Prompt: 15.  From 25 February to 13 March 2006 the applicants complained about the abduction to various law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya and requested to be provided with information about the whereabouts of their relative; however, the State authorities denied their involvement in the abduction of


Prompt: 54.  Although the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Zurab Iriskhanov, the investigators sent requests for information to the competent State agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved. The law enforcement authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained


Prompt: 32.  On 11 February and 16 September 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on 29 September 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor's office had initiated an investigation into the abduction of Aslan and


Prompt: 32.  On 21 December 1999 the chair of the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Ms Sema Pişkinsüt, sent a letter to Mr Ensaroğlu stating that the Diyarbakır Security Directorate had prepared a form for missing persons with regard to


Prompt: 100.  Following their release on 6 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev moved in with a relative in Tbilisi; they were joined by Mr Gelogayev. On 16 February 2004 they left the house for an appointment at the Ministry for Refugees, but disappeared before ever arriving there. On 25 February 2004 the Georgian media, citing a Russian agency report, announced that the missing men were being held in a Russian prison in the town of Essentuki, on suspicion of having crossed the Russo-Georgian border illegally. On 5 March 2004 Ms


Prompt: 17.  One hour after the incident (at 8 p.m.), an investigator, Ya., from the Voronezh Leninskiy district Investigation Committee arrived on the scene and examined the premises, in particular Office no. 55, from where Mr Lykov had fallen. The investigator seized from the scene a gas mask and a telephone, as well as the sheet of paper with


Prompt: 10.  The applicants submitted that in the early hours of 23 October 2002 eight persons had been detained in their village by a group of servicemen wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and moving around in a Ural military truck, UAZ all-terrain military vehicles and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with obscured number plates. Among the eight persons there were four relatives of the applicants:


Prompt: 53.  Between 10 and 14 December 2004 the investigators questioned the UBOP officers M.G. and Z.Sh., both of whom gave similar statements to the effect that at the end of September 2004 they had been asked by relatives and friends of


Prompt: 74.  The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 5 May 2009 which the Civil Registry and Migration Department had addressed to the applicant, informing him that following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority and the expiry of his temporary residence permit, he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 78.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claims that on 20 March 2005, while he was serving in the Syrian army, he was arrested and taken into detention by the Syrian authorities along with other Kurds because of Nowruz (the Iranian New Year, Nowruz or Newroz marks the first day of spring or Equinox and the beginning of the year in the Persian calendar). He was tortured for ten days along with his co-detainees. They were put into a car tyre and were subjected to bastinado. They were accused of conspiring against the State. Military proceedings were brought against him but after completion of his military service the charges were dropped. During this time the military police collected information on him and his friends and he was entered on a database as a dangerous individual. He was arrested again on 21 March 2006 because he attended the Nowruz celebrations and was a member of Yekiti party. He was detained for a week and was released after bribing the District Officer. He was then re-arrested on 15 August 2006 at his house after attending a Yekiti party meeting. He was released after bribing the same official. He then decided to leave Syria and managed to obtain a Turkish visa after bribing a Syrian security official working at the Turkish embassy. 80.  He applied for asylum on 25 August 2006. He claimed that he had left Syria because as a Kurd he had been subjected to discrimination. Kurds were persecuted and did not enjoy any rights. He had therefore left for fear of his life. 81.  The Asylum Service held an interview with him on 27 February 2009. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that he was a follower/supporter of the Yekiti Party, he had left Syria due to the injustice that Kurds suffered, and in particular, although he had a passport he had no other rights and he could not buy a house or land or work. He claimed that he was known to the Syrian authorities and he had been taken at the police station and beaten up on several occasions. He had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions. In particular, in 2005 he had been arrested and detained for four or five days for participating in the Nowruz festivities. He had been arrested on another occasion for problems he had in the army. In May 2006 he was detained for a week and in August 2006 for four days. The latter two times he had been released after paying a sum of money. He also stated that he was not wanted by the authorities and no other member of his family had ever been arrested. He claimed that he feared arrest if returned to Syria. 82.  Subsequently, the Asylum Service called the applicant for a second interview and asked him to provide any documents he had concerning his application. The second interview was held on 10 April 2009. In this the applicant claimed, inter alia, that certain members of his family worked and that although the job market was not good, he would be able to work if he managed to find something. The applicant stated that he had been arrested on 20/21 March 2005 when he was in the army following a dispute with another soldier on 21 March 2006 for participating in the Nowruz festivities, and on 25 May 2006 and 2 August 2008 when demonstrations took place even though he was not involved. He was not, however, wanted by the authorities nor did he have any problems by reason of the fact that he was a follower of the Yekiti party. 83.  His application was dismissed on 13 May 2009 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated. In particular, the Asylum Service pointed out that during his interview he had claimed that he had left Syria for two reasons: because of his Kurdish origin he could not work and buy a house or land and secondly due to his arrests by the Syrian authorities. With regard to the first claim, they noted that he had not substantiated that he had been subjected to any form of discrimination due to his origin. As regards the arrests the applicant’s allegations remained unfounded as he had not given any specific answers to questions that had been put to him. Furthermore, during the interview the Asylum Service had spotted a number of significant untruths/falsehoods concerning his claim. 86.  The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been subjected to persecution and had claimed that he was not wanted by the Syrian authorities. In its decision it observed that the applicant’s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated. Although he claimed that he could not buy a house or land, he then stated that his parents owned a house which they lived in. Further, although he initially claimed that he could not work due to the fact that he was Kurdish he then stated that his family worked and he also was able to. The information he gave concerning his arrest and reasons was equally general and vague. He was not in a position to give specific replies to questions given concerning these matters. The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions and give information concerning his claims. 87.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 88.  The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so and at that time no legal aid was granted in such cases. 90.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that he and his family are members of the Azadi Kurdish party in Syria which was banned by the authorities. In early September 2006 the applicant was driving his motorbike in his village carrying Azadi party papers. The civil police in Aleppo ordered him to stop but he fled as he was scared that they would find the papers. The police pursued him but he managed to escape. The next day the police went to his house. The same day he got a visa on his passport. 93.  The Asylum Service, however, discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on 3 April 2009 by virtue of section 16A (1) (c) of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 236 below) as the applicant had not come to the interview which had been fixed for 27 March 2009 despite having received the letter requesting him to attend. It was noted in the file that the letter had been sent to him by double registered mail and there was indication he had received it. It was also noted that the applicant, on 19 March 2009, had confirmed on the telephone after receiving a call by the Asylum Service that he would come to the interview. Despite this he had not shown up. Lastly, there was no indication that the applicant had departed from the country. 95.  The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview and that he had not received notification of the decision of the Asylum Service to close his file. He was subsequently informed of the closure of his file but he did not appeal against the decision as he did not know the procedure to follow and the steps to take so he could appeal against it. He was also scared to approach the authorities. 96.  In the copies of the records of the Civil Registry and Migration Department it was noted on 3 March 2010 that in accordance with the instructions of


