Code and that therefore her statements given to the police should not be admitted to the case file. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. The lawyer also stated that the applicant wanted to make a political defence in her own language. The applicant, on the court’s inquiry, stated that she knew how to speak and read and write to a limited extent in Turkish but that she wanted to defend herself in her mother tongue. The applicant then read out her defence submissions, first in German and then in Turkish. The court noted that the applicant shouted out “Long live the PKK, long live our party leader


Prompt: 55.  At an unspecified time on 22 December 2005, while in his cell, the applicant lost consciousness for several minutes as a result of abnormally high blood pressure. Before fainting, he called a warder, who brought a blood-pressure monitor. The applicant used the monitor himself after regaining consciousness. Then a doctor came and gave him some medication, but this did not help. An ambulance was called and at around 11.45 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to Baku Central Clinical Hospital suspected of having suffered a stenocardiac attack. At the hospital, he was examined by Dr


Prompt: 9.  Meanwhile a series of armed robberies was carried out by a number of armed males: on 29 January 1997, 30 April, and 13 August 1999. On 14 August 1999, the police arrested a certain Heffy, later convicted for the robbery. They also arrested a man who arrived during the arrest. He gave his name as


Prompt: 50.  The witness confirmed that he was one of the five police officers who had gone to Mehmet Şah's apartment on 22 November 1993 at about 1 a.m. He recalled that after Feyzi Tatlı, a detainee, confessed during a police interrogation that Mehmet Şah was aiding and abetting the PKK, an operation was conducted to apprehend this person.


Prompt: 21.  On 26 May 2001 the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta published its regular update on the conflict in Chechnya, covering events between 12 and 25 May 2001. It reported that “on 19-20 May 2001 in Serzhen-Yurt, Shali district, a targeted special operation took place, as a result of which


Prompt: 25.  On 12 February 2005 the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service (“the Chechen Department of the FSB”) informed the applicant that they had forwarded her complaint about the abduction of


Prompt: 52.  Two witnesses identified by the applicants, whose statements were submitted to the Court, stated that at about 12.30 p.m. on 9 April 2006 two silver Zhiguli cars with tinted windows (a VAZ-2112 with the registration plate “t 591 RT 95” and a VAZ-21099 with a registration plate ending in “487 HC 95”) had arrived at the junction and parked on each side of the road. Six or eight men wearing camouflage uniforms got out of the cars, put on black masks and stopped


Prompt: 41.  On an unspecified date the investigators interviewed the first applicant as a witness. He stated that before 1999 his family had resided in the village of Gekhi and that in 1999 they had moved to Ingushetiya, except for


Prompt: 14.  An initial refusal to allow him access to the file, signed by the head of the Ministry’s human-resources department and dated 2 April 2003, was quashed on 17 November 2003 by the Sofia City Court, as it had not been ordered by the competent body, namely


Prompt: 33.  On 2 July 2003 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50080 under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (murder) in connection with the discovery on 12 February 2000 of the bodies of Shema and


Prompt: 10.  Having spent the night with her mother in the basement, on the following day the applicant went to look for her sisters in Pugacheva Street. In the basement located in the courtyard of her family’s block of flats she found the two burnt corpses of Shema and


Prompt: 20.  On an unspecified date in January 2003 the applicants complained about Arbi Karimov’s abduction to the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (the Red Cross) in Grozny. On 26 May 2003 representatives of the organisation visited the applicants and showed them a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. The letter stated that on an unspecified date an illegal bandit group had been discovered in Proletarskoye and in connection with this the Russian law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation in the village on 12 January 2003. As a result of the operation Mr I. and Mr


Prompt: 8.  Mr Gabetti wished to obtain legal advice on the best way to ensure that Exor remained the controlling shareholder in FIAT, and to this end he contacted a lawyer specialising in company law, Mr Grande Stevens. He considered that one possibility would be to renegotiate an equity swap (that is, a contract allowing a share’s performance to be exchanged against an interest rate, without having to advance money), dated 26 April 2005 and based on approximately 90 million FIAT shares, concluded by Exor with an English merchant bank, Merrill Lynch International Ltd, which was due to expire on 26 December 2006. In Mr


Prompt: 19.  On 13 April 1999 the Şemdinli public prosecutor drew up a report (fezleke) in which he set out the developments in the investigation. In his report, the public prosecutor identified A.Ç. and F.A. as the “accused” and


Prompt:
33.  On 28 April 1999, at a press conference, John Stevens stated:
“... in September 1989 ... I was appointed ... to conduct the so-called 'Stevens inquiry' into breaches of security by the security forces in Northern Ireland.
This commenced after the theft of montages from Dunmurry Police Station.
This inquiry resulted in 43 convictions and over 800 years of imprisonment for those convicted.
My subsequent report contained over 100 recommendations for the handling of security documents and information.
All of those recommendations were accepted and have been implemented.
This 'Stevens 1' inquiry was followed by a 'Stevens 2' inquiry in April 1993 ...
At the request of the DPP I was asked to investigate further matters which solely related to the previous inquiry and prosecutions. [The then RUC Chief Constable] referred to our return as 'tying up some loose ends'.
At no time, either in Stevens 2 or in the original Stevens 1 inquiry did I investigate the murder of


Prompt: 8.  The applicants are relatives. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Abubakar Aliyevich Bantayev (also known as Bakra Manayev), born in 1957, and Mr Salman Aliyevich Bantayev, born in 1962. Abubakar Bantayev is married to the second applicant; they are the parents of the fourth, sixth, seventh and the eleventh applicants.


Prompt: 139.  On 16 October 2000 the applicant yet again requested that the Chechnya military prosecutor open a criminal case to investigate the abduction. He submitted to the Court that officer Yefimenko had informed him that the police had handed Mr


Prompt:
11.  Other relevant parts of the article, read as follows:
“I say this with deep regret, but I can only be seriously perturbed by the ease with which MLP Deputy Leader Michael Falzon [M.F.] persuaded the Commissioner of Police to investigate the source of a trivial and unimportant anonymous e-mail that he had received. More so, when this e-mail could only have been misguidedly considered ‘suspicious’, and even then in an absolutely far-fetched way, in the context of the infighting and internal feuds within the MLP.
According to what Dr.


Prompt: 49.  On 5 October 1995 Mehmet Salim's family were contacted by a person called Murat, who informed them that Mehmet Salim had been detained in Bolu and subsequently at a military base. He was alive and was working as an agent for the authorities. In order to have him released, the family would have to comply with the conditions of the Diyarbakır Regiment Commander, namely to keep secret the names of those who had abducted him, as well as the place where and the persons by whom he had been detained. The family refused to accept these conditions. On 10 October 1995 Murat contacted the family again and asked them to reconsider their position, otherwise


Prompt: 27.  By a letter of 4 March 2005 the prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 notified the applicant that their inquiry had not established the implication of servicemen of the federal forces in the abduction of


Prompt: 77.  On 24 June 2003, at the prosecutor’s request, the court ordered a third expert analysis of the audiotapes, with a view to eliminating discrepancies in the earlier findings. The analysis was entrusted to Mr Koval, Mr Yakushev and Mr Serdyukov, who had participated in the previous examination, and two new experts: Mr Kurdiani, a Georgian-speaking expert, proposed by the defence, and an anonymous expert, proposed by the prosecution, whose name was given only as


Prompt: 26.  On 29 October 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the republican prosecutor's office, describing in detail the circumstances of the abduction of


Prompt:
22.  On the eleventh day of the trial the judge ruled as follows:
“The defence object to the prosecution proposal to call evidence of various admissions made by Barry Doyle in the course of interviews that took place while he was in custody .... The defence contend that these admissions are inadmissible and rely on three grounds.
1)  That the admissions were made involuntarily as a result of a combination of threats, inducements and oppression.
2)  That the admissions were made as a result of breaches of the accused’s constitutional right of access to legal advice.
3)  The admissions were made as a result of breaches of the requirement of fundamental fairness.
...
The onus of proof in respect of admissibility is on the prosecution and if confessions are to be admitted in evidence the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it is proper to do so.
...
With regard to the question of legal access


