Prompt: 195.  On 30 September 2004, the second applicant’s defence filed a motion in which they asked the court to require the state prosecutors to explain the reasons for the disappearance of American Express corporate cards from the case file, to take measures to obtain those cards and to add them to the materials of the case; and to present to the court documents on the basis of which the GPO concluded that the second applicant had allegedly been the head of Status Services. On 11 October 2004, the second applicant’s defence filed a motion seeking the disclosure from the archives of the Meshchanskiy District Court the criminal case against Mr


Prompt: 30.  On 1 February 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor's office”) informed the second applicant that military servicemen of the United Group Alignment, servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the FSB agents had not detained


Prompt: 9.  On 8 February 1996 the owner of the affected property (of the servient tenement) filed an appeal before the District Court of Nicosia against both the applicant and the director, challenging the latter’s decision concerning the course and extent of the right of way granted to the applicant (appeal no. 86/96


Prompt:
18.  On 6 August 2010 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further three months. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“By the judgment of the Supreme Court ... of 16 December 2009 the first-instance judgment ... of this court of 21 April 2009 in which the accused,


Prompt: 24.  On 9 December 1998 the prosecutor heard five police officers who had arrested and/or interrogated the applicants. On 15 July 1999 the prosecutor heard another police officer who had taken part in the interrogation of


Prompt: 125.  The weapon which was used to kill Mr Adalı could not be identified. A number of spent cartridges were found at the site from which it could be established that they had been fired by a 9 mm firearm, but the make of the weapon remained unknown. Ballistic tests were carried out both in Turkey and in the “TRNC” to see if the bullets had been fired by a weapon known to the authorities, but to no avail. These tests included comparisons of sample cartridges held in the archives of the “TRNC” of all the weapons registered in the names of persons in the “TRNC”, such as the weapon belonging to Mr


Prompt:
28.  Following the filing of the indictment against the applicants in the Osijek County Court (see paragraph 11 above), on 19 December 2011 a three-judge panel of that court extended the first 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:
“There is a reasonable suspicion (and therefore the existence of the general condition for pre-trial detention) that the accused


Prompt: 109.  On 31 August 2008 Mr Magomed Ye. was detained on arrival at the airport in Nazran, Ingushetia, and shot dead in the police car. In December 2009 a court in Ingushetia found one officer of the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia guilty of causing death by negligence and gave him a suspended sentence. In August 2010 this officer was killed by unknown gunmen in Ingushetia. On 25 October 2009 another former co‑owner of the Ingushetia.ru site, Mr


Prompt: 26.  In a first statement taken on 25 February 1994 by the police from Yusuf Ekinci's assistant Güngör S.E., the latter declared that he had known Yusuf Ekinci since 1983, and that Yusuf Ekinci had dealt with compensation cases. He further stated that


Prompt: 33.  He said that on the night of 25 January he was informed by his nephew İdris Tanış that Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz had not returned from the station. For four or five days the authorities denied that they had been there. On the sixth day the commanding officer said that, as he had been out on a tour of inspection, the two men had been seen by a non-commissioned officer, Selim Gül, and had left the premises half an hour later. The witness lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor on 28 or 29 January. Subsequently he and


Prompt: 67.  On 24 June 2005 the first applicant filed a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court concerning the investigating authorities’ inaction and their failure to provide him with access to case files nos. 61121 and 61126. In his complaint, he stated that Mr


Prompt: 19.  At 5.20 p.m. on 11 June 2003 a forensic expert commenced a post-mortem examination of Umar Zabiyev's body. According to the forensic report, there were numerous gunshot wounds to the body, namely three perforating wounds to the head; one penetrating, two perforating and two non-penetrating wounds to the chest; three perforating wounds to an arm; a wound to a shoulder joint and a wound to a buttock. It was also established that


Prompt: 14.  By letter of 20 January 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that on the night of the events she had sought refuge together with the rest of the Lăcătuş family in the garden of their home. At the time, she had been two months pregnant with her younger daughter, the third applicant. She had been very scared and had remained hidden in the corn in the garden while she had witnessed the villagers burning down her home. Afterwards, according to her, both the villagers and the police officers accompanying them had started looking for her and the rest of the family but they had not managed to find them. When she had fled her home she had become separated from


Prompt: 24.  On 28 March 2001 the applicant’s family submitted to the Zavodskoy District Administration of Grozny a request to investigate his son’s disappearance, co-signed by eight of his neighbours. The neighbours described


Prompt: 25.  In the course of the court proceedings the applicant submitted several requests for the withdrawal of Mr B., stating that he did not need a lawyer at all. While the trial court made several requests to the local bar association inviting it to suggest another lawyer for the applicant, no replacement was found. The court also invited the applicant to hire a new lawyer himself, which the applicant did not do. By a letter dated 13 September 2000, the President of the Cherkasy Court informed


Prompt: 53.  The Government, who were invited by the Court to comment on these submissions by the first applicant, replied that the version concerning the possible involvement of federal servicemen or personnel of the law-enforcement agencies in


Prompt:
35.  According to the information supplied by the Government, identification of the applicant as an arms trafficker was based on the following evidence:
– the record of an interview with Mrs M. on 20 January 1995 during which she declared that


Prompt: 39.  On 9 June 2003 the republican prosecutor’s office transferred the first applicant’s complaint about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor’s office. The latter authority was instructed to verify the circumstances of


Prompt: 66.  In addition to the above investigative documents, copies of which the Government submitted to the Court, it can be seen from their memorandum of 2 October 2008 that the investigators also questioned five acting and former officers of the Malgobek prosecutor's office, all of whom denied that they had been aware of any connection between the K. family and Magomed Ye. One of these officers, quoted by the Government, stated that


Prompt: 151.  On 20 January 2003 the investigating authorities questioned Mr Boyarintsev, then an assistant to the military prosecutor at military unit no. 20102. He submitted that on 29 December 2002 the military prosecutor of the UGA had directed him to visit the second battalion. Mr


Prompt:
56.  This record was provided by security authorities to demonstrate that on 11 August 2003, six of the applicants from Cevizlidere, namely, Diyap Çılgın, Saycan Keskin, Kerem Keser, Cansa Özgül, Cemal Cila and Munzur Al, were offered construction material and monetary aid within the framework of the Government’s “Return to the Villages and Rehabilitation Project”. According to the record, the applicants refused to accept the aid and declined to put their refusal into writing by signing the record.
o)  Statement of


Prompt:
10.  By decision (определение) of 23 October 2007, the Town Court presided over by the same judge who examined the applicant's case in 2006 granted the application. It held as follows:
“[T]he method of the assessment of pension rights ... has been set out in paragraph 13 of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005... and in the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of


Prompt: 9.  The applicants are 97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the Congregation”)[2], together with Mr Vladimer Kokosadze, Ms Nino Lelashvili, Mr Alexi Khitarishvili and Ms Leila Dzhikurashvili, who are also members of the said congregation and live in Tbilisi. It appears that Mr


Prompt: 238.  On 2 May 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relative Mr A.E., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant and her husband. In addition, he stated that when he had arrived at the police station with the relatives and the head of the administration, Mr


Prompt:
6.  On 22 March 2006, following an application by a police chief and without the applicant’s knowledge, a judge of the Georgievsk Town Court of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of “operational-search measures”, which read in its entirety as follows:
“[The court], having examined a decision by the chief of the Georgievsk district police station on the taking of operational-search measures,
FOUND AS FOLLOWS:
It follows from the decision and a memorandum that ...


Prompt: 7.  By a decision of the town mayor of 18 July 1988 the property was expropriated under the Territorial and Urban Planning Act with a view to constructing a residential building. The decision stated that each of the two owners (Ms


Prompt: 27.  Meanwhile, following Olof Bruncrona’s death in May 1993, Marcus and Petter Bruncrona had declared that the Bergö-Högholm property formed part of the overall estate of the deceased for the purposes of the inventory of his possessions (perukirja, bouppteckning). Inheritance tax was levied inter alia in respect of the


Prompt: 31.  On 16 March 1994 Mrs Şen was informed of her husband’s abduction 5 minutes after its occurrence by Osman Özer, one of the café’s employees. Mr Özer told her that two strangers had been in the café for tea. They seemed tense, made a telephone call and left. Then a Doğan SLX car (registration number 34 PLT 30) stopped in front of the café, blocking the door. Of the four unknown people in the vehicle, one stayed in the driver’s seat with the engine running, another, carrying a gun and a radio, waited at the door. That man was well dressed and middle-aged. Two others, casually dressed, strong looking and with apparent special training, walked towards


Prompt: 7.  On 21 March 2001 the Head Teacher wrote to the applicant's parents to tell them that he remained excluded from school until 5 April 2001. She offered to provide extra work for the applicant and stated that if his parents so wished, they could write to


Prompt: 28.  On an unspecified date the first applicant was admitted to the proceedings as a victim and questioned. She stated that at about 9 a.m. on 25 October 2000 a group of armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms had arrived at her house in an Ural vehicle and an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) and had entered it. One of them - a heavily built man of medium height with dark complexion - had worn no beard or moustache and spoken Russian with a slight accent. The servicemen had not checked her husband’s identity papers but had ordered him to take his shirt off.