Prompt: 34.  A post-mortem examination was performed by Dr Abdula Salih, a specialist surgeon, at the Baghdad Forensic Medicine Institute of the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, on the bodies of Ahmed Fattah Hassan,


Prompt: 13.  In 1996 the applicants' village was again raided by gendarmes from Sultanköy and Bilge. Some of the villagers were kept under arrest and released after being beaten up on suspicion of having aided the PKK. The gendarmes also set five houses on fire, including


Prompt: 31.  On 15 January 2004 the applicants' representatives wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor's office. They described in detail the circumstances of the Mudayev brothers' abduction during the special operation conducted by the Nadterechniy district department of the FSB on 29 January 2003. The letter stated that the brothers had been taken to the detention centre of the district department of the FSB; they had been detained there until 10 May 2003, when they had been taken away in an unknown direction. According to the information obtained by the applicants from the persons who had been detained together with Aslan and


Prompt: 32.  The applicant’s case file contained an undated internal memorandum by Ch. notifying D. of the applicant’s arrest at 4.30 p.m. on 4 July 2013 on suspicion of fraud. The report indicates that “during the arrest,


Prompt: 47.  On 27 January 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the SRJI that the investigation had identified all the servicemen involved in shooting and abducting Amkhad Gekhayev and


Prompt: 50.  In view of the contents of the briefcase, it had been established that Hüseyin Koku was conducting an extramarital affair with a certain C.E., who was a married woman. Adultery being an offence at the relevant time, C.E.’s husband had made a complaint to the authorities against


Prompt:
30.  The Court of Appeal re-examined the evidence and recalled that in accordance with this Court’s well established case-law the domestic courts are in a better position to evaluate the evidence. Reviewing the evidence given by police officers it considered that there was “definitely no legal basis to cast doubt on the reliability of the[ir] testimonies”. It then reviewed the other original witness statements and evidence. It affirmed the conclusion in its decision of 29 April 2016 that “sufficient evidence was collected and assessed comprehensively and objectively before the court of first instance”. It concluded:
“Thus, as a result of reviewing the appeals, the court finds that the judgment of the Shaki Serious Crimes Court dated 17 March 2014 by which the defendant


Prompt: 13.  On 26 March 1994 at approximately 5 p.m., two plain-clothed policemen had a drink at the Çağdaş café in Birecik, which was owned by Mehmet Şen and Rasim Ağpak. At approximately 7 p.m., a Doğan SLX car (registration number 34 PLT 30) blocked the door of the café. Three plain-clothed persons entered, leaving the car engine running with a fourth person remaining in the vehicle. One of the three persons asked


Prompt:
51.  In his statement, the witness deposed that he used to reside in Çamaltı hamlet attached to the Düzcealan village. He explained that all the villagers evacuated the village and the hamlet in April 1994 due to the activities of the PKK. PKK members had been asking the villagers to supply them with food, clothes and weapons. They also wanted to persuade the children to go to the mountains. According to the witness, the security forces never forced the villagers to abandon the village. The villagers left of their own motion due to PKK pressure. The houses were burned down subsequently by PKK members after the village had been evacuated.
Statement of