Prompt:
8.  On 21 February 2006 the investigating judge issued a search warrant for the applicant’s premises. The warrant authorised the search and seizure of the following items:
“Documents, personal computers and discs, savings books, bank documents, deeds of gift and wills in favour of Dr


Prompt: 12.  On the same date an inspection of the crime scene and of the military vehicles was carried out and E., an eye-witness, was questioned. E. submitted that on 17 April 2000 he, together with Ayub Salatkhanov, S., A., Kh. and B. had been walking down Lenina Street and that a military convoy had been moving towards them. He had seen a serviceman in an APC who lifted a weapon fitted with a silencer, aimed it at


Prompt: 17.  In February 2011 the applicant, S.L. and S.N. were heard by a prosecutor from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Arad County Court. In a statement dated 1 February 2011, handwritten in front of the prosecutor, S.L. stated that he had been taken to the police station on 8 August 2010 following a dispute with a group of people in the street. Once inside the police station he was taken to the second floor together with his brother. Half an hour later, he overheard through an open window a person screaming with pain outside the building and recognised the applicant’s voice. Afterwards he was taken home together with his brother in a police car. Later that day they met the applicant in front of his house and he told them that he had been handcuffed and beaten up by police officers. The applicant showed them his injuries and the marks on his hands. S.L. declared that he knew for sure that the applicant had been beaten up at the police station because he had seen him when they were leaving the police station. On 8 February 2011 S.L.’s statement was typed on a witness statement form bearing the heading of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Arad County Court and S.L. signed it. In addition to the facts described in the previous handwritten statement, the typewritten statement included the following phrase: “... one of my friends, V., came to me and told me that some ... were beating up my brother and


Prompt:
18.  Following the break, the proceedings were resumed. At one point a confrontation occurred between the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Kyprianou, and the court. Mr Kyprianou was at the time cross-examining a police officer who had taken the applicant’s written statement and was asking him about the manner in which an indication by another police-officer to insert the time of taking the statement was made. The court interrupted Mr Kyprianou and noted that they found his questions unnecessary. Mr Kyprianou then sought leave to withdraw from the case which was refused. The verbatim record of the proceedings reports the following exchange (translation):
“Court: We consider that your cross-examination goes beyond the detailed cross-examination that can take place at the present stage of the main trial in issues...
Mr Kyprianou: I will stop my cross-examination...
Court: Mr Kyprianou...
Mr Kyprianou: Since the Court considers that I am not doing my job properly in defending this man, I ask for your leave to withdraw from this case.
Court: Whether an advocate is to be granted leave to withdraw or not, is a matter within the discretionary power of the court and, in the light of what we have heard, no such leave is granted. We rely on the case of Kafkaros and Others v. the Republic and do not grant leave.
Mr Kyprianou: Since you are preventing me from continuing my cross-examination on significant points of the case, then my role here does not serve any purpose.”
Court: We consider your persistence...
Mr Kyprianou: And I am sorry that when I was cross-examining, the members of the court were talking to each other, passing ‘ravasakia’ among themselves, which is not compatible with allowing me to continue the cross-examination with the required vigour, if it is under the secret scrutiny of the court.
Court: We consider that what has just been said by Mr Kyprianou, and in particular the manner in which he addresses the court, constitutes a contempt of court and Mr Kyprianou has two choices: either to maintain what he said and to give reasons why no sentence should be imposed on him, or to decide whether he should retract. We give him this opportunity exceptionally. Section 44 (1) (a) of the Courts of Justice Law applies to its full extent.
Mr Kyprianou: You can try me.
Court: Would you like to say anything?
Mr Kyprianou: I saw with my own eyes the small pieces of paper going from one judge to another when I was cross-examining, in a way not very flattering to the defence. How can I find the stamina to defend a man who is accused of murder?
Court (Mr Photiou): It so happens that the piece of paper to which Mr Kyprianou refers is still in the hands of brother Judge Mr Economou and Mr Kyprianou may inspect it.
Court (Ms


Prompt: 31.  At around 11 p.m. Güngör S.E. went to the applicant's house, where he found the applicant, Mansure Ö., and friends of the applicant's daughter. Nadire İ. arrived later. The persons present then started to speculate on


Prompt: 94.  The applicants submitted written statements from Ms M.E., who worked at a kiosk located in Druzhby Narodov Square, and Ms Sh.N. Both were eyewitnesses to the abduction. Ms M.E. submitted that on 8 November 2006 she had seen servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic weapons. They had conducted a special operation. At around 2 p.m. they had stopped a car with two persons, allegedly Mr


Prompt: 50.  On 6 January 2003, while the applicants, their relatives and other residents of the Satsita camp were waiting outside the Sunzhenskiy ROVD building for news of Visadi Shokkarov following his arrest, two men in civilian clothes approached


Prompt:
142.  In this connection, the court continued:
“Victims [in particular, five police officers (of the six mentioned in paragraph 48 above), E.A. (see paragraph 44 above) and V.Az. (see paragraph 43 above)] and witnesses [in particular, R.N., I.M. and R.B. (see paragraphs 52-56 above), as well as S.K. (see paragraph 45 above) and four other police officers (see paragraph 47 above)] stated during both the pre-trial investigation and the first-instance hearings that throughout the day on 24 January 2013, including between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., mass riots had continued, crowds of people had attacked the [IDEA] building and had stoned police officers. They also testified that they had seen [the applicant and


Prompt: 13.  On 6 March 2002, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and several other residents of Stariye Atagi were standing in the street when a group of masked and armed federal servicemen arrived in three APCs, two UAZ cars and an Ural vehicle. The APCs’ hull numbers were covered with mud and the vehicles’ registration plates were wrapped in a rag. The servicemen started beating Mr


Prompt:
23.  On 14 June 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 October 2006, thus bringing its total duration to ten months and eighteen days. The court held as follows:
“... taking into account that


Prompt: 64.  The investigation, which so far failed to identify the perpetrators, was ongoing. The implication of any law-enforcement agencies in the crime had not been established. The two men who had allegedly been detained with


Prompt: 14.  In support of her account of the events the applicant submitted copies of the following documents: witness statement of Emir Gandaloyev, two statements concerning Alaudin Gandaloyev’s employment record and his salary,


Prompt: 90.  In his interim report submitted in accordance with Assembly resolution 59/182 (UN Doc.: A/60/316, 30 August 2005), the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,


Prompt: 13.  On his arrival in Finland the applicant filed an asylum request written in French, stating that he had left the DRC 13 months ago; that he had been trained to join the presidential guards and had been working as an informant in Office D of the special force responsible for protecting the then President Mobutu (Division Spéciale Présidentielle; “the DSP”); that he had belonged to the President’s and the DSP Commander-in-Chief’s inner circle; that he had been arrested in Angola while in the possession of a DSP badge and a photograph of Mobutu; that his life was in danger on account of his position and his Ngbandi origin; and that


Prompt: 17.  During the investigation, the Chişinău prosecutor’s office obtained several forensic reports which found, inter alia, that the entry wound was on Alexei Vlasi’s upper left neck and the exit wound was on the right side of his forehead above his eyebrow. According to the forensic report, the shot was fired at such close range that gunshot residue was present on the victim’s skin around the entry wound. Another forensic report found that the police officer who had shot him had had an injury to his right thigh made by a knife wound and the other police officer who had allegedly been punched in the face by Alexei had had a bruise on his face. Another expert report did not find any fingerprints on the knife found in


Prompt: 31.  On 22 July 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's letter to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor's office”) and ordered that it be verified whether Russian federal servicemen had been involved in


Prompt: 22.  In the course of the trial of German war criminals before the International Military Tribunal, the Katyn killings were mentioned in the indictment as an instance of a war crime (Indictment: Count Three – War Crimes, Section C (2)). On 13 February 1946 the Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the USSR, Colonel


Prompt: 31.  In the meantime, between 28 May 2010 and 2 June 2010 orders for the detention and deportation of forty-five failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks. Letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to


Prompt: 36.  On 11, 14 and 15 October 1999 two police officers took statements from the applicant, the employer and two colleagues of Mehmet Şah Şeker and his cousin. In his statement, the applicant maintained that he did not suspect anyone regarding his son’s disappearance.