Prompt: 11.  On 15 April 2009 two of the applicant's children (Alecos Alexandrou and Yiannos Alexandrou) filed another application (no. 16/2009) with the Commission in order to obtain compensation with respect to 11 plots of land which had previously been owned by their mother and her late sister (Mrs


Prompt: 50.  On an unspecified date A.K. was questioned. He stated that at about 5.30 a.m. on 21 December 2004 police officers had entered his house and asked him to go with them to the ROVD. At first he had been put in an APC and then in an UAZ vehicle in which he had travelled with the policemen. Upon arrival to the ROVD he had been questioned and then released. Having returned home he had learned of


Prompt:
49.  On 7 October 2011 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 109 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further nine months. The relevant part of the decision reads:
 “The accused,


Prompt: 85.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the ninth applicant, who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. The men had immediately gone to the room where she and her husband had been sleeping. The men had started beating


Prompt: 7.  The applicants are relatives of Ms Aset Yakhyayeva, born in 1956, and Ms Milana Betilgiriyeva, born in 1980. The first applicant is the stepmother of Milana Betilgiriyeva and sister-in-law of Aset Yakhyayeva. The second applicant is the mother of


Prompt: 28.  On 18 February 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 1 October 2003 for the reason that the investigation was incomplete and resumed the proceedings in case no. 24376. They noted, in particular, that Mr


Prompt: 21.  On 8 February 2005 the applicant and several neighbours signed a letter to the President’s Envoy for the Southern Federal Circuit. In it they referred to their previous applications to that office, as well as to the Chechnya and Dagestan Prosecutor’s Offices and to the Gudermes ROVD. They submitted that Mr Israilov had been detained in relation to the activities of his relative who had been a member of an illegal armed group and stressed that


Prompt:
12.  On 21 March 2002 the Regional Court upheld that decision and found as follows:
“Under Article 129 § 9 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure a judge disallows an action if the action was lodged on behalf of the person concerned by a person who did not have the right to pursue the case.
As the power of attorney issued by Ms


Prompt: 30.  On 5 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that further to her request a number of enquiries concerning the security raids of 23 to 24 January 2003 had been sent to the official “power structures” (силовые структуры) of the Urus-Martan District. She was informed that


Prompt:
41.  On 9 April 2008 the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal, after refusing to join the case concerning the events of 8 December 2003 and 23 February 2004 to the new case that had been opened after the civil-party complaint of 5 February 2008, upheld the discontinuance order in a judgment that read as follows.
“...
The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:
–  On 8 December 2003 the defendant [A.Z.] is alleged to have engaged in illegal police conduct against the civil party


Prompt: 76.  On 12 December 2006 the investigators again forwarded a number of requests to various law enforcement agencies asking for assistance in carrying out investigative measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of


Prompt: 9.  On 24 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and a fine. In its judgment, the Istanbul Assize Court held that the content of the article and the publication of


Prompt: 8.  Ms Aleksandrovich was taken to the Pskov regional police station. The acting head of the station asked the senior operational officer of the property offences investigations division Mr I. to interview her. When asked about her identity, Ms


Prompt: 82.  After waiting there for some time, Mr Elçi was taken back to his office by several other officials (requiring 2 or 3 vehicles). His office was searched. All his belongings were put in sacks, including many case files, notebooks, books (except legal text books), newspapers, magazines, an address book and other documents. Amongst the case files were several involving applicants to the European Commission of Human Rights: Ahmet Özkan and others v. Turkey (No. 21689/93), Cağirge and others v. Turkey (No. 21895/93) and Ertak v. Turkey (No. 20764/92). A further application by


Prompt: 13.  More than a year after the publication of the above article, during the period from December 2006 to January 2007, a person registered under the username “Eynulla Fatullayev”, identifying himself as the applicant, made a number of postings on the publicly accessible Internet forum of a website called AzeriTriColor. The postings were made in a specific forum thread dedicated to other forum members' questions to the forum member named


Prompt: 54.  On 4 September 2001 the public prosecutor's office instructed Mr Cantarella to establish whether the two spent cartridges found at the scene (one in the jeep and the other a few metres from Carlo Giuliani's body – see paragraph 31 above) had come from the same weapon, and specifically from M.P.'s weapon. In his report of 5 December 2001 the expert concluded that there was a 90% probability that the cartridge found in the jeep had come from M.P.'s pistol, whereas there was only a 10% probability that the cartridge found close to


Prompt: 14.  The Regional Court noted that external psychiatric expert T., in his report dated 28 January 2010, had diagnosed the applicant, whom he had examined in person, with an abnormality of the sex chromosomes (so-called


Prompt:
73.  At the time of the impugned incident Infantry Private Rezvan Topaloğluları was on guard duty along with Private Harun Avşar at Haşim 8 guard post. In his statements to the authorities he mentioned, in so far as relevant, the following:
“...Today, on 13.10.1996 at around 6.45 a.m., the duty officer of the company, Non‑commissioned Officer Ali Ogdu, drove


Prompt:
68.  On 4 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that
“... as a result of the examination of the criminal case file it has been established that the case was initiated on 14 January 2003 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code in connection with the abduction at about 3 a.m. on 11 January 2003 in Proletarskoye in Grozny district of


Prompt:
24.  G.S. stated that he was a member of one of the police patrols that had been called to the scene of the incident. When he arrived S.L. told him that he had been physically assaulted by a group of people who had then run away. He maintained that he did not recognise any of the aggressors. The officer further stated:
“... I accompanied to the police station the person who had been assaulted [S.L.] and Mr D.V., who was also at the scene when the incident took place. The accompanied people had injuries on their bodies, probably caused by the stones with which they had been aggressed and their clothes had also been torn as a result of the incident. ... Subsequently, I was asked by T.I. to accompany home another person involved in the incident in order to avoid other unpleasant incidents, this person was


Prompt: 16.  On 24 February 2000 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), after having held an oral hearing, granted an appeal on points of law and fact by Mr Meischberger, issued an injunction against the applicant association prohibiting it from continuing to display the painting at exhibitions, and ordered it to pay the costs incurred by Mr


Prompt: 10.  On 11 November 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Vahdettin Budak to life, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın to twelve years and six months and


Prompt:
9.  The applicant’s article on Ms Kandić appeared in Politika on 7 September 2003. The integral translation of the impugned article, titled “The Hague Investigator”, reads as follows:
“‘Even my son blames me for protecting everybody but the Serbs’, says the director of the Fund for Humanitarian Law.
Ms


Prompt: 29.  On 15 February 2006 the applicant, still under arrest, was brought before the Court of Magistrates. He alleged that the law imposed a peremptory time-limit of twenty days for the conclusion of the committal proceedings. In the applicant’s view, this time-limit could not be extended by the Constitutional Court, as had occurred in his case. Furthermore, the applicant challenged the magistrate sitting in his case on the ground that she had already sat in the hearings preceding the constitutional proceedings. He invoked the principles laid down by the Court in


Prompt: 56.  On 6 May 2002 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that at about 12 noon on 2 May 2002 in the central square of Urus-Martan a stranger had told her that on the outskirts of the village of Goyty, in the direction of Chechen-Aul, fragments of two human bodies had been discovered. The applicant immediately had gone to the site. There she had found fragments of trousers, a black T-shirt and two pieces of the footwear her son


Prompt: 43.  In his appeal the applicant claimed that his arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of the domestic law and in violation of the Convention. He alleged that his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been violated. He contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards his conduct after he had left the meeting. He challenged, in particular, the court’s refusal to admit the photographic and video materials as evidence or to obtain the footage of the demonstration shot by the police. In addition, he complained about the manner in which the first-instance hearing had been conducted. In particular, he alleged that


Prompt: 10.  On 8 May 2006 the first applicant applied to have each conviction under Article 209 of the Criminal Code deleted from his criminal record on the grounds that Article 209 of the Criminal Code had been repealed by the Constitutional Court in the meantime. On 20 October 2006


Prompt: 9.  By indictments dated 24 March, 8 May, 17 May and 22 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court accused Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın of membership of an illegal organisation and


Prompt: 531.  In conclusion, the Investigating Judge decided to remand in custody Sabahattin Acar, Tahir Elçi and Hüsniye Ölmez under Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; to release Bakir Demırhan,


Prompt:
554.  The report denounced the murder of several members of the Diyarbakır Bar between 1993 and 1995 by unknown perpetrators. Because of the state of war prevailing in the region at that time, most of the lawyers sided with the victims of violated rights. Lawyers were unlawfully detained, tortured, arrested and prosecuted on the basis of fabricated evidence. Some of the lawyers were convicted of offences. Others' trials were still pending. The applicants' “collective case” was referred to.

b) The opinion of


Prompt: 65.  At the end of March 2002 the first applicant talked to investigator Sergey L. from the district prosecutor’s office, who was in charge of her son’s case. He told her that he could not question anyone in the military commander’s office but that he had carried out checks and established that the APCs with the said numbers belonged to the district military commander’s office and the UAZ to the VOVD. He also said that when he had tried to put some questions to a serviceman from the commander’s office he had been threatened. The same investigator later told the applicants that he had visited the VOVD personally and had not found


Prompt: 38.  On 12 February 2003 the investigators requested that the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 and the Criminal Search Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit inform them whether they had arrested or detained


Prompt: 20.  On 11 December 2012 the investigators requested that the Prigorodniy District Court grant permission to tap for thirty days the mobile telephone of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s aunt, Ms Kh.B., and that of the second applicant, as earlier on the same date the investigators had obtained operational information that the perpetrators would try to call them to discuss payment of ransom for Mr