Prompt:
55.  An article published in Komsomolskaya Pravda (in St Petersburg) newspaper on 17 November 2003 and headed “How many [years in prison] will they give to Doctor Petrov?” gave the background of the applicant’s case and some details about the ongoing trial proceedings. It then stated:
“... our journalist managed to meet the police agents who had arrested


Prompt: 15.  On the same date an inspection of the crime scene was conducted and a report produced, which included sketch maps. The house had two rooms, one behind the other, divided by a wall, with a passageway on the right. All along the front of the house there was a porch, which measured 3 by 1.8 metres. There were windows onto the porch on the left, and the main entrance was on the right, in front of the above‑mentioned passageway. The house also had windows on the right side. The sketch map also noted the positions of


Prompt: 20.  On 28 October 2000 Mr P’s wife’s car was set alight. An Automobile Association inspector concluded that the fire might have been caused accidentally. In the early hours of 29 October 2000 there was also a fire at Mr P’s business premises (an unlocked outbuilding used to store material of little value). The fire officer was inconclusive as to the cause of the fire. When Mr P reported both fires to DC Ridley, asking if Mr Brougham could be responsible, DC Ridley considered it unlikely and advised Mr P, if he had concerns, to contact the Metropolitan Police Service which, on 4 November 2000, informed him that there was no evidence of arson. It was later, during the investigation into


Prompt:
6.  The applicants are:
(1) Mr Magomed Abdulvadudovich[1] Elsiyev, born in 1941,
(2) Mr Isa Noshayevich Demelkhanov, born in 1956,
(3) Mr Vakhid Boltiyev, born in 1937,
(4) Ms Petimat Dzhamaldiyevna[2] Nakayeva, born in 1954,
(5) Ms


Prompt: 58.  In December 2003 and January 2004 the investigation questioned several officers from special police forces (OMON) from the Novgorod region. They submitted, almost word for word, that from November 1999 to March 2000 they had been on mission in Alkhan-Kala and that in early February 2000 an operation had been carried out in the village. Their detachment was being held in reserve, but they were aware that a large group of fighters had entered the village, and several thousand federal troops, with support from aviation and armoured vehicles, had captured a large number of fighters – possibly about 700 persons. The operation was under the command of General-Major Nedobitko, the commander of a division of the interior troops, and was visited by Major-General


Prompt: 8.  On 10 July 1995 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing Yahya Keser and Nedim Öndeş of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that


Prompt: 32.  The State Prosecutor, by letters of 24 April 2013 and 14 February 2014, decided to suspend the investigations into the complaints which had been lodged. In the letter to Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson, it was considered that the explanations provided by the Special Prosecutor were satisfactory; in the letter to


Prompt: 68.  On 12 July 2006 the district prosecutor further extended the term of the investigation until 17 August 2006. The extension order, in addition to the information cited above, referred to the examination of the scene of the crime and of the applicants’ houses. It noted that both detained men had received positive references at their places of residence and employment. It mentioned the questioning of additional witnesses, including the police officers who had been manning the crossroads at the material time. The order also indicated the need to question other servicemen of “West” battalion who had participated in the operation in Sernovodsk on 9 April 2006 and to identify the owners of the vehicles implicated in the event. The document concluded by stating that the investigation had yet to find the two vehicles involved in the kidnapping and


Prompt:
19.  On 30 October 2012 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court examined the request of the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office for the seizure of the applicant’s real property. On the same day it accepted the request in full and ordered restraint of the applicant’s real property listed in the request of the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office (see paragraph 12 above) by prohibiting its alienation or encumbrance. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The records from the land registry ... show that the accused


Prompt: 21.  In the meantime, on 3 August 2004 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the officials carrying out the preliminary investigation into Önder Babat’s death, and requested that the persons responsible be charged with breach of duty. The applicants claimed in particular that the authorities had attempted to cover up the real cause of


Prompt: 22.  According to the authorities, the operation resulted in the discovery of a concealed underground shelter and the arrest of four individuals, including V.U. Khadzhimuradov and V.L. Murdashev, who were


Prompt: 7.  On 11 December 1946 the Ljubljana District Court convicted Mr T. K., who was a legal predecessor of Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša, and sentenced him to 10 years' deprivation of liberty with forced labour, forfeiture of his property and of the property belonging to the company I. K. (Mr T. K. and Mr


Prompt: 17.  On 20 February 2002 the first and second applicants went to the village of Mesker-Yurt of the Shali District and examined two dead bodies, which had been burned from head to waist. The first and second applicants recognised their sons' shoes and trousers and identified the dead as Movsar and


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


Prompt: 77.  On 14 December 2006 the investigators questioned Mr S.G., who stated that in the evening of 30 August 2001 he had found out that a group of unidentified men armed with automatic weapons had abducted