Prompt:
24.  In respect of the charge of trafficking in drugs, the trial court held:
“With regard to the first charge, i.e. trafficking in drugs, it is first of all the testimonies of persons who were directly involved in the [alleged] criminal activities and who described them in detail, which persuade the court of


Prompt: 32.  The autopsy report on İbrahim Erdoğan gives his cause of death as internal bleeding due to bullet wounds and fractured skull and spinal column. The autopsy report described nine gunshot wounds to the body of


Prompt:
63.  Mr İ. Sağlam stated that Cemal Uçar sent a letter to his family, informing them that he had been taken into police custody and, subsequently, detained in Diyarbakır E-type prison. After having received the letter, the applicant went to the prison and saw his son. Subsequently, he asked Mr İ. Sağlam to visit his son. On an unspecified date, Mr İ. Sağlam visited Cemal Uçar, who maintained that he had been kidnapped by security forces and that he had made statements before the public prosecutor about his abduction. Cemal Uçar refrained from informing the public prosecutor about the place where had been kept for almost a month as he feared for himself and his family. Mr İ. Sağlam further stated that he did not have the impression that Cemal Uçar was disturbed psychologically. However, he had feared the possibility of being taken to the security directorate again.
(f)  Expert reports dated 30 August 2005 of Dr


“Küçük Şiyar”

Prompt: 13.  According to a police report, on the same evening the driver of the motorbike, who was subsequently identified as M.N.B., was arrested by police officers. Moreover, on the same evening a certain M.K., who was suspected of having provided logistical support to the two men, was also arrested. M.K., who was shown a photograph of


Prompt: 65.  On 24 March 2005 the deputy head of the Urus-Martan FSB informed the investigators that they had information about the involvement of the applicant’s son in activities of an illegal armed group under the command of Mr T. Udayev. However, they had no information either concerning


Prompt: 52.  On 1 October 2004 investigator D. interviewed the applicants' neighbour, N.T., as a witness. He stated that at about 2 a.m. on 19 September 2004 a group of about fifteen armed persons in masks and camouflage uniforms had burst into the applicants' house and had abducted


Prompt:
115.  On 2 June 2005 the second applicant was released from the temporary detention centre of Nalchik (the IVS) by decision of the town prosecutor’s office. The text of the decision included the following:
“... at about 9 p.m. on 14 November 2004 in the office of the head of the criminal search division of the GOM-2, officer A.Bo.,


Prompt: 61.  On 7 February 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first-instance court in respect of seventeen of the accused village guards. Moreover, in the light of the findings in the ballistics reports dated 23 June 1992 and 28 October 1993 and the statements of the Midyat Public Prosecutor, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court in respect of ten of the accused. In its detailed decision the court further held that to try to remove the bullet in


Prompt: 28.  On 23 October 2006 the four officers from the investigations department of the Mureş County police were questioned by the prosecutor as witnesses. Their statements were practically identical, saying that while they had been talking to


Prompt: 48.  On the same day the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a separate ruling on the remarks which VM had made on 28 June 2006. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention and the Court’s judgments (Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, ECHR 2000‑X, and


Prompt:
75.  On 10 June 2004 the Shali ROVD replied to a request by the applicant for information stating, amongst other things:
“ ... in connection with the abduction of Mr E. Zaynadinov, the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59229... the police operational search unit opened search file no. 71373 and has been taking measures to search for Mr


Prompt: 49.  On 28 March 2003 the investigators questioned an officer of the ROVD, Mr D.A. He stated that he worked as a district police officer in Achkhoy-Martan. At about 4 a.m. on 14 January 2003 a group of unidentified armed men in APCs and Ural lorries had arrived at Orekhova Street, where from house no. 15a they had abducted Aslambek and


Prompt:
9.  On 3 October 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court convicted Mr S., Mr N. and Mr K. of serious criminal offences and sentenced them to lengthy terms of imprisonment. The judgment mentioned that Mr Vitaliy Vulakh had been the leader of a criminal enterprise and had told the defendants to murder his business competitor Mr G. It read, in particular, as follows:
“The person who had been the leader of the gang (


Prompt: 58.  On 20 January 2001 the third applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no. 12368 and questioned. She submitted that she had been living in the same flat as her husband


Prompt: 15.  In addition to the above statements, the applicants' representative submitted to the Court statements given by another witness, Nihat Ezer, on 13 August 2001. According to this witness, who sought shelter in the Narin Hotel during the clashes,


Prompt: 16.  On 13 December 2006, their Lordships unanimously dismissed the applicant's appeal. They agreed that the right to seek early release, where domestic law provided for such a right, was clearly within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention. Lord


Prompt: 13.  Immediately after her husband’s abduction, the first applicant and her son drove back to the second applicant’s house. They informed him about the abduction. The applicants called the district police officer Mr S., who had visited the second applicant’s house looking for Mr T.M., and asked him about the whereabouts of


Prompt: 18.  On 31 October 2002 the House of Lords unanimously dismissed the applicant’s appeal ([2002] UKHL 41). Having taken note of evidence that the applications of approximately 13,000 asylum-seekers a year were processed at Oakington, which entailed scheduling up to 150 interviews a day, Lord


Prompt: 47.  She and her three wounded children were taken by a fellow villager in a car to Achkhoy-Martan. In the confusion she had lost track of her son Musa. Having sent her three wounded children to the hospital in Urus-Martan, she returned to Katyr-Yurt to find Musa at her neighbours' house. Later on the same day


Prompt: 34.  By a letter of 5 February 2003 the Shalinskiy ROVD informed the first applicant that on 19 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of her son. The letter further stated that the investigative measures had failed to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of


Prompt: 145.  On 19 November 2001 Şuayip Tanış and his brother Nurettin were questioned by the public prosecutor. Nurettin Tanış stated that in January 2001 they were arrested on the Silopi road while on their way to Cizre by three people in civilian dress who asked


Prompt: 13.  On 16 August 2003 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code on account of the publication of the book entitled 33 Days in the Deluge. According to the indictment, on pages 129, 130 and 135 the struggle of the PKK and its leader,


Prompt: 22.  Mr Aydın Sezen declared before the same gendarme commander that the applicant had always acted in a subversive manner towards the State, that his house had indeed been burned, that he had not seen who had set fire to it, but it had definitely not been the security forces. He also added that all the villagers were pleased that the applicant had left the village. In a further statement, Mr


Prompt:
14.  On the same day at 12.20 p.m. N.L. contacted V.B. by telephone. As recorded in the patrol report (raport shërbimi) drawn up on 7 August 2012, V.B. stated the following:
“Petri Pihoni, A.S. and N.P. had been involved in an argument. They [the RRF officers] were called upon to put an end to the argument, which had become more intense. In such circumstances, we [stopped them from arguing] and took them to Pogradec police station in the police vehicle. ... I would point out that N.P. and


Prompt: 22.  On 3 October 2006 twenty-seven victims of the incident filed a criminal complaint against the special forces officers for abusive conduct and causing bodily harm, a complaint which was joined to the pre-existing investigation. They were the applicants


Prompt: 68.  On 16 November 1999 the investigators in criminal case no. 16/24‑99 carried out an expert assessment of three documents concerning the transfer of Suleyman Tsechoyev from SIZO-1 on 23 August 1999. The criminology expert of Kabardino-Balkaria concluded that the imprint of the Malgobek district prosecutor's office's seal had been reproduced with the aid of a factory-made stamp, but not the one used by the district prosecutor's office. The imprint of the Malgobek ROVD seal had been reproduced with the aid of a colour printer. A graphology expert report reported difficulties in analysing short notes with dates and signatures on the documents, but concluded that some of the notes could have been made by Mr


Prompt: 15.  The talks mentioned in that letter finally took place at around 10 a.m. on 9 September. A delegation made up of a CDGA lieutenant-colonel, the public prosecutor, the Prison Director and the CGP commander heard the spokesmen for dormitories nos. 4 and 5 and the spokeswoman for the female dormitory, namely the applicants Sadık Türk,


Prompt: 31.  Several press articles contained excerpts of telephone conversations between the applicant and persons not involved in the criminal proceedings. On 5 February 2012 Ora de Cluj published an article with the headline, “Interception. Three-way conversation: businessman S. D., mayor


Prompt:
11.  This article was followed by a further text in a small box which stated:

(German original)

„[...]Die Spesenritter und Abkassierer haben tatsächlich dem Ansehen Salzburgs als Zukunftsland schwer geschadet.