Prompt: 53.  While being interviewed on 29 April 2006, the applicant confirmed her account of the events concerning the abduction of her husband and stated that at the end of the year 2005 a certain M.Z. had told the mother of


Prompt: 51.  On 27 and 28 April 2006 the investigators interviewed the applicant’s neighbours R.I. and Z.P.T. as witnesses. They stated that they had learnt about the abduction of the applicant’s son from the neighbours and that they had never told the applicant that


Prompt: 164.  The document that Mr Khanchukayev had refused to sign was an explanatory statement intended for the Procurator-General. It contained the applicant's assertions to the effect that he was Chechen and had been born in Grozny in 1981; had arrived in Georgia on 4 August 2002 and been arrested by the Georgian authorities; had been held for a few days in the Ministry of Security's investigation prison then transferred to Prison no. 5 in Tbilisi; and had been informed at the time of his arrest that he had been arrested for crossing the border illegally. The following sentence can be read at the bottom of this piece of paper: “The prisoner refused to sign this document and requested the assistance of a lawyer.” The document had been drawn up by Mr


Prompt: 80.  At 6 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms and black bulletproof vests broke into the applicant’s house at 26 Gvardeyskaya Street in Gekhi. They were of Slavic and Chechen appearance and spoke Russian and Chechen. The men were equipped with portable radio sets. One of them grabbed the applicant by the throat and threatened to kill her if she moved. The others forced Mr


Prompt: 11.  In a second written submission of 13 May 2008 the applicants added, inter alia, that the first applicant had previously worked with Amnesty International. Through this work he had come into contact with the journalist


Prompt: 89.  In 2001 an examination was carried out into the authenticity of the documents allegedly signed by Kasım Açık. In this connection, the arrest and body search protocols and the documents containing


Prompt: 46.  The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Mr Sharani Askharov and Mr A. S. The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent State agencies on 2 and 11 November 2001, 30 April and 22 December 2003, and 23 December 2004. However, it was not established that servicemen had been involved in the offence. Neither Mr


Prompt: 49.  In 2003, Mr Szewczyk – a Polish lawyer retained by the first applicant (Mr Janowiec) and by the mother of the second applicant (Mr Trybowski) – applied to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation with a request to be provided with documents concerning Mr


Prompt: 32.  On 11 September 2001 the second applicant submitted a complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. In it she outlined the circumstances of her sons’ detention and mentioned that in June 2001 she had seen a list of persons who had allegedly been detained at the Khankala military base and that the name of


Prompt:
40.  Lastly, there is evidence that on 15 January 2007 the French Central Authority sent a letter to counsel for the first applicant, beginning as follows:
“Dear Madam,
I have been informed by my counterpart in the United States that Mr Washington does not accept the offer of mediation that was made to him, since he cannot be certain of the mother's intentions, and this perhaps explains why you decided, at the same time as he was approached about a friendly settlement, to reactivate the criminal proceedings, of which I have been informed by the public prosecutor of Aix-en-Provence.
The terms of the US judgment being unequivocal, it seems pointless to bring any proceedings in the United States with a view to extending the contact between Charlotte and her mother before securing a change in the French decision concerning parental authority.
It is up to your client to lodge an application for that purpose with the family-affairs judge. The French Central Authority is quite prepared to confer once again with the US Central Authority in order to ascertain what assistance could be provided to Ms


Prompt: 106.  On 13 September 1994 the Bismil public prosecutor informed the Bismil gendarmerie command that, about ten days before 29 August 1994, Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted by two unknown persons – aged 25 or 26, speaking with a western Anatolian accent and one of them wearing glasses – who had come in a gunmetal Renault TX-model taxi without licence plates. The public prosecutor instructed the gendarmerie to carry out an investigation into the persons who had abducted


Prompt:
16.  On 2 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into Mamed Bagalayev’s killing under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder). The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“... at about 6.10 p.m. on 1 August 2003 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, accompanied by an APC and a GAZ-53 vehicle, opened fire at random at the houses located on Kutuzova Street in Shali.
As a result,


Prompt: 20.  On 7 April 2008 the trial started. Given the high number of accused, the trial court decided to hold hearings outside the court building. After taking oral evidence from the applicants, on 15 April 2008 the trial court accepted the proposal of the public prosecutor and replaced the order for prison custody with an order for house arrest in respect of all remaining applicants, except Mr


Prompt: 13.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the fact that the offences had been committed in an organised criminal group. They further stressed that the applicant, if released, could easily abscond, having access to forged identity documents and being in contact with criminal groups abroad. In this respect the courts stressed that in the initial stage of the investigation the applicant had used a false identity and appeared under the name of


Prompt: 10.  On 15 April 1999 post-mortem examinations were carried out on the deceased in the Turhal gendarmerie command's yard by a medical expert, in the presence of the Turhal public prosecutor. According to the expert's report,


Prompt: 42.  Between 18 and 20 May 2006 the investigators interviewed two residents of Ken-Yurt, as well as R.G. and A.D., the applicants’ relatives who had been present at the time of Beslan Baysultanov’s abduction. The former stated that they had learnt about the kidnapping of


Prompt: 38.  On 23 November 2016 the OCSAO requested that the police in Sisak carry out interviews with one F.K., who possibly had information about the men who had killed Milan Zdjelar; to interview B.J., A.A., N.S., G.G. and M.T., members of the “Tigers” brigade who had been in Crni Potok during Operation Storm, about their whereabouts during the operation; to locate three commanders of the Croatian Army unit whose members had allegedly buried


Prompt:
38.  By a letter of 11 July 2001 the presiding judge informed the applicant, his lawyer and I.K. that their requests for leave to marry in the remand centre had been refused. The letter read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The Kraków-Śródmieście District Court Second Criminal Division hereby informs you that the application for leave to contract a marriage in prison made by the accused


Prompt: 231.  On 4 August 1998 Police Superintendent Ronald Groenewegen of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police drew up a record describing the events which he himself had witnessed. On the evening of 19 July 1998 Superintendent


Prompt: 55.  As to the non-extradited applicants, Mr Margoshvili has been free since his acquittal on 8 April 2003 (see paragraph 94 below); Mr Gelogayev was released following a judgment of 6 February 2004 (see paragraph 99 below); Mr


Prompt: 30.  On 14 January 2011 the applicant submitted his application for permission to apply for judicial review, in which he challenged his continuing detention on the grounds that it was contrary to the Secretary of State’s published policy on the detention of persons suffering from serious mental illness (“the mental health concession”); that it was contrary to the Secretary of State’s published policy on the detention of persons who had been victims of torture (“the torture concession”); and that it was contrary to the principles set down in R v. Durham Prison Governor ex parte


Prompt: 40.  In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Vetin A., a business man and a hometown friend of Yusuf Ekinci, the witness declared that he used to see Yusuf Ekinci quite often and that the latter's brothers were involved in politics. He confirmed that


Prompt: 25.  On 13 March 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District (прокуратура Грозненского района) instituted a criminal investigation under Article 105 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code of Russia (murder of two or more persons) in respect of the disappearance of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi, including Mr


Prompt: 13.  In the spring of 1996 Mr Örn Clausen, husband of Mrs Justice Guðrún Erlendsdóttir, had sought a solution to certain financial problems arising from the inability of a debtor, Mr Edvard Lövdal, to pay certain debts with respect to which Mr


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


Prompt:
23.  The registrar of the police station provided a copy of a stamped FIR 65/2007 in Urdu. It was translated as follows:
“16.  FIR no. 65/2007 was the first information report regarding a crime and included a signed statement by the person reporting it to the police. The report was issued at the Gulshan Iqbal police station, district Gulshan Iqbal Town. The person reporting to the police, Mr.


Prompt: 24.  On 3 November 2009 the head of the Sunzhenskiy district investigative division of the prosecutor’s office of the Ingushetiya Republic quashed the decision of 1 November 2009 and re-opened the criminal investigation. In particular, he stated that the investigator had failed to verify the circumstances of


Prompt:
23.  On 6 June 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation made enquiries with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the issue of the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan. On 21 June 2012 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied as follows:
“... the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no information which prevents the extradition of the Kyrgyz national


Prompt: 110.  On 1 December 2010 investigators conducted a witness confrontation between the applicant and Shali ROVD officer I.K. The latter confirmed that on 4 August 2009 he had gone to the applicant’s house along with other police officers, and had inquired which of the three Askhabov brothers was


Prompt: 129.  On 28 July 2009 Mr M. was questioned again. He gave some new details concerning his brother's disappearance. He submitted in particular that on 8 January 2000 the 15th regiment of the internal troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior had been on duty at the Chernorechye checkpoint. In the spring of 2001 Mr M. had found out that between April and July 2000 his brother had been detained in cell no. 161 of the remand prison at 56 Zhelyabova Street in Voronezh. His inmate, Mr To., had told Mr M. that


Prompt: 48.  On 11 November 1994 the chief of the Elbistan Police Headquarters sent a letter to the chief of the Kahramanmaraş Police Headquarters in which he wrote that he had questioned a number of persons who owned shops on Malatya Street where


Prompt: 31.  He had also complained to the Prosecutor General's Office, but his letter had not, according to him, reached the addressee, having been stopped by the prison authorities. He said that the Prosecutor General had visited the prison in mid-September 1999, but the applicant was not aware of the results of the visit. The Prosecutor General, accompanied by Colonel