Prompt: 65.  On 27 January 2011, more than two months after the demolition of her home, the applicant concluded a contract of sale with Rufan Kazimov. In accordance with the contract the applicant sold her flat of 28.5 sq. m, which no longer physically existed at the time when the contract was concluded, to


Prompt: 121.  The witness said that on his return to the station in Silopi he received a telephone call from the Silopi public prosecutor, Kubilay Taştan, enquiring whether two people, who were members of HADEP, had been taken into custody at Silopi district gendarmerie command. He said that they had not, but that he would make enquiries at other gendarmerie posts. The public prosecutor rang back at about 9 p.m. and the witness informed him that his enquiries indicated that neither


Prompt: 22.  On 6 January 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also cited as 6 December 2001) the investigators questioned Mr R.V. who stated, amongst other things, that on 5 January 2001 he had been told that a man had been wounded as a result of gunfire in his neighbourhood. The witness had taken this man,


Prompt: 96.  On 16 August 2007 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant, who stated that on the night of 6 July 2002 his son Lema Dikayev had been abducted by a group of men in camouflage uniforms and masks who were armed with automatic weapons. That night the witness had not heard any military vehicles. On the morning of 6 July 2002 he had been told that another resident of Martan-Chu,


Prompt: 19.  At an unspecified time on 17 January 2002 the applicants (except for Meryem Peker, Mehmet Şirin Döner and Yılmaz Yavuz) were brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered their release after taking statements from them. The applicants concerned were actually released following the Istanbul State Security Court’s order. Seven of the applicants (Ayşe Döner,


Prompt:
76.  The court also held that the MP had not been assassinated on political grounds, but for revenge-related purposes (hakmarrje). The applicant had aided and abetted F.H in committing the murder as he had intended to avenge the murder of his brother, in which F.H believed the MP had been involved. Consequently, the court reclassified the charges against the applicant as premeditated murder committed on grounds of revenge under Article 78 § 2 of the CC, which had entered into force on 24 January 2001. The decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The prosecutor’s office reclassified the murder under Article 79 (c) connecting it to the fact that, during a parliamentary session, the murdered MP had accused F.H of killing [a police officer].
On that basis, [the prosecutor] determined that the motive for the MP’s murder had been his position as an MP. However, the evidence obtained at trial, the circumstances and the events leading up to the MP’s assassination proved that revenge had been an aggravating factor in the commission of the murder (vërtetojnë se vrasja është kryer për motivet ë dobëta të hakmarrjes).
As disclosed by a number of items of evidence, F.H accused the MP of having been involved in the assassination of his brother on 5 January 1998.
...
On page 8 of the prosecutor’s final submissions, the following question was raised: ‘what drove the accused


Prompt: 15.  On 14 January 2005 the Ministry of Defence submitted its observations to the Military Administrative Court. Based on the testimonies of the soldiers from the same regiment (see paragraphs 9-11 above), it argued that on 16 February 2004


Prompt: 5.  The first two applicants were born in 1974 and 1953 respectively. The first applicant is a journalist working for the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita and the second applicant was, at the material time, its editor‑in‑chief. The third applicant is Gremi Media sp. z o.o. (at the material time Presspublica sp. z o.o.), the publisher of Rzeczpospolita. It is a limited liability company represented by the chairman of its board of directors, Mr P. Bien, and its vice chairman, Mr


Prompt:
19.  Other facts imputed to the complainant were, on the contrary, undeniably defamatory. First of all, there was the oath of obedience, which, beyond its symbolic import, bore the precise accusation that Mr Caselli had given a personal and lasting undertaking to “obey”, in the course of his duties, the law, his religious beliefs and “the instructions of the leaders” of a political party.
The Court of Appeal continued:
“The remainder of the article, which gives a highly defamatory account of Mr Caselli’s alleged obedience to the Communist Party, confirms that the journalist was not expressing judgments or personal opinions but imputing specific conduct to Mr Caselli.
Further on the article asserts
(i)  that Mr Caselli is Mr Violante’s twin brother, ...
(ii)  that the PCI ... set in motion a strategy of seizing control of all the public prosecutors’ offices in Italy by applying two of the MP’s ideas, the first being to gain power ... by using the judicial machine and the second to resort simply to opening a judicial investigation ... in order to destroy the careers [of political opponents] since there was no need to go to the trouble of a trial, it was enough to put someone in the pillory.
It is in that context that the journalist referred to two actions by


Prompt: 29.  On 23 August 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office stated in reply to the applicants’ letters that it had examined the investigation files opened in respect of the kidnapping of Said-Magomed Debizov,


Prompt:
21.  On the same day the Sharur District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 310.1 (obstructing the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. It was specified in the decision that it could be appealed against within ten days of its receipt. The relevant part of the decision of 23 September 2007 provides as follows:
“Assessing the evidence at its disposal, the court concludes that the fact that