Prompt: 17.  By Resolution 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000 (see paragraph 71 below), the Security Council extended the sanctions regime. It was now also directed against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation, as well as the Taliban’s senior officials and advisers. In both Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), the Security Council requested the Sanctions Committee to maintain a list, based on information provided by States and regional organisations, of individuals and entities associated with


Prompt: 26.  On 14 January 2005 the Salonika Court of First Instance sentenced the applicant to fourteen months' imprisonment under Article 167 § 1 of the Greek Criminal Code for resisting lawful authority. The first-instance court established that Police Officer


Prompt: 128.  On 27 December 1995 Captain İzzet Cural, in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor Osman Aşrafoğlu in which he declared that, in response to a report that


Prompt: 171.  The witness met Hüseyin Demirci in one of the training courses on civil defence services, just as he met many other local people. However, he denied the applicant's allegation that Mr Demirci was his adviser. He further stated that he had known Mr


Prompt: 86.  On 27 June and 18 August 2007 the military prosecutors reiterated their request to the district prosecutor’s office concerning the missing exhibits and, in particular, the spent cartridges seized from the crime scene, and instructed the latter authority to interview investigator D., who had been initially in charge of the investigation into


Prompt: 73.  At about midnight the special operation was completed and the servicemen left Ersenoy and drove to the settlement of Vedeno; they travelled in a large group of military vehicles, including several APCs, Ural military lorries and the UAZ minivan containing Mr


Prompt: 65.  On 12 January 2010, the non-governmental organisation “Libya Watch for Human Rights”, based in the United Kingdom, released a statement, calling upon the Netherlands' authorities to grant the applicant asylum. It stated that it knew the applicant as a Libyan activist, that he had been involved in opposition activities inside Libya and abroad and that – in its opinion – his association with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya was in itself enough to lead to his arrest and torture should he return to Libya. It further expressed its concern that failed asylum seekers who are returned to Libya will become easy targets for the various Libyan security agencies in their efforts to act with an iron fist against enemies of the state. In this connection, it referred to the fate of


Prompt: 29.  On 18 February 2001, members of the Centre met with John Weir in Paris. He made links between the attack on Donnelly’s Bar and the other incidents above. He named Stuart Young, Sammy McCoo, Shilly Silcock and


Prompt: 51.  On 9 August 2001, after apparently having noted that the applicant had not left the Netherlands voluntarily after the rejection of his second asylum application, the Netherlands aliens police (vreemdelingenpolitie) requested the Return Facilitation Unit (Unit facilitering terugkeer – “UFT”) of the Immigration and Naturalisation Department of the Ministry of Justice to request the Algerian consular authorities in the Netherlands to issue a laissez-passer in the name of


Prompt: 10.  The first applicant and Khava Rasayeva followed them at some distance and saw them heading to the military vehicles parked in Karl Marx Street (one armoured personnel carrier (APC), one Ural truck and one UAZ all-terrain military vehicle, all without visible identification plates). After that they saw


Prompt: 18.  In the autumn of 2000 the applicant was again tried in absentia in Jordan, this time in a case known as the “millennium conspiracy”, which concerned a conspiracy to cause explosions at western and Israeli targets in Jordan to coincide with the millennium celebrations. The conspiracy was uncovered before the attacks could be carried out. The applicant was alleged to have provided money for a computer and encouragement through his writings, which had been found at the house of a co-defendant, Mr


Prompt: 18.  On 21 May 1998 the applicants were examined by the prison doctor, Dr. T. D., who noted that there were marks on Abdurrahman Çelik's body resulting from the physical violence inflicted on him. He reported the following in respect of


Prompt: 12.  There were around twenty-five servicemen; two or three of them wore masks. The servicemen appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. They took Mr Ramzan Guluyev to the street where several khaki UAZ vehicles and a grey all-terrain UAZ vehicle («таблетка») were parked. Some vehicles had no registration numbers while those of the others were covered with mud. The servicemen put Mr


Prompt: 29.  On 6, 7 and 12 August 2012 the investigators questioned police officers from the OVD: Mr M.M., Mr Z.S., Mr R.A., Mr A.M. and Mr D.D. All of them stated that on the date of the abduction they had been on duty at the police station and neither Mr


Prompt:
50.  A report entitled “Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation)”, published on 15 April 2007 by the European research project Transnational Terrorism, Security, and the Rule of Law (TTSRL), financed by the European Commission, reads as follows:
“Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) presents itself as ‘a political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology ...’ ... In their own eyes, Hizb ut Tahrir (for short) is a political group and not a priestly one ... It is a trans-national party or movement that claims to try to achieve its political goals without the use of violence and has branches in about forty countries, including both Islamic and Western countries. In the Islamic world they are, for instance, active not only in the Middle East, but also in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. In almost all of these countries, Hizb ut Tahrir is perceived as a threat to the state or even as a terrorist organisation. In the Western world, Hizb ut Tahrir has a presence in, among others, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, the United States and Canada. To these countries, Hizb ut Tahrir presents a particularly difficult challenge since it holds radical Islamist views, but openly only advocates peaceful change. Nonetheless, in a number of EU member states, the party is regarded as one that secretly does support the idea of a violent jihad and/or has been involved in anti-Semitic incidents ...
The organizational structure of Hizb ut Tahrir is rather complex ... The identities of Hizb ut Tahrir’s current leader and senior officers have not been mentioned in reliable open sources.
Concrete issues at the level of different national branches are in the hands of national leaders, where the scope and content of the activities within the branches greatly differ. A general distinction can be made between countries in which the party is permitted to operate freely, and countries in which Hizb ut Tahrir is prosecuted. In Uzbekistan, for instance, [Hizb ut Tahrir] is organized in a secretive and hierarchical pyramid structure made up of many five-person cells whose members, after they have completed training averaging about two months, form their own groups or ‘halka’ - also of five to six members. Other sources speak of three-person cells... In EU member states, the branches of Hizb ut Tahrir are organized like most political parties and have a hierarchical structure with a national leader, local groups and the possibility of membership for anyone who supports the party’s ideas. In addition, the European branches of the party also consist of study groups, the above-mentioned ‘halkas.’...
From the beginning, Hizb ut Tahrir’s leadership decreed that members should not participate in terrorist activities. This message has been continuously reverberated. There are, however, many allegations of links between the party and terrorist organisations. It should be stressed that none of these allegations are backed by concrete evidence ...
There are, nonetheless, possible indirect links between Hizb ut Tahrir and terrorist groups and individuals. In Britain, three men, who in 1995 were arrested and charged with conspiring to assassinate the Israeli ambassador, were reported to have been in possession of Hizb ut Tahrir literature and to have helped organize Hizb ut Tahrir meetings in Manchester ... Another man,


Prompt: 18.  The Assize Court also noted that Metin Kürekçi, Alihan Alhan and Deniz Bakır had been taken into police custody in the past on account of their participation in various public meetings. There were also several police records in respect of


Prompt: 32.  In their observations, the Government also stated that the relatives of Salaudi Zubayrayev had not been interviewed or been granted victim status in the proceedings in view of their departure from Russia. In October 2004 the investigation questioned and granted victim status to Mrs. E.,


Prompt: 19.  The applicants asked to see the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel Sh., and when he came to meet them outside the VOVD the first applicant asked him where her son was. Colonel Sh. took their names, went back into the police station and then returned with