Prompt: 6.  The applicant adheres to a firmly held belief in the inoffensiveness of the human body. This has in turn given rise to a belief in social nudity, which he expresses by being naked in public. In 2003 he decided to walk naked from Land’s End in England to


Prompt: 60.  It was possible to appeal against the commission’s decision. Where a report on the incident had been filed by a staff member no higher in rank than a deputy governor, the prison governor could quash the penalty. Where the report had been filed by the governor himself, the detainee could appeal to the director of the Prison Department. From there an appeal lay to


Prompt: 8.  On 12 May 2001 the applicant’s son Isa Kaplanov, born in 1965, his wife, Melina Mezhidova, the applicant’s son-in-law, Ruslan Sadulayev, born in 1962, her daughter Lidia Kaplanova and their neighbour


Prompt:
37.  On 17 December 2007 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found the applicant guilty of contumacy towards the police under Chapter 16, section 4(1), of the Penal Code but did not impose any penalty on him.
The applicant stated before the District Court that he had heard the orders to disperse at around 8.30 p.m. but had understood them as applying only to the demonstrators. The court found it established that the police actions had been legal and that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them. It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not said or indicated to a police officer standing nearby at the time of the apprehension that he was a journalist. According to this police officer, this fact only became known to him when the magazine relating the events at the demonstration came out. It appeared also from the witness statement of another journalist that he and a third photographer, who had been in the sealed-off area, had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was apprehended. This last remaining journalist stated that he had taken his last photograph at 9.15 p.m. and left the area just two to three minutes before the applicant’s apprehension took place. The District Court found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had manifestly applied to everyone in the crowd, which consisted of demonstrators as well as bystanders and other members of the public.
Moreover, the District Court examined the justification of the interference of the applicant’s right under Article 10 of the Convention in the following manner.
“...
It is disputed whether Mr


Prompt:
114.  At 12.15 p.m. on 1 June 2005 the investigators of the town prosecutor’s office arrested the second applicant. The reasons for his detention were stated in the arrest report as follows:
“... witnesses directly identified


Prompt: 27.  Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, to the judgments in Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece (9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B) and


Prompt:
17.  On 2 March 2008 another criminal case was instituted, no. 62202608, under Article 225 § 3 and Article 235 § 2 of the CC (see paragraphs 96 and 98 below), in connection with the above-mentioned events. The decision stated:
“[Mr


Prompt: 92.  On 25 July 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the seventh applicant that the investigation in criminal case no. 63013 had carried out a number of investigative measures. It had forwarded queries concerning


Prompt: 193.  On 28 February 2003 the nineteenth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. In her statement about the detention of her son Sharpudi Visaitov she recounted that soon after 3 a.m. on 22 December 2001 a group of seven to eight armed persons had entered their house, while about a dozen more remained in the courtyard. They were armed with automatic weapons and instructed the inhabitants to remain calm because it was a passport check. They checked the documents and looked around the house before leaving, taking


Prompt: 33.  In a letter of 1 November 2000 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 (военная прокуратура – войсковая часть 20102) informed the first applicant that a suspect in the blowing-up of the APC had been found in their house, and that her sons had been detained for an identity check in this connection. The letter confirmed that after being apprehended Ali and


Prompt: 179.  Officer Bultstra considered it unlikely that Mr Chitanie could have parked his car and walked back to the place from which he claimed to have witnessed the events in such a short time. Officer Bultstra himself had needed up to ten seconds to run the fifty metres from where the police car had been parked to


Prompt: 17.  The applicant appealed, claiming that the District Court had failed to take the necessary measures to identify and question his cellmates; it had groundlessly disregarded the statements of D. and O., who had been detained in the ITT during the same period, whose direct experience was relevant to the facts of the case. In particular, witness D. was held in the same cells, though on different days during the period under examination, and her submissions concerning the physical conditions of detention were identical to those of the applicant. The court had not inspected the premises of the ITT. The applicant further emphasised that the practice of strip-searches was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He referred to the Court’s judgments in the cases of Iwańczuk v. Poland, (no. 25196/94, 15 November 2001) and


Prompt: 20.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained to the head of the Federal Migration Service’s Office in Kulary, Mr I., about the abduction of their relatives. Mr I. informed them that Mr


Prompt: 12.  The applicants were permitted to live in Van pending the asylum proceedings and were allowed to leave the city boundaries subject to specific permission. In this connection one of the applicants (


Prompt: 23.  In support of their statements the applicants submitted: an account by the first applicant (undated); an account by Mr Israil M. dated 12 November 2003; an account by Mr Islam A. dated 14 November 2003; an account by Mr


Prompt: 14.  On 26 November 2007 the same Justice of the Peace considered the administrative charges against the second applicant. He applied for six witnesses to be called and examined, including five police officers and one defence witness.


Prompt: 47.  On 23 April 2001 the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office provided the applicant with a progress report in criminal investigation no. 12048. The note stated that on 10 May 2000 the Office had opened a criminal investigation under Article 126, part 1 of the Criminal Code. The investigation was based on the detention of


Prompt: 132.  On 14 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office took over the investigation in case no. 40007. He ordered the investigation to take the following steps: to draw up an investigation plan; to question eyewitnesses and


Prompt: 78.  Still on 22 June 2007 the first applicant was confronted with police officer G. (see paragraph 26 above), who stated that on 7 July 2006, following the police officers’ arrival at the scene of the events, the first applicant had explained to them that as soon as Mr


Prompt: 19.  The Government in their observations did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 17 December 2002 unidentified armed men wearing masks had entered the applicants’ house at 12 Rechnaya Street and taken away


Prompt: 12.  Subsequently, and in connection with the above interview, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Mr Michał Plisecki by the local Bar Council. On 24 June 1995 the High Disciplinary Court (Wyższy Sąd Dyscyplinarny) found that Mr


Prompt: 28.  The Prosecutor General’s Office established that at about 1 a.m. on 8 June 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns had entered the house at 84 Pervomayskaya Street, Urus-Martan, and kidnapped Muslim Nenkayev and


Prompt:
49.  On 6 July 2006 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2027(INI), doc. P6_TA(2006)0316), which stated, inter alia:
“19.  [The European Parliament] condemns the abduction by the CIA of the German national,


Prompt: 48.  On 28 May 2006 the investigators instructed the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic’s Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (hereinafter “the UBOP”) and a number of local police offices in Chechnya to take steps to identify possible witnesses to the abduction of


Prompt: 45.  On 15 February 2002 the International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the public prosecutor’s office in Bismil, requesting the latter to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of


Prompt:
30.  On 13 January 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal, upholding the decision of the Osijek County Court. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The impugned conduct of both accused, which includes ill-treatment and other extreme forms of inhumane treatment of civilians, and in the case of the accused


Prompt: 20.  In February 2003 Mr Mayrbek Kh. arrived at the mosque of the Raduzhnoye village. He told a number of local residents gathered there that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev had been detained in the FSB building. One of the local residents, Mr


Prompt: 5.  The applicants, Mr Nizamudin Aliyev (“the first applicant”) and Ms Madina Gadzhiyeva (“the second applicant”), live in Makhachkala, Dagestan. They were born in 1960 and 1987 respectively. The first applicant is the father of Mr


Prompt:
139.  The judgment continued as follows:
“[The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] claimed that the evidence gathered by the prosecution against them had been false. As an example, they referred to the testimony of [R.N.] who had participated, as an attesting witness, in the inspection of the scene of the events [of the previous night] from 10 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 24 January 2013, and had later testified that at around 5 p.m. on the same day he had seen [the applicant and


Prompt: 11.  From the date of its creation in April 1989 to December 1999 the Parishioners' Assembly membership varied from about 20 to 27 members. In the course of this period the Parishioners' Assembly was actively involved in making important decisions as to the management and administration of the religious association (appointment of Chairman, treasurer, supervisory board, approval of appointment of a priest, approval of the statutes of affiliates, missions and brotherhoods of the church, important financial and logistical matters and issues related to construction of a new church, etc.). Throughout this period


Prompt: 14.  In 1995 Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol made a will in which he left 300,506 euros (EUR) to his son, Antoni (the first applicant), and EUR 180,303 to his daughter. He named his wife, Roser (the second applicant), sole heir to the remainder of his estate. In a codicil of 3 July 1995,


Prompt:
62.  On 26 April 2010 the Investigative Committee dismissed this complaint. The decision stated, in particular:
“...In the course of the investigation it has been established that on 28 June 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted by unidentified persons in an unestablished place and then taken with shotgun wounds to Achkhoy-Martan ... Hospital where he underwent treatment for ten days and was then taken away by unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniform. So far his whereabouts have not been established.
In breach of [an applicable] instruction, the medical staff of [Achkhoy-Martan Hospital] did not inform the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD about the admittance of Mr


Prompt:
22.  On 23 March 1994 the Supreme Court reversed the first-instance judgment, ruling as follows:
“... [the applicant] has to accept that ... Dušan Slobodník will distribute, if he thinks fit, to the Press Agency of the Slovak Republic as well as to five newspapers of his choice, both in Slovakia and abroad, the following declaration to be published at [the applicant’s] expense:
  ‘(1)  [The applicant’s] statement addressed to [the Public Information Service] and published in daily newspapers on 30 July 1992 which reads: “...This year Mr Slobodník became the Slovak Republic’s Minister for Culture and Education and the next thing was that his fascist past came out in public ... Does Mr Slobodník think that Slovakia is some special exception and that it is the only country having the right to revise the philosophy of the Nuremberg trials, which is binding on the post-war development of all other European countries? ...”
  (2)  The occasional poem ... entitled “Good night, my beloved” in its part “... In Bratislava the prosecutor rules again. And rule by one party is above the law. A member of the SS and a member of the ŠTB embraced each other ...”
  ... represent a gross slander and disparagement of the civil honour and life, and an unjustified interference with the personality of the plaintiff