Prompt: 23.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. He submitted, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had refused to call three crucial witnesses for the applicant whose evidence was to rebut the fact of his alleged collaboration with the security services. The applicant further submitted that the Court of Appeal had disregarded his arguments to the effect that his contacts with W.C. had been of a private nature. He submitted that his contacts with W.C. had not constituted secret and intentional collaboration. He also challenged the fact that he could not consult the file in the proceedings before the


Prompt: 37.  On 13 July 2006 the investigators interviewed officer V.S. as a witness. She stated that from 9 a.m. on 8 June 2006 she had been on duty at the checkpoint of the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office. At about 10.10 a.m. servicemen from checkpoint no. 1 had called her and informed her that


Prompt: 15.  An hour later, unable to reach the men on their mobile phones, their families and lawyers asked the Silopi public prosecutor and the Silopi gendarmerie command for information. The commanding officer,


Prompt: 24.  On 18 May 1996 the Lice Chief Public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case-file to the Lice District Governor's office in accordance with the Law on Prosecution of Civil Servants. Thereupon,


Prompt: 39.  On 10 August 2001 the commander of the Chechen OMON drew up a report on the result of the internal investigation into the death of their officer, Aslanbek Kukayev. The report stated that on 26 November 2000


Prompt: 86.  On 11 February 2007 Mr A.E. was questioned. He submitted that at the beginning of August 2000 he had been detained by officers of the Urus‑Martan VOVD because he had had no identity documents. He had been held for three days in cell no. 4 with his acquaintances Mr G. and


Prompt: 18.  On 29 October 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 21,105 as compensation for the confiscated machinery. The remaining part of the action was to be examined at the later date.


Prompt:
57.  The witness, a village guard, was chopping trees near Ormandışı village at Pista fountain. Two or three terrorists opened fire as they arrived. He and Sadik Simpil were injured immediately. Sadik fired back and the terrorists ran away. The guards protecting them reported the incident. The area was besieged. He heard gunshots coming from Ormandışı village. He was taken to hospital for treatment of his injured leg.
Petition of


Prompt: 53.  In a judgment of 10 November 2009, the Court of Cassation, in a formation eventually consisting of ten judges, including Mr J.M., dismissed the appeals on points of law. As regards the grounds raised by the applicant, it found that the objection of jurisdictional immunity had been validly rejected, as the fact of making public the letter to


Prompt: 203.  Between 1 and 15 February 2005 the Argun prosecutor requested that a number of law-enforcement agencies provide information on whether they had conducted any special operation on 6 January 2005 or detained Mr


Prompt: 41.  Shortly afterwards, the armed men went to the applicants’ house and demanded that the first applicant open the door. They said that they were the police and were conducting identity checks. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took Mr


Prompt:
63.  The applicant and her lawyers appealed against her conviction. The statements of appeal submitted by the defence lawyer S. indicated the following:
“... during the hearing 15 out of 16 videotapes containing records of the secret surveillance were not examined; they have significant evidentiary value, because their comparison with ... testimony of


Prompt: 16.  The applicants are of Russian origin. The first applicant was born in Estonia into the family of a military officer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). At the age of one month she moved to Latvia together with her parents. Her husband,


Prompt: 17.  On the same day the judge heard evidence from V.P., who said that a certain T.Š., who had died in the meantime, had told him that he had learned that Stevo Borojević had been taken to Žabno by the men who controlled the roads. He had been tortured and then taken to Vurot. V.P. had the impression that T.Š. knew who had taken


Prompt: 40.  In a letter of 21 May 2001 to the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General's Office (Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе) the applicant's husband enquired about the developments in locating


Prompt: 12.  As regards Mr Ercan Gül, the public prosecutor noted that he had participated in the May Day demonstration of 1997, where slogans in support of the TKP/ML-TIKKO had been shouted, such as “Liderimiz


Prompt: 34.  On 9 March 1998 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding his objection to the use of anonymous testimony unsubstantiated. It noted that both anonymous witnesses had been interviewed in the pre-trial proceedings and that the statement of


Prompt: 27.  On 29 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the abduction of Magomed-Salekh Ilyasov and Magomed‑Ali Ilyasov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The criminal case file was given number 44016. The decision stated that at about 4 a.m. on 12 November 2002 a group of unidentified masked individuals in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived in two APCs and a grey UAZ vehicle without registration plates, had abducted


Prompt: 53.  On 5 May 1997 the intervening parties once again requested the first‑instance court to broaden the scope of the investigation. They requested, in particular, that the transcripts of police radio communications of 28 September 1994 be drafted and information be requested from the General Security Directorate as to whether the operation conducted on 29 September 1994 had been one of the “secret” operations that had been told to be conducted by


Prompt: 91.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rustam Gaysumov, who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his wife and the fourth and fifth applicants are his children. The sixth and seventh applicants are the parents of Mr


Prompt: 83.  On the same day Mr Shakhnovskiy was elected to serve as a Senator, i.e. member of the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament. Later he resigned following a request by the Prosecutor General in which the latter claimed that Mr