Prompt:
85.  On 20 March 2005 the investigators asked the Nalchik deputy prosecutor to extend the time frame for the investigation in criminal case no. 21/233-04. The text of the document included the following:
“... the preliminary investigation in the criminal case established that on 14 November 2004 unidentified persons had beaten the applicants in the head, torso and extremities ...
When questioned about the circumstances of the incident, Mr


Prompt: 42.  On 17 February 2000 Malizh Byutukayeva was transferred to the Sunzha district hospital in Ingushetia, where she was diagnosed with a shell wound to the right upper part of the torso, an open fracture of the right shoulder blade and infection of the wounds. She was operated upon and remained in hospital until 11 April 2000. No documents were submitted in relation to


Prompt: 43.  According to the applicants, in the afternoon of 2 February 2000 three APCs arrived at the school building and several armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms got out. They ordered everyone to leave the basement, forced the men to stand up against a wall and searched them. Then they took


Prompt: 7.  On 16 December 2010 the applicant, together with three other members of the above-mentioned union, made what she described as an “act of performance”, which, according to both parties’ accounts, consisted of the following. They went to the Eternal Glory Memorial to those who perished in the Second World War, which contained the tombs of thirty-two soldiers, including that of


Prompt:
12.  Relying on sections 6 and 7 of the said Act, Mr Küchl (“the claimant”) requested compensation for defamation (üble Nachrede) and for the violation of his strictly personal sphere (höchstpersönlicher Lebensbereich) caused by the publication of the photograph and the impugned article, especially the following passages:
“‘Porn scandal. Photographic evidence of sexual antics between priests and their students has thrown the diocese of St Pölten into disarray’. ‘A painful truth: Krenn’s principal engaged in sex with subordinates, also Krenn’s private secretary and legal adviser ...’; ‘Photos showing, among others, seminarians from St Pölten in kinky situations, in some cases with their superiors ... and because they were doing it with the boss and his deputy too, it was all quite normal and they felt perfectly safe ...’; and ‘In June of the previous year principal


Prompt: 50.  On 30 April 2004 the investigators questioned as a witness Mr D., who at the time of the incident had held the post of acting Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. Mr D. submitted that on 10 January 2004 Mr Zh. had informed him that the personal files of several police officers were incomplete. In that connection Mr D. had summoned to the MVD all police officers whose personal files did not comply with the established requirements. In the beginning of February 2004 relatives of


Prompt:
15.  On 16 July 1999 the applicant company published an article on its front page of “Der Standard” which read as follows:
“Haider has breached the Constitution
According to an expert opinion commissioned by the SPÖ at the Graz University, the Regional Governor


Prompt: 150.  In this connection Mr Chikviladze explained that Prison no. 5 was housed in a building that had been constructed in 1887, and that the walls were so eroded that bricks could be pulled out by hand. Mr


Prompt: 72.  I.Z., an officer of the ROVD, interviewed as a witness on 3 February 2003, stated that on the morning of 12 November 2002 he had learnt from his neighbours about the abduction of Magomed-Salekh and


Prompt: 141.  On 29 May 2003 and 16 December 2004 the investigating authorities had questioned Ms M.T. She gave a similar account of the events to those given by the seventh, ninth and fourteenth applicants and submitted a number of additional details. On 28 December 2002 Ms M.T., the applicants, their neighbours and Ms Estamirova had got together in the vicinity of the military unit. While Ms Estamirova had entered the checkpoint building, Ms M.T. had had a conversation with an on-duty officer, who had confirmed that on 27 December 2002 at around 4 p.m. servicemen had driven Musa and another Chechen man from the grounds of the military unit in the direction of the military base in Khankala. Those servicemen had worked in Khankala and had been temporarily assigned to the military unit. That information had been further confirmed by “Mr


Prompt: 62.  On 16 February 2007 the investigators questioned the first applicant's neighbour, Mr R.G., who stated that at the material time he had lived across the street from the first applicant's house. A federal forces checkpoint was next to the former clothing factory; the servicemen manning the checkpoint lived in the factory building. On 13 September 2000 he had been repairing the house gates.


Prompt: 9.  Subsequent to these events, criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants for membership of the PKK by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, with the exception of


Prompt: 17.  On 29 November 1994, 2 February, 12 April and 22 May 1995 the applicants wrote to certain Registrars of the High Court requesting information as to when the judgment would be delivered. A response, dated 26 May 1995, stated that the trial judge could not confirm when he could deliver his judgment given his heavy commitments. Further to the applicants' letter,


Prompt: 20.  In the evening of 8 July 2010 the applicant was taken to the Shuya Town Court, which started the hearing at 11 p.m. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The Town Court considered that the applicant was


Prompt:
105.  Several Austrian politicians, including members of parliament, high-ranking public officials, well-known public figures and persons affected by the events surrounding the BAWAG crisis commented in public on the applicant’s arrest and the criminal proceedings against him.
(1)  On 3 May 2006 Mr Grasser, then Federal Minister of Finance, published a statement through the Austrian Press Agency (APA) and stated that rescuing BAWAG with public money had to be a last resort and that he had had consultations with the Trade Union Federation, the bank’s majority owner and the bank’s management on this matter. He also said that, in his view, the auditing of the bank had not been lax (zu lax). For more than ten years the irregularities could not be detected. It was also decisive, in his opinion, that within the five-tier auditing and monitoring system, the first four tiers – board of management, internal monitoring, supervisory board and external certified accountants (Wirtschaftsprüfer) – “hushed up matters deliberately” (vorsätzlich vertuscht) so that there was no possibility for the fifth tier, namely, monitoring by the state, to come into play. The effectiveness of monitoring was not the issue in point.
(2)  On 5 May 2006 Mr Haider, Regional Governor of Carinthia, made a press statement entitled “Penthouse socialists must give back their luxurious dwellings!” He accused the applicant, inter alia, of squandering billions of euros belonging to the trade union bank and receiving penthouses at a ridiculous price as a reward. He further stated that “these luxury left wingers without morals or decency should give back what they have obtained illegally (was sie sich erschlichen haben) and, if need be, be forced to do so by the courts.” He also welcomed the fact that an action for eviction (Räumungsklage) had been lodged against the applicant and his wife.
(3)  On 7 May 2006 Mr Leser, a university professor and well-known intellectual with close links to the Social Democratic Party, stated that he noted the “absence of any expression of guilt” by ex-director of the board of management


Prompt:
33.  The findings included the following:
(a)  Ideally, if suitable beds had been available, Christopher Edwards should have been admitted to hospital for assessment under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
(b)  It was a serious omission, and breach of Code C of the Code of Practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”), that no doctor had been asked by the custody officer to see


Prompt: 42.  In 1999 the three applicants of this application and their relatives mentioned above were living in the Stroiteley settlement in Grozny. In January 2000, when the hostilities began in Grozny, about thirty local residents, including the first applicant,


Prompt: 5.  On 17 November 1998 at 3.30 p.m. the applicant, a journalist working for a biweekly newspaper, was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters along with 108 other persons. At the time of the arrest, the applicant and the other arrestees were in the Diyarbakır branch of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), where demonstrations and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to protest about the arrest of


Prompt:
20.  On 25 April 2011 the deputy prosecutor of the Nasimi district prosecutor’s office issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. In his decision, after having summarised the conclusions of the forensic report and the statements given by the applicant, T.Y. and N.S., as well as S.N. and the other four police officers questioned during the inquiry, the prosecutor concluded in one sentence that the available evidence did not disclose any appearance of a criminal act. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“As no appearance of a criminal act was disclosed in the material collected during the inquiry at the request of


Prompt: 18.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the Burgomaster's decision with the Judicial Division (Afdeling rechtspraak) of the Raad van State on 19 March 1993. In his appeal, which he detailed in a letter of 17 May 1993, he raised the same complaints as he had before the


Prompt: 22.  On 27 July 1998, at around 7.45 a.m., two PKK terrorists raided Kışlak village. The terrorists carrying Kalashnikov rifles and a bazooka asked the inhabitants to assemble in the main square of the village. Since the villagers refused to obey the terrorists, the latter opened fire randomly for ten minutes on