Prompt: 36.  As regards the inconsistency in the witnesses’ statements, the Regional Court stated that witness “Jana Charvátová” had recognised the applicant from the photographs as the person from whom she had bought heroin, but had not known his name. She had described a drug dealer whom she had known by the name “Hasan” and who had not corresponded to the description of the applicant. The court held that the testimony given by witness


Prompt: 11.  On 21 December 1999 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against ten persons, including the applicants. The public prosecutor charged Ms Zehra Delikurt with membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants with aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation, under Articles 168 and 169 of the former Criminal Code respectively. The public prosecutor alleged that Ms


Prompt: 26.  On 10 February 2000 there came a group of men in uniform, who said they had come from the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office. They inspected the bodies still lying at house no. 112, filled in some papers and collected evidence. The first applicant gave them two automatic-rifle bullets extracted from the bodies of


Prompt: 44.  On 20 November 2006 the first applicant complained to the Prosecutor General and the Chief Military Prosecutor that after the referral of the investigation to the military prosecutor’s office he had been literally “cut off” from information on the progress and the results of the investigation into the killing of


Prompt:
30.  The applicant was the mother of Sarbest Abdulkadir Izat and the wife of Abdulkadir Izat Khan (Hassan), who was allegedly killed under torture by members of the Turkish army between the 2 and 3 April 1995. She claimed the following:
“From our village we could see the army down in the valley on the day before the incident in which my husband was killed.
On the morning of 2 April 1995 I went with my husband and son to herd sheep. We met with the other women and men and set off in the direction of Spna. We went with the men because the men thought that if we were with them there would not be any trouble. We walked ahead of the men. There were seven men and four women in the group. The Turkish soldiers stopped us. They hit us and beat us with their rifle butts and humiliated us. I was frightened for my life. The soldiers told us to go back and they took our shepherds away with them. We ran back to the village and told the men in the village what had happened.
We went back to the valley and spent the rest of the day looking for our shepherds. Some men went to the Turkish soldiers to ask them to let our shepherds go. Then some men went to Anshki and asked a high-ranking Turkish army officer to release our shepherds and to let us bring the sheep back. The men went many times that day to get information about our shepherds. Party (KDP) representatives also went to the Turkish army officers many times, but nothing happened.
The next day the bodies of my husband and son were found with terrible things done to them. They were found in the cave. The bodies of three other shepherds were found with them. The other two shepherds' bodies were found a few days later.
It was a terrible thing that was done to our shepherds. My husband and son did not do anything wrong. I do not know why they did this to him and the others. Please help us. We have nothing left.”
(e)


Prompt: 12.  Meanwhile, several armed men entered the house where the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were sleeping. The armed men were speaking Russian. They checked Musa Ilyasov's identity papers and seized them. One of them said to another: “This is not the man. This is


Prompt:
36.  On 5 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“According to the indictment, there is a reasonable suspicion that ... the third defendant, Vedran Bernobić, committed the criminal offence contained in Article 173 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, by which the general statutory requirement for ordering detention under Article 102 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been satisfied.
...
The factual background of point 3 of the indictment alleges that in the period between July and September 2008 the defendant,


Prompt:
9.  The prosecution relied on the following passages of the book:
“...Sürü (Herd)[1] depicts Kürdistan. In Yol (Road)[2] there was even a street sign showing that the film is about Kürdistan. This scene in particular was sufficient to make the Turkish fascists go mad...”
“...in the meantime the revolutionary movement evolved in the country and national conscience awakened in Northern Kürdistan...”
“...


Prompt:
30.  The Dubrovnik County Court complied with that order and on 6 April 2009 a three-judge panel of that court, presided over by Judge Z.Č., extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The fact that the defendant


Prompt: 8.  In December 1999 the applicant’s mother and her sisters Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva moved from their flat to the basement under the pavilion situated in the courtyard of their block of flats. On 1 January 2000, owing to the intensity of a fire, Shema and


Prompt: 28.  On 20 May 2002 the applicant complained to the head of the ROVD. She described the circumstances of her son’s abduction, complained that her requests to the State authorities had not produced any results and asked for assistance in the search for


Prompt:
20.  On 23 July 1995 the applicant went on his own to be examined by another doctor. The subsequent medical report dated 15 August 1995 read as follows (translation):
“Report:
Talat Tepe, born 1961 in Mutki Bitlis, was taken into custody in Istanbul on 9 July 1995 and was held in custody for a total of twelve days; ten days in Istanbul and two days in Bitlis. During his detention in Istanbul, he was subjected to duress, such as not having access to means of communication and not being allowed to receive visitors despite his requests.
In Bitlis, he was subjected to physical and psychological torture for almost 40 hours. He was interrogated while he was completely naked. He was held in a cold and dirty cell which had a stone floor. His access to the toilet and sanitary materials were restricted. He was subjected to offensive language and behaviour. He was threatened with death. He endured psychological pressure which led to desperation and destroyed his self-confidence (he was repeatedly told that he would be put on trial and subsequently be sentenced to death; he would be killed even if he was released, etc.). He was beaten up four to five times during this interrogation. As a result of moving cables around his body, he was subjected to electric shocks six times in succession, mainly on his legs and feet. He was hosed down with cold water. His testicles were squeezed. He was basically subjected to a kind of torture which endangers the victim's life and causes extreme pain, but does not always leave marks on the body.
While in Istanbul he had to pay for his food. During the 40 hours of detention in Bitlis, he was unable to eat the food given to him since he was exhausted as a result of the torture. He was not supplied with water and he was told that drinking water after being subjected to torture would be dangerous for his health.
Before being released he was taken to the Bitlis State Hospital, where a medical report was issued, revealing that he was in good health. This report was prepared in the absence of a proper physical examination. On 23 July 1995 the torture victim had pain in his shoulders and back. He was suffering from weariness and violent headaches. He was going through the interrogation all over again in his dreams. During his sleep he needed to go to the toilet frequently, and he was often going through the whole interrogation procedure in his dreams. The weariness and the dizziness of the victim were easily observed during the first examination.
The results of blood and urine tests were normal. As a result of the neurological consultation, his neck movements were observed to be painful, and hypoesthesia and hypoalgesia were found in his left C5 dermatome. In the cervical BT examination no medullar and spinal chord compression was discovered. It was considered that the applicant's complaints were due to the trauma applied to the cervical region. He is provided with an anti-inflammatory treatment and he is under surveillance.
As a result of the psychiatric consultation, traumatic experience related insomnia was discovered. It was stated that he did not need psychotherapy.
Considering his state of health, it would be appropriate for him to rest for 7 (seven) days.
15 August 1995
Dr


Prompt: 63.  On 18 November 2009 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who added to her previous statement that after the abduction, on 5 and 6 August 2009, when she and her family had been waiting at the gates to the ROVD, she had seen a group of police officers leaving the premises. She asked one of them, who introduced himself by his surname, ‘Grachyov’, about her son. He told her that


Prompt: 47.  In the Government’s submission, on 14 April 2005 criminal proceedings were brought under Article 162 (3) of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated robbery) in connection with the fact that on 11 February 2003 the men who had abducted


Prompt: 158.  The applicants were thus informed that three criminal investigation files had been opened by the district prosecutor’s office in respect of the kidnappings of their relatives: file no. 61068 opened on 25 March 2002 in respect of


Prompt: 52.  On 13 March 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court declared the decision dispensing with criminal proceedings unlawful. It found that the inquiry had failed to address the reasons for the diagnosis having been established so late despite


Prompt: 17.  Two or three days before 25 October 2002 Ms Yu., an inhabitant of Urus-Martan, had visited the applicants and told them that Russian law enforcement agencies had been told that their son was participating in illegal armed groups and had been planning to detain him. Ms Yu. had said that she would prevent


Prompt:
11.  On 5 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala issued a writ of execution, which quoted the ruling of the judgment of 12 August 2008 as follows:
“[The court decided that] the place of residence of child Khanamirov


Prompt: 65.  This reported that, following a joint operation between 8 and 12 August 1993 by the Ergani Commando Battalion, the Silvan commando unit and the signatories’ gendarme station, the perpetrators of the murders of Seve Nibak and


Prompt: 186.  In view of the rumours concerning Mr Aziev's death, Mr Gabrichidze had telephoned his Russian colleagues; Mr Fridinskiy had assured him that the prisoner in question was alive and in good health. He had subsequently called Mr Fridinskiy on a regular basis; the latter had kept him abreast of progress in the proceedings and had gone so far as to provide very detailed information. This had led Mr


Prompt: 128.  On 18 November 2009 the investigation was resumed and the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. The investigator sent requests to various law-enforcement agencies asking them to provide information about


Prompt: 61.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned a police officer, N.M., who stated that in the spring of 2003 he had worked as the district police officer in the settlement of Podebinskoye in the Grozny district. About two months prior to that, in the winter of 2003, Aslan and


Prompt: 8.  The domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims (see dates of the judgments and sums awarded in the appended table). The judgments were not appealed against in cassation and became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the appended table. However, only one of these judgments was enforced (the judgment of 13 May 2003 in favour of


Prompt: 12.  The complaints set out in the present applications reflect the circumstances described above (see paragraph 11). In particular, the applicants have alleged that their title to the property (building and appurtenant land) had been acknowledged by the domestic courts; however, owing to the sale of the property by the State, the applicants were prevented from enjoying their respective right. They claimed that this deprivation, together with the total lack of compensation for it, had imposed on them an excessive and disproportionate burden. 1.  Facts concerning application no. 10346/03, lodged by Ms


Prompt: 14.  In his testimony given at the applicant’s trial lieutenant R. relayed that around 12 noon he had come to the detention room and had found the applicant squatting on the floor. The applicant had told him that she “[had been] killed, [that] her waist [had been] broken ... that she [had been] beaten”. He had not seen any blood or visible traces of injury on the applicant but she had told him that her nose and mouth had been injured. The lieutenant had helped her sit on a chair. He had presented her a procès‑verbal establishing the fact that the previous evening the applicant had beaten Mrs T. and had asked her to sign it. The applicant had written “I am not guilty” and had signed.