Prompt:
14.  The judgment’s reasoning is divided into six parts headed by Roman numerals. Part I provides information on the personal background of the accused. Part II contains a description of the circumstances of the case. Part III sets out the type of evidence on which the Regional Court based its establishment of the facts and the court’s assessment of the veracity and credibility of the relevant evidence. Parts IV and V contain the legal assessment of the offences committed by the accused and the determination of their relative guilt and the resulting sentence. Part VI stipulates that the accused are to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment refers on several occasions to the role that the heads of the criminal organisation in Turkey played in connection with the use of donated funds for non-charitable purposes. In that context the applicant’s full first and last names are mentioned numerous times in the judgment running to some thirty‑two pages. The most relevant passages of the judgment in parts II to V of its reasoning read as follows:
“II.
...
It was neither the association’s chairman nor the registered members of the association [Deniz Feneri] who decided on the use of funds obtained on behalf of the association but the accused G. in coordination with and upon the instructions of the separately prosecuted (gesondert Verfolgte)


Prompt: 12.  When Yusuf Ekinci failed to return home, the applicant and Güngör S.E. inquired at local hospitals and police stations in the course of the evening, but were unable to obtain any information about his whereabouts. As the applicant was concerned that her husband had met with the same fate as


Prompt: 8.  On an unspecified date in the autumn of 2004 officers from the 7th Company of the 2nd Regiment of the Chechen traffic police allegedly apprehended Mr Rustam Kagirov and tortured him for two days demanding that he confessed to involvement in illegal armed groups. The officers had suspected him of the illegal activity because of a photograph depicting two men, one of whom thought to be a leader of an illegal armed group and the other one resembled Mr


Prompt: 21.  On 24 December 2002 the Naurskiy district department of the FSB informed the district prosecutor’s office that they had not carried out any special operations in Naurskaya on 19 November 2002 and that they had no information concerning


Prompt: 9.  On 14 September 2010 the Broadcasting Council found that the applicant company had breached its obligations under the Broadcasting Act in that the manner of processing and presenting the content of the commentary had interfered with the dignity of the late Polish President,


Prompt: 11.  On 6 January 2003 the second applicant, Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s father, complained of the abduction to the Gudermes ROVD. Three days later the Gudermes ROVD refused to open a criminal case into the incident, stating that “there were no grounds to believe that [Mr


Prompt: 29.  On 11 April 2005 the investigators questioned Mr S.Sh., who stated that his wife, Ms P.N., had assisted the brothers of the abducted Amirkhan Alikhanov in their search for him. On 4 February 2005 she had left the house with a large amount of cash to continue searching for


Prompt:
70.  On 23 October 2004 the first applicant complained to the Urus‑Martan town court. She sought a ruling obliging the investigators to provide her with access to the investigation file, to resume the investigation and to conduct it thoroughly and effectively. In her complaint she referred to the Constitution and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. On 22 November 2004 the town court rejected her claim. The applicant appealed.
On 8 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the town court's ruling. The text of the Supreme Court decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“...it follows from the contents of the investigation file that on 13 September 2000 representatives of Russian power structures had arrested


Prompt:
110.  In Sattar v. Gonzales 2009 WL 606115 (D.Colo.2009) the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed a challenge to conditions of detention at ADX Florence and to the imposition of special administrative measures. The plaintiff had limited contact with his family and attorneys and so the court found that the “severe limitations of ADX confinement” did not amount to the necessary deprivation required by the objective test.
A constitutional challenge to the imposition of special administrative measures at ADX was also dismissed by the District Court in Al-Owhali v. Holder 1011 WL 288523 (D. Colo. 2011); the case is now the subject of an appeal.
In


Prompt:
29.  In another article published on 5 November 2004 in the same paper, A.T. stated the following:
“... The lickspittles with their report on minorities and cultural rights are threatening the country’s integrity ...


Prompt: 11.  On 20 November 2003 the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) announced the final results of the votes in the regularly scheduled parliamentary election of 2 November 2003, according to which seven parties had cleared the 7% legal threshold required by Article 105 § 6 of the Electoral Code (“the EC”, see paragraph 44 below). The opposition party, the Saakashvili‑National Movement, took third place with 18.04% of the vote (giving them 32 seats in Parliament), followed by the applicant party with 12.04% of the vote (20 seats) and the United Democrats, a coalition led by the President of the Parliament, Ms


Prompt: 5.  The applicant is an association from Piteşti (Argeş County) whose registration as a professional association was refused in a final decision delivered by the Argeş County Court on 4 October 2004. Its name in Romanian is Colegiul Consilierilor Juridici Argeş (The Argeş College of Legal Advisers). The application on its behalf was lodged by Mr


Prompt: 52.  On 5 February 2003 the first applicant complained about her brother’s abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”). The applicant provided a detailed description of the circumstances of