Prompt:
37.  On 10 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered his release. The appellate court quashed the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 27 February 2009, holding that the first-instance court had erred in extending the applicant’s continued detention. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“It appears from the OCD’s decision of 22 September 2008, concerning an operational-search measure and which was added to the case file, that a decision concerning an operational-search measure in respect of Nagiyev


Prompt: 12.  On the same date the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Mr S.S. and Mr. M.R. under Article 222 of the Criminal Code (illegal possession of firearms). The case file was given the number 702687. The two men were subsequently questioned about the circumstances of the case; both of them stated on several occasions that they had been arrested with


Сергей Смирнов

Prompt:
23.  The original Russian version is given below:
“На подмогу Тимошкову бросили лучшие силы. За столом собрались самые отъявленные мудрецы – заместитель губернатора Михаил Климов, глава городской администрации


Prompt: 21.  On 10 or 11 May 2000 the applicants found a handwritten note at the entry gate of their house in Ken-Yurt, saying that Beslan Baysultanov had been abducted by “Mr K.’s men”. According to the applicants, at the material time K. held the post of commander of the “West” battalion, which formed part of the Main Intelligence Directorate (“the GRU”) of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic. After that, the second applicant and her husband went to the battalion’s barracks several times to meet K. and to enquire about


Prompt: 13.  The applicant alleged that the chief of police and his deputy had informed him that his attendance was required because of his participation in the demonstration the previous day. The applicant was told that he would face a penalty of ten to fifteen days of administrative detention. He pleaded with the officers to impose a fine instead of detention in view of certain personal circumstances, such as his wife being heavily pregnant and about to give birth, and the need to care for his farm and cattle. The applicant was informed that this was impossible since the instructions temporarily to arrest all activists came from


Prompt:
14.  On 22 May 2006 the Sovetskiy District Court found for the claimant. It held:
“It follows from the [second assertion] that the authors of the article drew an affirmative conclusion as to the connection between the fact that the region attracts social misfits – those who abuse alcohol, are dependent [on state benefits] or end up being prosecuted – and the system of work of the senior officials named in the article:


Prompt: 14.  According to the witnesses, next to the vehicle they saw numerous bullet holes in the ground whose positioning indicated that four people had been put down on the ground and shot in the head. The applicant's other son, Mr A., found a piece of human brain;


Prompt:
8.  On 25 September 1994 the applicant applied to the Versailles Administrative Court for judicial review of certain provisions of circulars issued by the Minister of Justice on 14 March and 19 December 1986, the former relating to prisoner searches and the latter to prisoners' written and telegraphic correspondence. He submitted that the circulars contained provisions breaching the decrees and laws in force.
He complained in particular about the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to the circular of 14 March 1986, arguing that it infringed human dignity and thus contravened Article D. 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further objected to the fact that, with reference to Article D. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the circular afforded prison staff the possibility of using force to compel prisoners to submit to such humiliating procedures.
The applicant also complained that the circular of 19 December 1986 defined “correspondence” as “written communication between two named persons, as distinct from bulletins, letters, circulars, leaflets and printed matter, whose content does not specifically and exclusively concern the addressee”. He argued that that definition, based on the content of the document, was at variance with freedom of correspondence as enshrined both in domestic law – which did not limit the number of letters that could be received and sent by convicted prisoners and other detainees and guaranteed them free choice as to their correspondents – and in Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. In his view, it thereby introduced restrictions not envisaged by the law and conferred an arbitrary power of censorship on prison governors. He added that by depriving those held in punishment cells of the possibility of corresponding with their friends or relatives and prison visitors, the circular imposed more restrictive conditions than those laid down in Article D. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which simply provided for restrictions on correspondence.
The applicant stated that the management of Fleury-Mérogis Prison had regularly sent him to the punishment block because of his refusal to open his mouth during full body searches in accordance with the first of the above-mentioned circulars. He added that on 28 June 1993 the prison governor, referring to the second circular, had refused to dispatch a letter the applicant had written to a friend in another prison – supplying information to assist him in applying for release on licence – on the ground that the letter did not “correspond to the definition of the concept of correspondence”.
In an order registered on 21 November 1994 with the secretariat of the Judicial Division of the Conseil d'Etat, the President of the Administrative Court transmitted the application to the Conseil d'Etat. On 8 December 2000 the Conseil d'Etat gave the following judgment:
“As to the circular of 14 March 1986 issued by


Prompt:
70.  On 24 March 2006 the President of the Parliamentary Committee for Security and Law Enforcement wrote to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) and the head of the Chechnya FSB. The relevant parts of the letter read as follows:
“[We] have been receiving new complaints from residents of the Chechen Republic concerning the unlawful actions of officers of law-enforcement agencies ... during the conduct of special and targeted operations in populated areas of Chechnya.
Thus, on 17 March 2006


Prompt: 79. According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators also requested information about the disappearance from various State authorities, including a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya and other units of the Ministry of the Interior, the Grozny department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), various military commanders’ offices in Chechnya, the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102, the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA, a number of penitentiary institutions in Chechnya and the neighbouring regions, the prosecutors’ officers of various levels, various detention centres in the Northern Caucasus and the archives of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit. According to the responses received from these agencies, they did not have any information about


Prompt: 10.  On the night of 23 to 24 January 2003 the applicants and Musa Gaytayev were sleeping at home. At about 2 a.m. around twenty men parked two “Ural” trucks about 150 metres away and came to the house on foot. They were all in camouflage uniform and some were also wearing balaclava masks; they were armed with machine guns. The applicants inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military. The servicemen knocked at the door and demanded access to carry out a check. As soon as the applicants opened the door, the men rushed into the rooms without identifying themselves or giving any explanations and forced all the adult male members of the Gaytayev household outside, into the courtyard. The second applicant was ordered to lean against the wall while standing barefoot in the snow; the third applicant was told to lie down. Their documents were checked; some of them were seized, including the identity papers of the second and third applicants and their vehicle documents. At the same time the servicemen apprehended


Prompt: 6.  The first applicant Bernard O'Dowd, who was born in 1923 and lives in Drumnee, County Meath, Ireland, was the father of Barry O'Dowd and Declan O'Dowd. The second applicant Michael Gabriel O'Dowd, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bleary, was the son of


Prompt: 18.  The second photo, which appeared in issue no. 9/03 of 20 February 2003, shows the applicants out for a walk in St Moritz. The caption says: “Ernst August von Hannover and his wife, Princess Caroline of Monaco, enjoy the sun and snow in St Moritz.” A small photo of


Prompt:
59.  On 18 August 2003 the district prosecutor requested that the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 provide him with an officer to assist in the investigation of the criminal case. The text of the letter included the following:
“... taking into account that there are sufficient grounds to believe that the crime [against


Prompt: 74.  Detective Sergeant P.P., a Greek Cypriot, was the chief investigating officer appointed by the SBA police to investigate the first applicant’s alleged abduction. He stated that at approximately 6.30 a.m. on the morning of 13 December 2000, he had seen


Prompt:
30.  On 11 September 2002 the post-mortem examination was completed and its results were sent to the Hadrut Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office. The relevant parts of forensic medical expert M.B.’s conclusions read as follows:
“External examination of the corpse. ... Injuries: There is an abrasion measuring 0.8 x 0.6 cm on the right side of the forehead, which is located lower than the surrounding skin and has a dark red surface. ...
Internal examination of the corpse. ... In the thickness of the muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen, in the projection of the spleen, bruising measuring 10 x 9 cm was discovered...
The blood sample taken from


Prompt: 27.  Police forces stationed on the other side of Piazza Alimonda intervened and dispersed the demonstrators. They were joined by some carabinieri. At 5.27 p.m. a police officer present at the scene called the control room to request an ambulance. A doctor who arrived at the scene subsequently pronounced


Prompt: 116.  The coroner also included in his Ruling a list of proposed questions which would be left to the jury and which required responses of “yes”, ”no”, or ”cannot decide”. Having heard the parties’ submissions, on 1 December 2008 he finalised the list of questions to include questions of fact concerning the events in the train carriage and questions concerning the factors which had contributed to Mr