Prompt: 58.  The Commission noted that no investigation was lodged into allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the security forces until the present application was referred to the respondent Government, despite the fact that a number of Government witnesses told the Delegates that, not long after the incident, they had become aware of the existence of allegations that houses had been burned deliberately by security forces. Police chief constable


Prompt: 6.  The background facts relating to the planning, conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square are set out in more detail in Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, 5 January 2016), and


Prompt:
51.  On 21 April 2000 the Kyiv City Court, composed of three judges, rejected the applicant association's claims, finding that the decision of 21 January 2000 was lawful (see paragraph 42 above). In particular it found that the Parishioners' Assembly composed of 27 members did not represent the entire religious community, that the documents submitted for registration had not been signed by the authorised persons (the prior and the chairman of the Parishioners' Assembly) and that the members of the Parishioners' Assembly of 24 December 1999 no longer belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate, as this minority group had chosen a different denomination. The court concluded that the applicant association was not able to prove that the decision of the Kyiv City State Administration was unlawful.
The Kyiv City Court held in particular:
“...the refusal of the Kyiv City State Administration to register the amendments to the statute was based on the fact that they had been adopted contrary to the statute and would infringe believers' rights.
The judicial division holds that the decision [of the Kyiv City State Administration] corresponds to the actual circumstances of the case, and reflects the rights of both religious communities, and the statute of the Parish ... and the Law 'on consciousness and religious organisations'.
... In accordance with Articles 6.1.and 6.2 of the statute ... decisions with regard to changes and amendments to the statute must be proposed by the Parishioners' Council and adopted by the Parishioners' Assembly ...
... As can be seen from the minutes of the meeting of the Parishioners' Assembly of 24 December 1999 the religious community of the Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parish adopted changes and amendments to the statute of the religious community belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [Moscow Patriarchate], but was already affiliated to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate.
... such a method of making changes and amendments to the statute contravenes the Law and Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the statute and undoubtedly infringes the rights of the religious community belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [Moscow Patriarchate] which adopted this statute. Changes to the statute could only be adopted by the Parishioners' Assembly of this community.
It can be seen that the complaint was lodged by Mr


Prompt:
131.  The relevant parts of that decision read:
“The Osijek Municipal Court ... decided: 18. Ivo Kovačić (I-Ovr-186/02 and I-Ovr-128/02), represented by the attorney Milivoje Žugić from Zagreb, the amount of HRK 15,742.62 [EUR 2,156.50] payable into the attorney


Prompt: 61.  The bench of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division dealing with the appeals was composed of three ordinary councillors (Staatsraden) of the Council of State, namely Mr J. de Vries (President), Mr R. Cleton and Mr


Prompt: 50.  On 24 February 2005 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) informed the first applicant that they had instructed the Vedeno ROVD to activate their operational-search measures to solve the abduction of


Prompt: 12.  In observations of 16 September 2010, the Government also submitted that the operation carried out on 31 October 2009 by the law‑enforcement authorities was also called “operational-search activities” (оперативно-розыскные мероприятия). In conducting them, they had blocked Mr A.Kh., a member of illegal armed groups, into 7 Second Darvina Lane and had “eliminated” him. Ms


Prompt: 107.  On 24 May 1994 the applicant was told that the soldiers, who had been around the hamlet and acting on orders of their commander, had taken the Orhans to Ziyaret Tepe. He saw the soldiers taking the Orhans away as did other villagers. On the same day he learned that the soldiers had moved on to Gümüşsuyu hamlet of Emalı village. After dark, he went to Gümüşsuyu and asked


Prompt: 112.  As to the function of the two jeeps, Mr Lauro explained that they had brought fresh supplies at around 4 p.m. and had left and then returned about an hour later to see if anyone was injured. Mr Lauro also said that he had called an ambulance for


Prompt: 47. The Government submitted that the investigation of the abduction of the applicants' relatives had commenced on 29 September 2003 upon receipt on 22 September 2003 of a complaint by the applicants' relative Mr I.M. about the abduction of Aslan and


Prompt: 14.  According to written statements by Zh.E., M.G., Z.M. and R.B., dated 20 December 2004 and furnished by the applicant, those persons submitted that on 2 October 2004 they had seen Timur Beksultanov get inside a vehicle together with a man who introduced himself as I.M., an OMON officer. I.M. had picked up


Prompt: 70.  According to the information from the Prosecutor General’s office, the investigative authorities undertook, inter alia, the following measures: on 12 February 2003 they had examined the place where the remains were discovered and, as a result, had collected portions of the clothing and two metal objects for analysis. On 4 March 2003 ballistics analysis had established that one of these metal objects was a shell splinter and that the other was not part of an explosive device. According to the forensic expert evaluation of


Prompt: 32.  At some point in October 2001 an investigator from the ROVD visited the applicant’s home and informed her that a search for her son had commenced on 10 October 2001. Then the investigator questioned the applicant, her daughter-in-law and one of the neighbours. According to the applicant, the questions related mostly to


Prompt: 24.  During late 2012 and January 2013, a peace process known as the “solution process” had been initiated with a view to finding a lasting, peaceful solution to the “Kurdish question”. A series of reforms aimed at improving human rights protection were implemented. A delegation of members of parliament, including the applicant, went to İmralı island, where


Prompt: 19.  From the Government’s submission concerning the official investigation into the events, it transpires that during a passport check on 27 May 2002, federal servicemen killed Mr A. Saltamirzayev. In addition, on 4 June 2002 a resident of Mesker-Yurt, Mr


Prompt:
50.  In its appeal decision the court addressed the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending the first-instance trial and considered that there had been no breach:
“... after the report on the administrative offence had been drawn up, the information necessary for establishing the circumstances of the committed offence was collected, including the explanations of [X and Y], the notice of the place of the public demonstration of 31 December 2010, the [mayor’s] reply to that notice, as well as the personal characteristics of the person in relation to whom the administrative offence report had been drawn up. A ruling was made by


Prompt: 15.  In the course of 2010 the first applicant pursued an anti‑corruption campaign and published a number of articles and documents exposing high ranking officials’ involvement in large-scale fraud. In particular, on 16 November 2010 he published an article claiming that at least four billion US dollars of State funds had been misappropriated during the construction of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline. In the article, he referred to a 2007 audit report and suggested that the President,


Prompt:
17.  On the same day the investigating judge issued a secret surveillance order with the following statement of reasons:
“By orders under the above number secret surveillance was ordered in respect of


Prompt: 46.  On 5 September 2011, after his release from Jilava Prison on 23 August 2011, the applicant asked the DGSACP for permission to visit his son on a regular basis. The authorities granted his request. According to the most recent information provided by the Government on 24 January 2013, the applicant had been able to visit his son regularly, usually once every fortnight, at the DGSACP’s premises. Visits had taken place on 9 September, 23 September, 7 October, 21 October and 2 November 2011, when, according to the minutes drafted by the authorities, the applicant had showed a lot of love and affection to his son, who also enjoyed getting to see his father. The DGSACP informed


Prompt: 9.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's son and husband were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested the Government to produce copies of the entire investigation files opened in relation to the abduction of


Prompt: 8.  It would appear from the case file that the salient fact in the domestic proceedings was the applicant’s association with the mujahedin in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BH”)[1]. The term mujahedin has been widely used to refer to foreigners – mainly from the Arab world – who came to BH during the war in support of Bosnian Muslims[2]. However, the same term has been used to describe local Muslims who joined the foreign mujahedin, endorsed their ideology and adjusted to their way of dressing. The phenomenon has been explained by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in


Prompt: 16.  On 28 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (“the district prosecutor’s office”) sent the first applicant a progress report on the investigation in case no. 40086. According to the report, the investigative authorities had sent requests concerning the fate of


Prompt:
130.  This note stated that the “TRNC” Attorney-General did not intend to hand over to the police of the Republic of Cyprus the three suspects that were detained in the “TRNC” for the murders, relying on the 1960 Constitution. The “TRNC” Attorney-General had notified UNFICYP of this. An attached memo by UNFICYP stated as follows:
“I have seen the [Attorney-General]. Mr A.S. with regard to the inquiries [made in respect of] and the prosecution of the culprits in respect of the