Prompt:
23.  On 2 April 2004 the Vake-Saburtalo District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for three months, with effect from 30 March 2004.  The detention order was a standard form, the reasoning of which had mostly been pre-printed. The judge added by hand the reference to the relevant evidence, the names of the parties’ representatives to the proceedings and the classification of the impugned offence:
“Having examined [in accordance with the requirements of procedural law] the well-foundedness of the detention request, and having heard the parties’ pleadings, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence collected – [reference to the evidence obtained in June and July 2003 – see paragraph 18 above] – gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that


Prompt:
72.  The grounds set out, in paragraph 28, some of the specific risk assessments undertaken, including:
(a)  a marine traffic analysis of vessel movements through the port during a 25-day period in November 2002 by a marine and risk consultant, Marico Marine;
(b)  a concept risk assessment by South Hook LNG Terminal Company Ltd, with the participation of MHPA, dated 9-10 December 2002 identifying hazards, consequences and possible mitigation measures relating to potential use of Milford Haven port for the importation of LNG;
(c)  a report by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), dated 14 February 2003, on simulations to check the nautical consequences of future 200,000m3 LNG carriers;
(d)  a March 2003 navigational risk assessment by Marico Marine;
(e)  MARIN report of 19 May 2003 on fast time simulations for large LNG ships;
(f)  a technical report dated 13 October 2003 by Det Norske Veritas (USA) Inc., a major classification society, in respect of South Hook LNG Terminal Company Ltd’s proposal assessing the marine risk associated with vessel manoeuvres in the channel and around the South Hook terminal for discharging cargo from LNG vessels;
(g)  a report dated 20 February 2004 by ABS Consulting, an international consulting operation experienced in the analysis of shipping collisions, for South Hook LNG Terminal Company Ltd, dealing with potential damage to LNG tankers due to ship collisions;
(h)  a report dated March 2005 from Burgoyne Consultants, international consulting engineers and risk consultants, updating a report on the potential consequences of fires and explosions involving ships carrying petroleum products (including LNG);
(i)  a November 2003 report commissioned by South Hook LNG Terminal Company Ltd from HR Wallingford, the former research facility for the Ministry of Defence, dealing with mooring safety and the possibility of disturbance caused to moored vessels;
(j)  a report by


Prompt: 66.  The reports of 12 April 2004 attest the presence of multiple gunshot entry wounds to the heads and bodies of the applicants' deceased relatives and to the extremities of some of them, and state that any of those wounds could have been lethal and that the death of each of the applicants' relatives occurred in the period from one to five days prior to the date on which the corpses were examined, namely 9 April 2004. The report drawn up in respect of


Prompt: 48.  On 26 March 2003 the SRJI requested the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 to inform the applicants of the latest developments in the case and of the exact number of criminal proceedings instituted in relation to the abduction and murder of


Prompt: 38.  In April 2003 the investigator from the Chechnya prosecutor’s office in the Khanty-Mansiysk Region questioned several local police officers who had been on secondment to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD at the relevant time. Witness Sergey Z. testified that he had been the head of the convoy group between February and May 2000. He explained that at first the gymnasium of the former boarding school had been used as a temporary detention ward (“IVS”). He stated that the keeping of records and detention logs had been very poor, if it had been done at all, and that the VOVD officers had had unrestricted access to the persons detained at the ward. He then described how two officers had cut off


Prompt:
16.  On the same day, applying Article 57, Article 595 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 61 § 10 of the Criminal Code and section 13 of the Press Act (Law no. 47 of 8 February 1948), the District Court sentenced the manager of Il Giornale and the applicant to fines of 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 Italian lire (ITL) respectively, payment of damages and costs in the sum of ITL 60,000,000, payment of the civil party’s costs and publication of the judgment in Il Giornale. In its reasoning the District Court included the following considerations:
“...
The author of this article, taking as his theme the case against Senator


Prompt: 85.  On 16 March 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that on 8 May 2005 Said-Khuseyn Elmurzayev's dead body had been discovered in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic and that an investigation into his murder had been opened by the prosecutor's office of the Groznenskiy District in case no. 44078. The whereabouts of


Prompt: 37.  Around the time of the applicant’s arrest and thereafter, the same newspaper and online news portals affiliated with the authorities published a number of pejorative articles calling the applicant an “American agent”, with headlines such as “American Agent


Prompt: 91.  On 6 December 2003 a prosecutor from the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office noted that “no real investigation has taken place and the necessary steps have not been taken to establish and investigate the circumstances of the case”. He ordered the investigators to question the applicant and her husband about the “personality” of


Prompt: 18.  On 21 June 2005 the Administrative Court, without a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s complaint as being unfounded. It upheld the District Administrative Authority’s decision as to the minimum distance from the applicant’s property. Referring to the case of


Prompt: 8.  At about 7 p.m. on 4 January 2003 a grey UAZ minivan (tabletka) allegedly belonging to the Gudermes district department of the interior (“the Gudermes ROVD”) parked near the applicants’ house in Oiyskhar settlement, Chechnya. At 8 p.m. Mr