Prompt:
16.  On 3 March 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding as follows:
“The judicial decision of 12 February 2004 authorised a search of the flat in Gorky Street. It follows from the [investigator’s] application for a search warrant and the judicial decision that the search was necessary because there were sufficient reasons to believe that certain objects relevant to the criminal case could be found at the advocate Mr


Prompt:
16.  On 7 April 2005 the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment identical to the Supreme Court's decision of 13 December 2002. It ruled that H. should vacate the applicant's apartment. It further held as follows:
“... the claim of


Prompt: 6.  The first and second applicants are the mother and the sister of Mr Sharpudi (also spelled as Sharpuddi and Sharpudin) Mukhtarov, who was born in 1975. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of Mr Zaurbek (also spelled as


Prompt: 20.  The plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the counter-claim, including the applicants, alleged that plot no. 726 had belonged to Salih Paşa and had been inherited by his heirs. Therefore, neither the Treasury nor other persons had a claim to it. In this connection, they stated that plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy and plot no. 726 in Maltepe had belonged to Salih Paşa and


Prompt:
9.  On 10 September 1993 judge M.M., who was at the time the President of the Zlatar Municipal Court, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney's Office considering that she had committed a criminal offence. M.M. stated in his complaint that at the beginning of July 1993 a certain Z.F.C., a lawyer employed with the insurance company C.O., had come to his office explaining the clerical error in the Municipal Court's judgment of 15 March 1993 and asking him to influence the applicant – who was working at the time as an advocate – with a view to returning the unlawfully obtained amount. After explaining the error and mentioning that it had been rectified by the Municipal Court's decision of 2 July 1993, judge M.M. stated:
“... despite the rectification of the judgment, the advocate


Prompt: 8.  On the same date the applicant complained to the duty officer that he was experiencing acute abdominal pain. At 10 p.m. an ambulance was called and he was transferred to Kharkiv City Hospital no. 17 (“hospital no. 17”). Upon admission, the applicant stated that he had fallen onto a concrete floor on 3 May 2005. His state of health had been classified as being of medium gravity. His initial medical examination revealed no visible bodily injuries. The applicant had an abdominal distention, felt moderate pain in the left part of his midabdomen and kidney region (“positive”


Prompt: 23.  On 18 January 2004 the Department of the FSB of the Republic of Ingushetia informed the second applicant that the FSB had no jurisdiction to investigate his son’s disappearance and that they had no information on


Prompt: 46.  Between 5 and 19 March 2003 the investigators questioned eight residents of Achkhoy-Martan and on unspecified dates they questioned a further twenty residents of Achkhoy-Martan, all of whom provided similar statements concerning the abduction. None of them had witnessed the abduction; all of them had found out from their fellow villagers and


Prompt: 8.  The first and second applicants were married. They were the parents of Beslan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1974, Mr Rizvan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1977, Mr Rizavdi Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1978, and Mr


Prompt: 58.  On 8 April 2004 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages. The court noted that, according to a certificate of an investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor’s Office, enclosed in the case file, on 10 March 2000 officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and servicemen of the federal forces, in the course of the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic, had apprehended Mr


Prompt: 27.  On 18 August 2003 the Shali district prosecutor instructed the investigators to establish, amongst other things, whether any law enforcement agencies or military structures had carried out a special operation against Mr


Prompt:
45.  The Report analyses a series of events, such as murders carried out under orders, the killings of well-known figures or supporters of the Kurds and deliberate acts by a group of “informants” supposedly serving the State, and concludes that there was a connection between the fight to eradicate terrorism in the region and the underground relations that formed as a result, particularly in the drug-trafficking sphere. In the Report, reference is made to the killing of the applicant's brother:
“All the relevant State bodies were aware of these activities and operations. ... When the characteristics of the individuals killed in the operations in question are examined, the difference between those Kurdish supporters who were killed in the region in which a state of emergency had been declared and those who were not lay in the financial strength the latter represented in economic terms. These factors also operated in the murder of


Prompt: 31.  Sergeant K. testified that he had entered the house and had been speaking to Mr Angelov's grandmother and another woman when he heard Major G. shouting at Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov to stop. In the house, he had noticed that a window pane in the room overlooking the yard had been broken. He had been on the verge of leaving the house when he heard shooting coming from behind the house. On his way to the yard he had met Major G., who had told him that the fugitives had been wounded.


Prompt: 80.  On 8 March 2006 L.B.-dze, with no lawyer present, was called to identify the “fourth man”, who had arrived last at the cemetery. According to the video recording of this investigative measure, among the four men in the line-up to be presented to L.B.-dze, O.M.-ov took the third position from the left. The public prosecutor then invited L.B.-dze into the room and asked him to look carefully at the four men. L.B.-dze hesitated before saying: “I can’t be 100% sure ... the man must have been bigger, but I don’t know..., I don’t recognise, let’s say, going by the face..., I could say it was the second man from the left, or the third from the left.” The public prosecutor replied: “So you do not recognise any of these four people for sure.” L.B.-dze explained that he did not “recognise anyone for sure, but the two men he had picked out looked like the assailant who had arrived last at the cemetery”. The public prosecutor then invited him to write the report, including sentences he dictated to him: “Among the four individuals presented to me, I am unable to identify anyone as the individual who on 28 January 2006 committed the unlawful acts against me and against


Prompt: 52.  Several witnesses told the Delegates that the soldiers who burned the houses had operated in groups. The Commission observed in this respect that teams made up of members of various commando units were active inside the town on the morning of 23 October. According to the commando unit commander


Prompt:
22.  At the same time, the investigator noted the statements made by P., to the effect that:
–  between noon and 1 p.m. on 9 September 2009 he and Sergey Lykov had been in the city centre when police officers approached, introduced themselves and asked him [and


Prompt:
14.  On 26 December 2006 the applicant submitted that she intended to pursue her application before the Court. She claimed that on 19 June 2006 the Administration had invited her to sign an agreement. According to the applicant, the Administration forced her to sign the agreement by saying that if she did not sign it, she would not receive the amount awarded by the judgment of 29 December 2003. The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement of 19 June 2006 signed by her and the head of the Administration. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, provides as follows:
“


Prompt: 65.  On 23 January 2006 the investigators questioned Khavazhi Aliyev’s father, Mr L.A., who stated that his son had been abducted on 16 July 2003 and then detained together with Zelimkhan Latayev and


Prompt:
36.  The Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General, Mr Z. Ziobro, stated in respect of the charge of homicide:
“Life often writes the most brutal scenarios. The facts which the service headed by Minister Kamiński [the CAB] succeeded in unveiling are truly shocking. What we are seeing here was not limited to cynical abuse of human feelings, emotions and the affection of close relatives for their loved ones who were ill, and the exploitation of those feelings. Extorting money, robbing people not only of money but also of hope‑often, even when the hope was not really there, the money was still extorted. And not only that, the evidence shows that what could happen here is more than just massive corruption and gross negligence and medical malpractice. One of the charges made by the prosecution is that of homicide in one of the cases which the Minister Kamiński referred to me. ...
Initially (...) I did not believe it. I could not get it into my mind that in the health service, in a very well known clinic, a very well known and, at least until recently, universally respected cardiac surgeon and professor could perpetrate shameful acts of this sort. But when I began to find out what evidence had been gathered by the CAB, and later also by the prosecutors, I changed my mind. I have changed my mind and, unfortunately, I am more and more overcome with sadness, but we can see this unfortunately sad discovery of the truth as an important event in the true sense of that expression, in that no-one else will ever again be deprived of life by this man (już nikt nigdy przez tego pana życia pozbawiony nie będzie). Ladies and Gentlemen, at the present moment I have one substantiated case indicating with high probability a possible homicide, and in this connection a charge based on Article 148 [intentional homicide] of the Criminal Code was made. Other cases where the circumstances of patients’ deaths are unclear are obviously also being examined. We don’t prejudge the character of those events. Ultimately, the court will decide the case; nonetheless, what we have already established and gathered as evidence at the present moment is truly shocking ...
I would like to emphasise once again, that as the Prosecutor General, the person who directly supervised this case from a certain moment, I regard very highly the professionalism of the CAB’s officers, the professionalism of the prosecutors, thanks to which we succeeded in gathering strong evidence, which is rare and which definitely shows that we were dealing with a long-lasting criminal activity. ...
If you will permit me, in respect of the charge of homicide, the [applicant’s] cynicism is demonstrated by the fact that where we can see from the evidence in our possession that a man [patient] was de facto sentenced to death, that did not prevent this gentleman [the applicant] from demanding a bribe from his close family, and as the family were poor, they had no possessions, they were farmers, he suggested that they sell their cow so as to have money purportedly to save their dear father. And how he went about saving [that patient] finds its expression in Article 148 of the Criminal Code, so I think that this example very [well] illustrates the attitude, the lofty morals of this virtuoso, as some media have called him. ...
I wanted to stress that