Prompt: 41.  On 31 March 1995 the applicant's daughter, Astrid Nowicka, filed with the Łódź District Court an application for leave to visit the applicant. She asked for two separate authorisations, for herself and her sister


Prompt: 19.  The servicemen tied up Madina Bantayeva and the eighth applicant and put them in one of the rooms. Then they searched the house, ripping upholstery, turning furniture upside down and demanding gold and money from


Prompt:
6.  On 21 November 2002 Ţara published another article entitled “Bolshevik habits. The Stepaniuc clan spreads its tentacles”. It stated, inter alia, the following:
“The article of 31 October 2002 ... has not provoked any reaction from any State authority. I wonder why the Communist authorities do not react to serious allegations made by the media ...
In that article I wrote about irregularities in the field of public transport caused by companies G. and T. headed by the son-in-law and nephew of


Prompt: 73.  A hearing on this challenge was held on 9 December 1997 before a special Chamber of three members of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division who were not involved in hearing the appeal, that is Mr


Prompt:
34.  As regards the estimated sentence that the applicant could face, the US report stated firstly that, “In imposing a sentence in a federal criminal case, the judge must consult the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines”. It added that the Guidelines were advisory since the judge had “the discretion to impose a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range so long as the court states ‘with specificity,’ both at sentencing and in the written judgment and commitment order, its reason for doing so”. It additionally stated that, “[b]oth the defendant and the government have the statutory right to appeal any sentence imposed on the grounds that it is substantively or procedurally unreasonable under the circumstances of the case”. Moreover, the decision whether to sentence a person convicted of multiple counts concurrently or consecutively was at the discretion of the court. Section 3584 of Title 18 of the US Code, states, in part, that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively”. The report further stressed the following:
“Prior to sentencing, a probation officer will prepare a presentence report that contains information about the defendant’s offense, his criminal history, other background information, and a calculation of the advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant has the right to object to the information and conclusion in the present report. Later, during the sentencing phase of the proceedings, defense counsel will be able to present to the judge various mitigating factors to consider that may result in the reduction of his sentence. Specifically, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), in determining the particular sentence imposed on a defendant, the court shall consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, punishment for the offense, deter the defendant or others from committing similar criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the applicable guideline range; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to the victims of the offense(s). In assisting the court in considering the above seven factors, defense counsel will be able to present to the court in detail any mitigating factors relating to these criteria. This would enable the defense to provide to the sentencing court information regarding


Prompt: 50.  On 23 September 2004 the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted three reports drawn up by its 2nd, 6th and 4th Sections of Expertise[2] on 15 October 2003, 20 and 25 August 2004 respectively, concerning


Prompt:
32.  On 16 January 2006, at a briefing in the GPO, it was held that the criminal case had not been properly investigated and the applicant’s allegations regarding the involvement of S., G. and M. (G.’s friend, whom the applicant had first identified as “I.”) in the crime had not been investigated. On the same date the GPO sent the following letter to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office:
“After examining the material in the case file it was established that the investigation was marked by shortcomings. The allegations made by


Prompt: 58.  On 12 April 2005 the prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that law enforcement agencies had not carried out any special operations in the Shelkovskiy District on 16 December 2002 and had not arrested


Prompt: 8.  By decision of 27 November 1998 addressed to Air Inn, the CAA found the applicant unreliable from a security point of view. Air Inn was accordingly ordered to prevent the applicant from participating in activities requiring personnel to pass a security check, and to turn in his airport access document to


Prompt: 22.  The applicant and his family lived in a hamlet of the Yolçatı village. On the night of 12 May 1994 they heard gun fire. It continued until 5 a.m. When the firing stopped, the applicant and his family tried to go to Lice. While they were passing near the Yolçatı village, they were stopped by soldiers and the applicant’s son,


Prompt: 10.  On 28 May 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was thirteen years old at the time, left Nazran and went to Grozny by bus. He was taken off the bus by service personnel at a checkpoint near the canning factory in Grozny because he did not have identity documents. Then he was forced into an APC and taken away. While being taken to the APC, Mr


Prompt: 42.  On 23 April 2003 the Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the applicants that operational search activities had indicated that FSB servicemen had been involved in the abduction of Mr


Prompt: 17.  The sequence of photos published in Neue Post magazine (issue no. 35/97) shows the applicant at the Monte Carlo Beach Club, dressed in a swimsuit and wrapped up in a bathing towel, tripping over an obstacle and falling down. The photos, which are quite blurred, are accompanied by an article entitled “Prince


Prompt:
10.  The applicant appeared before the court and, at the opening of the hearing, challenged the presiding judge, M., in the following terms:
“Applicant: Your Honour, I would like to challenge the composition of the court.
Judge: Please proceed.
Applicant: Your Honour, the grounds on which I challenge you are that, [when] sitting on the [bench of] the Nova Kakhovka Court, you have not given a single lawful decision in any case where I was a representative or a party. You have not even once protected my rights or the rights of the individuals I have been representing and helping ... Previously I used not to challenge you but lately I have started to do so. You do not allow my challenges, arguing that my arguments against you are supposedly made up and subjective. However, recently I have read an article [entitled] “Father for son, brother for brother” in the Delovye Novosti newspaper, which clearly and specifically states that you, on the basis of corporate solidarity among judges, have given a similarly unlawful judgment, as a result of which a person was falsely convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The newspaper article says that this issue has attracted the attention of the presidential administration and the General Prosecutor’s Office. I know that the case in question was examined by the Council of Judges and by a parliamentary commission, before which you appeared, before your appointment. This was the source of the problems you had in securing your appointment to the position of judge for life .... This article tells me unequivocally that you will only decide [this] case according to the instructions which you ... receive, and the law – including my rights as a consumer – will mean absolutely nothing to you. All the more so because I know from a court clerk that an instruction [has been given to] the Nova Kakhovka Court to decide cases [in which I am involved] against me.
In support of what I have said I can refer to the case where you considered my claim against [a prosecutor] and where you delivered a totally illegal judgment, even though there have been decisions of the Nova Kakhovka Court and of the Court of Appeal concerning the same situation, in which the actions of the prosecutor had been declared unlawful in that the prosecutor should have delivered not only letters in response to my complaints but formal decisions so that I could challenge those decisions. You, by your decision, deprived me of that right.
For me this is another signal: if the fate of that young man did not mean anything to you, then mine would mean even less. So it is not just that I have serious doubts about your impartiality; I know of no case where you have given a lawful decision. When you came to the Nova Kakhovka Court, I told you that I had much hope in you – that you were a competent and good judge. I was mistaken. Especially since the time when I and [another person], waiting in the corridor, overheard you [discussing about me and laughing].
Judge [voice rising]:


Prompt: 135.  Mr Kushtanashvili explained that, since he had no money, he had given the Georgian authorities and doctors a false Chechen name in order to pass for a fugitive and thus receive free medical care. He did not believe that his Georgian nationality represented an obstacle to extradition and considered that he was still in danger on account of his Chechen origins. In a letter sent to the Court on 13 November 2002, he alleged that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had asked to see their lawyers before leaving the cell as requested. The prison governor had replied that “neither lawyer nor investigator” would turn up and that “[they should] leave the cell voluntarily before [he used] force”. In the same letter Mr


Prompt: 8.  In the beginning of July 2000 the applicant, together with some friends and political supporters, founded an initiative committee to campaign for Mr Simeonov’s resignation. On 7 July 2000 he notified the mayor of Pleven that on 10, 11 and 12 July 2000 in the centre of Pleven UDF supporters would gather signatures calling for the resignation of “the top idiot of the Bulgarian Government –


Prompt: 12.  Mr D., a railway station employee, was behind Khava Magomadova on his way to work and saw her and the Gazel turning into Zavodskaya Street. A few moments later, when he reached Zavodskaya Street, he saw the Gazel swaying slightly and no trace of


Prompt: 118.  On the same day the Bismil public prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that an investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar had been opened, in which statements had been taken from the complainants Halise and Hüsna Acar and from the witnesses İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, and that steps had been taken to obtain a statement from Captain İzzettin, NCO Ahmet and Harun Aça, and an additional statement from


Prompt:
44.  On 25 August 2006 the Rector’s Office authorised the opening of a criminal investigation in respect of T.Ö. The relevant passages of that decision read as follows:
“Health Inspector S.M. considered in his report of 26 April 2005 that doctor T.Ö. had been negligent and that she should be held liable.
In his report of 26 June 2006,


Prompt: 40.  In his statement at the trial hearings, the applicant submitted that his arrest had been politically motivated. As to the events in question, he stated that, after hearing about the events of 23 January 2013 in the news, the next day he and N.C. (see paragraph 58 below) had gone to Ismayilli by car. At around 3.30 p.m. on 24 January 2013 they had entered the Ismayilli Region and had arrived in the Ismayilli town centre at around 4 p.m. On the way to the town centre, they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents, without getting out of the car, to receive information about the events that had taken place up to that time. In the town centre, they parked at the central square, where there was a group of journalists. He spoke to the journalists who told him that, despite the situation being calm at that moment, there was an atmosphere of tension in the town. While standing next to the journalists, he then posted some observations on his Facebook page. Just then he saw