Prompt:
12.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. With reference to the contents of the criminal investigation file, but without providing copies of the relevant documents, the Government submitted the following:
“In the morning of 9 February 1996


Prompt: 13.  The record of the hearing on 2 November 1999 mentions that the applicant was present, which the applicant himself denies. He states that he attended his trial for the last time on 5 May 1999 and that after the adjournment of 16 June 1999 he was not notified of the date of the next hearing (2 November 1999). A notice of hearing had in fact been issued to a person who did not have authorisation (persona non abilitata) to receive notices. The Government produced a note (relata di notifica) before the Court, drawn up by a court bailiff, according to which notice of the hearing on 2 November 1999 had been served personally on 23 July 1999 on a person identifying himself as


Prompt: 52.  On 21 November 2005 the investigators requested information on Akhmed Shaipov’s arrest from all departments of the interior in the Chechen Republic. From the replies received it followed that no criminal proceedings against


Prompt: 55.  On 5 September 2002 the second applicant was granted the status of victim in connection with the proceedings in case no. 59232 and was questioned. He stated that at about 4 a.m. on 11 August 2002 unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and armed with submachine guns had entered his courtyard.


Prompt: 41.  He concluded: 25. These passages in the record suggest that, so far from being uncaring or cavalier about Mr Ebanks’ views, instructions and interests, Mr St John Stevens was careful to consult his client whenever appropriate. It would make absolutely no sense to suppose that when he had taken care in these relatively minor matters, he had simultaneously been riding roughshod over Mr Ebanks’ views as to whether he should give evidence. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to see why counsel would have deliberately flouted a desire on Mr Ebanks’ part to give evidence when the lack of any evidence from him was likely to cause potential difficulties, especially in the voir dires. In these circumstances, their Lordships are satisfied that, although counsel culpably failed to have the matter recorded at the time, they can accept the evidence of Mr McGrath and Mr


Prompt: 12.  On 13 May 1996, at about 8.00 p.m., three plain-clothed police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, who were patrolling the Alibeyköy neighbourhood in an unmarked car, approached four suspects in order to carry out an identity control and a body search. The suspects, among whom was the applicant’s brother,


Prompt: 80.  On 7 October 2005 the investigators questioned a police officer of the Shali ROVD, Mr R.I., who stated that on 1 August 2003 he had been informed by his friends that, on the road next to Shali, military servicemen had conducted a special operation, as a result of which a boy had been killed. He had immediately rushed to the scene. The area had been cordoned off by armed masked men, who had refused to answer questions. He had followed two of these men to the yard of the Bagalayev family, where he had heard children crying. The witness had rushed to the summer house, where he had found


Prompt: 16.  During her questioning as a victim in the proceedings concerning the abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev, the first applicant also described the circumstances of the disappearance of Mr


Prompt: 42.  On 23 July 2001 the judge notified the parties that the investigation was complete. In a letter of 9 August 2001 the civil parties’ lawyer asked for certain steps to be taken, namely for the persons responsible to be charged with the manslaughter of


Prompt: 162.  Mr Darbaydze explained that, under the supervision of Mr Mskhiladze, his superior, he had been responsible for various tasks in connection with the disputed extraditions. In particular, Mr Mskhiladze had asked him to visit the applicants in prison, to inform them that the issue of their extradition was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and to request explanations concerning their nationality. He had carried out this visit on 23 August 2002 with his fellow trainee, Ms


Prompt: 17.  The helicopters launched non-guided missiles and strafed the Niva car with aircraft machine-guns with the result that its back tyres were flattened. They then chased the men. One of the helicopters fired a missile at the place where


Prompt: 91.  Mr Buğdaycı was the head of the village guards in the Kocayol District at the relevant time, and resided in the Geyiksırtı hamlet of Suçıktı. This witness stated that the inhabitants of Suçıktı had left their homes in 1994 as a result of PKK coercion and intimidation, and that the applicant had chosen to move to Diyarbakır. He noted that the applicant’s land was being cultivated by two farmers from the Karaçimen village, Mr


Prompt: 10.  On 24 July 1993, the applicant’s village was subject to an armed attack by village guards supported by a helicopter gunship under the direction of the Silvan Gendarme Headquarters and gendarmes from Bayrambası. The attack started at about 17.00 hours. The applicant was at his home in Başog with his wife Nezihe, his sons Burhan and Hamit and his daughter Neşihat. They heard sounds of gunshots coming from the village and saw flames and smoke starting to rise from different parts of the village. Women and children fleeing the village ran towards the applicant’s hamlet. The applicant called to his son Burhan to take the tractor and flee, which he did. The applicant saw a number of village guards whom he knew –


Prompt:
8.  On 27 October 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted him of smuggling and sentenced him as follows:
“... the penalty in the form of three years’ imprisonment is not to be enforced and is to be considered conditional with a three years’ probationary period.
To require Mr


Prompt:
36.  On 10 November 1996 the mayor of Kayseri, Mr Şükrü Karatepe, had urged the population to renounce secularism and asked his audience to “keep their hatred alive” until the regime was changed, in the following terms:
“The dominant forces say ‘either you live as we do or we will sow discord and corruption among you’. So even Welfare Party Ministers dare not reveal their world-outlook inside their Ministries. This morning I too attended a ceremony in my official capacity. When you see me dressed up like this in all this finery, don’t think it’s because I’m a supporter of secularism. In this period when our beliefs are not respected, and indeed are blasphemed against, I have had to attend these ceremonies in spite of myself. The Prime Minister, other Ministers and MPs have certain obligations. But you have no obligations. This system must change. We have waited, we will wait a little longer. Let us see what the future has in store for us. And let Muslims keep alive the resentment, rancour and hatred they feel in their hearts.”
Mr


Prompt: 142.  Makhmud Satuyev (applicant 25) submitted copies of death certificates issued by the district civil registration office in relation to his mother and step-mother respectively. Zaluba Dakhayeva, aged 62, had died in Achkhoy-Martan on 4 February 2000 from a piercing wound to the abdomen. The death was recorded on 10 February 2000.


Prompt: 40.  On 14 February 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant's daughter, Ms L.A., who stated that at about 6 p.m. on 13 September 2000 her brother Magomed-Ali Abayev had left home with Anvar Shaipov. About five minutes later their neighbour Mr M.A. had arrived at the first applicant's home and informed the relatives that


Prompt: 116.  On 14 July 2006 MHPA responded. It advised that many of the risk assessments undertaken were not instructed in order to advise the planning authorities but in order to assess MHPA’s own operational requirements for handling LNG ships in Milford Haven. However, the assessments subsequently assisted MHPA in providing the necessary advice to the planning authorities. MHPA offered to extract relevant environmental information for the sum of approximately GBP 400. The solicitor for the applicants subsequently asked for information from two reports only, namely, a report by


Prompt: 26.  On 10 December 2009 the same investigator wrote down explanations submitted by Ms Aminat O., Sayd-Salekh’s girlfriend, who lived with him at his house. She was an eyewitness to the events of 21 October 2009. She stated that at about 2 p.m. a group of armed servicemen had arrived at their house and searched part of the household. There was an exchange of fire in the courtyard and she had asked police officers who were there to take “granny” out of the house, which they did, bringing her out through the window on a mattress. She thought that the house had been set on fire by the police officers. She had not seen