Prompt: 12.  The applicant brought proceedings relating to salary payments from September 1996 onwards but they were also unsuccessful, as the US Department of State had refused to serve the relevant summons on the Department of Justice, which was competent to represent the United States in civil litigation. The Austrian courts held that the refusal to serve summons fell within the category of acta iure imperii. They concluded that the defendant had not been duly summoned and that they could not proceed with the applicant’s case. The Supreme Court confirmed that position in judgments delivered on 5 September 2001 and 7 May 2003. Those proceedings were the subject of application no. 156/04,


Prompt: 26.  On 14 January 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) forwarded the applicants' complaint about the abduction to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20116. In response, on 20 February 2004 the latter informed the applicants that military unit no. 20116 had not participated in a special operation on 2 April 2003 and had not detained


Prompt: 28.  On 25 April 2003 the republican prosecutor's office, in reply to a query from the second applicant, repeated that the investigation into his son's abduction had been suspended on 15 January 2003 for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators and that the search for


Prompt: 74.  In this letter, the Chief Public Prosecutor was informed that statements had been taken from Murat Koparan, Taner Şarlak and Erkan Dağdelen, that these persons did not know Ferhat Tepe and that they had denied the contents of the document entitled “To the Public”. It was further noted that on 15 November 1996 a permanent search warrant had been issued to find the perpetrators of the killing of


Prompt: 60.  The applicant company's leases on both aircraft had expired by May 1996 (see paragraph 12 above). Further to the judgment of the Supreme Court of November 1996 (see paragraph 58 above) and given the relaxation of the sanctions regime (see paragraphs 67-71 below), JAT and the Minister


Prompt: 54.  On 25 March 1996 Lieutenant-Colonel Alpı concluded his investigation report. He came to the conclusion that no operation had been conducted by security forces in Türeli village on 18 May 1994 and that the security forces had not even gone to that village on that day. Lieutenant‑Colonel Alpı further considered that the statement taken from


Prompt: 86.  She affirmed that she had heard someone cry out “My name is Kenan Bilgin”, and had caught a glimpse, through her cell window, of a dark man, bald and with a moustache, whom she had later identified as


Prompt: 20.  Once Movsar Taysumov was inside, the APC drove further along Lenina Street. The fourth applicant and her neighbours clearly noted its hull number as 569. The fourth applicant followed it along the street and witnessed from a distance how it stopped at the


Prompt: 34.  According to an indictment filed by the Midyat Prosecutor with the Midyat Assize Court on 11 December 1989, a certain T.M. and the applicant's deceased son, Mesut Dündar, had raped a nine-year old boy in breach of Article 414 of the Criminal Code. As a result,


Prompt: 57.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyers questioned Mr Grigolashvili and Ms Margvelashvili in Georgia, in the presence of their lawyers, and through an interpreter. On an unspecified date in 2003 the lawyers also questioned Mr


Prompt:
53.  The relevant part of the Supreme Court’s judgment reads as follows:
... From the evidence taken during the proceedings, primarily the reports in the personal record established in respect of the appellant, it can be indisputably concluded that he, on the basis of a written document, consciously, secretly, continuously and in an organised manner collaborated with the [former secret police]. Relying on the statements of the secret collaborator – the appellant – the [secret police] gathered information that was processed, stored and used by the [secret police] ... In such a way, the human rights of those people [who were then followed by the State security service] were violated on political or ideological grounds.
Bearing in mind the definition of collaboration contained in the [Lustration] Act, the Administrative Court correctly concluded that the appellant had at the material time the status of a secret collaborator or informant.
The arguments adduced in the appeal regarding discrepancies between the data obtained from the State Archive and those relied on by the Commission, whereby the appellant disputes the authenticity of the evidence, are ill-founded.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the facts established by the first-instance court are correct and complete, as they are based on careful and thorough assessment of every piece of evidence separately and of all the evidence taken together ... Assessing the complaints regarding the facts, the Supreme Court also checked the original documentation and finds these complaints ill-founded, since the appellant did not submit any evidence that could call into question the facts as established by the first-instance court.
The Supreme Court finds irrelevant in respect of the possibility of a different outcome the complaints that the applicant was not a collaborator but an oppressed person on whom a political file was opened because of ideas he had, as a minor during high-school days, on the independence of the Macedonian people.
Specifically, the appellant was as a high-school student initially registered by the [secret police] for hostile activities and Macedonian nationalism. However, he continued to collaborate with the service and was approached about being registered in the network of collaborators. In 1965 the appellant was officially registered as a collaborator, when he had already reached the age of eighteen. From the documents available it is apparent that the applicant collaborated with the State security services as an adult.
The appellant’s submissions that he never consented to collaboration and that there is no evidence of registration or deregistration, could not lead to factual findings different from those already established by the first-instance court.
According to the expert assistant’s statement at the public hearing before the Administrative Court, the consent of the collaborator was in no way needed, given the secrecy of the procedure. The proposal for deregistration is in the name of


Prompt: 68.  On 5 March 2003 Mr D. was questioned as a witness and submitted that at 7.35 a.m. he had spotted Khava Magomadova walking about 100 metres ahead of him. A new white Gazel vehicle had been parked some 50 metres from the applicants’ house; two men had been sitting in it, one of whom was wearing a military-style pea coat. At some point the Gazel had started moving and had turned right in the direction in which


Prompt: 5.  Mr Sisak Danielyan, Ms Kima Danielyan, Mr Andranik Danielyan, Ms Naira Danielyan, Ms Seda Danielyan and Ms Sona Danielyan jointly owned a house measuring 130 sq. m. situated at 11 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The applicants alleged that Ms


Prompt: 88.  The Government further submitted that the theory of the involvement of special forces (спецподразделений) in the abduction of Murad Khachukayev had not been confirmed by the investigation. According to the information obtained from various departments of the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD), the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and other law enforcement agencies, they had not detained


Prompt: 115.  Chief Inspector Eybil Efendi and his colleagues from the rapid response unit had been the first police officers to arrive at the scene. Whilst out on patrol duty, they heard shots and went to the location of the incident. Mr Efendi informed the general police headquarters. Upon hearing the shots, local people also alerted the police switchboard. Not long afterwards, Mr Özdamar and Mr Öztümen, the assistant chief of police


Prompt: 7.  On the evening of 4 January 1976, the first applicant was hosting a family get-together at his home in Ballydougan, County Down. At about 6.30 p.m. three masked gunmen forced their way into the house.


Prompt: 25.  According to the applicants, six months after Mr Ali Khadayev’s apprehension the second applicant went to the FSB quarters where he met “Tank”. He asked “Tank” to help him establish the whereabouts of his son. “Tank” replied: “Z. has left and I cannot help you with anything”. Then “Tank” also left Urus-Martan for about a month and returned together with Z. The second applicant went to the FSB quarters several times asking to speak to Z., but Z. never came out. Then the second applicant asked A., a serviceman of the Military Commander’s Office, to talk to Z. After several failed attempts A. met Z. in the street sitting in a UAZ car. A. said: “Why don’t you let Khadayev out. His father is very anxious.” Z. replied: “I did not take his son away and did not see him.” Then A. told him that “Tank” had been at the Khadayevs’ home twice and had been in charge of Mr


Prompt: 38.  By a letter of 21 April 2008, the Batumi Land Registry, contrary to the information contained in its previous letter (see the preceding paragraph) informed the applicant's sister that, according to the available records, the


Prompt: 26.  Magomed Soltymuradov is a trained economist. Before the hostilities started he worked in a bank. Between November 1999 and December 2001 he lived as an internally displaced person with his wife and three children in the Volgograd Region. Since his return to Urus-Martan he had been unemployed, while his wife, the thirteenth applicant, worked as a medical worker in a hospital. The applicants stated that


Prompt:
109.  The witness was the Chief Public Prosecutor in Bitlis at the time of the events. He was on judicial leave from 20 July to 6 September 1993. On 28 September 1993 he was appointed as a judge to a court in İstanbul. He could not contribute to the elucidation of the facts.
(d)


Prompt: 118.  The witness said that in principle the establishment of a local party office or a change in its membership would be of no interest to him. However, certain information and material in his possession had raised concerns about possible links between HADEP and the terrorist organisation KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress). He did not at any stage ask


Prompt: 49.  On 23 January 2004 the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District informed the investigators that investigative measures taken to find Akhmed Shaipov had so far been fruitless; that they had no information concerning


Prompt: 59.  On 28 July 2003 the ninth applicant appealed against the adjournment of the criminal investigation to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. He reasoned that his brother could only have been detained by servicemen because of the use of military vehicles and the fact that the vehicles had been allowed to travel freely through the roadblock, despite the curfew in place. The ninth applicant requested the prosecutor to resume the investigation, to question the servicemen of the roadblock, of the military commander’s office and other law-enforcement bodies of the district about the details of the operation, to identify and question witnesses among local residents, to collect and examine bullets and cartridges left behind by the abductors who had shot at the eleventh and fourteenth applicant as they were trying to pursue them. The complaint requested that the investigation be carried out urgently, before the traces of


Prompt: 235.  Later the same morning, the applicant went to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office, where she met Mr Alexander Merluyev, a Goyty resident. His brother, Mr Musa Merluyev (see application no. 36141/10, Merluyev v. Russia below), had been abducted on the same night. Three or four days later the local military commander’s office denied that


Prompt: 367.  If a colleague forgot to sign a document, he would sign it for him. He had signed one such document in the case of İmam Şahin, although he had not formulated its contents. He thought that the person who typed the statement had been