Prompt: 36.  On 21 and 22 October 1997 Mr Gendzhev and those who had signed the unification agreement on behalf of the Supreme Holy Council headed by him wrote to the Prime Minister and the Directorate of Religious Denominations stating that the conference planned for 23 October was not being organised in accordance with the statute of the Muslim religious organisation and that it was therefore unlawful. Those who had signed the agreement of 30 September 1997 stated that they had been forced to do so by


Prompt:
47.  The second applicant in her statement mentioned that she had recognised her son in a photograph that was published in the Greek newspaper Athinaiki on 28 September 1974 and showed Cypriot prisoners being transported to Turkey on a Turkish destroyer in July 1974.
(f)  Application no. 16070/90:


Prompt: 9.  On 28 January 2003, between 7 and 8.30 a.m., the applicants and ten other persons were arrested in their houses by officers from the anti‑terrorist branches of the İdil and Şırnak police headquarters. According to the house search, seizure and arrest reports, they were arrested “in connection with the armed attack and in accordance with a decision of the İdil Magistrates’ Court (decision no. 2003/7)”. During the house search, the security forces seized music compact discs from the houses of


Prompt:
12.  During the proceedings the court examined the following passages:
“My esteemed former Director, ... as a result of your pointless and inappropriate acts, which were carried out merely to obtain economic and political profit and to appear cute to some people, you caused irreparable harm to our historic PTT (Beyoğlu) building ...
... I believe that our late Minister of Communications,


Prompt:
113.  The chapter entitled “Uzbekistan 2011” in the Amnesty International annual report for 2011, released in May of the same year, in so far as relevant, states as follows:
“Reports of torture or other ill-treatment continued unabated. Dozens of members of minority religious and Islamic groups were given long prison terms after unfair trials ...
...
Torture and other ill-treatment
Despite assertions by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased, reports of torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated. In most cases, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations.
Several thousand people convicted of involvement with Islamist parties or Islamic movements banned in Uzbekistan, as well as government critics and political opponents, continued to serve long prison terms under conditions that amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Uzbekistan again refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the country despite renewed requests.
...
Counter-terror and security
Closed trials started in January of nearly 70 defendants charged in relation to attacks in the Ferghana Valley and the capital, Tashkent, in May and August 2009 and the killings of a pro-government imam and a high-ranking police officer in Tashkent in July 2009. The authorities blamed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) and the Islamist Hizb-ut-Tahrir party, all banned in Uzbekistan, for the attacks and killings. Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the IMU, the IJU and Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2009 were people who attended unregistered mosques, studied under independent imams, had travelled abroad, or were suspected of affiliation to banned Islamic groups. Many were believed to have been detained without charge or trial for lengthy periods. There were reports of torture and unfair trials.
...
•In April, Kashkadaria Regional Criminal Court sentenced


Prompt: 33.  On 17 January 2004 the military prosecutor's officer of the UGA informed the first applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of


Prompt: 11.  Between 11 October 1999 and 5 November 1999 the applicant filed numerous petitions with the public prosecutor’s offices in Bismil, in Diyarbakır, at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the governor’s office of the state of emergency region and the regional gendarme command in Diyarbakır, the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the Ministry of the Interior. He requested that the authorities carry out an investigation into the disappearance of


Prompt: 22.  The applicant alleged that, on the evening of 20 September 1993, an angry mob had appeared at her door, entered the house and destroyed all her belongings. The mob had then proceeded to set fire to her home and she had watched as the flames destroyed it. The next day, when she had returned home with her husband and daughter, she had been met by an enraged mob of villagers who had prevented her from entering the house. Police officers Ioan Moga,


Prompt: 142.  On 10 December 1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council, claiming that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken into detention by Captain


Prompt: 508.  Mr Demırhan refuted the charges read out to him by the Investigating Judge. He had had no relationship with the PKK other than acting as a defence counsel. He had not acted as a courier between prisons (especially Gaziantep prison where he had never set foot). Nor had he brought into prison any knife. At that time lawyers were searched before being admitted into the prison, so carrying in a knife would have been impossible. He knew


Prompt: 132.  The witness, who was the public prosecutor in Palu at the time of the events, was present at the examination of the body of Mehmet Akkum. He noted the absence of the ears but did not consider it his duty to find out how the body had been mutilated. He concluded, on the basis of the information given by the gendarmes, that


Prompt: 19.  Judge Brodrick decided that some documents, including D.I. Mann’s report, which led to the Chief Constable’s decision to authorise the use and installation of a covert listening device in B.’s flat, were to be withheld from the applicants and their lawyers. The judge kept under review the non-disclosure during the proceedings and at one point some disclosure was made, although not


Prompt: 8.  Having woken up her husband, the first applicant went to the door. One of the men asked her: “Where is Zelimkhan?” Magomed Kudayev answered that it was he. Then a man ordered him in accented Russian to get dressed and follow them. The men did not ask for any documents. When the first applicant asked where they were taking her husband, one of the intruders pointed his gun at her and ordered her to go into another room. Meanwhile the second applicant, who had been alerted by the noise, entered the room. Some of the men entered the dwelling of


Prompt:
5.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant issued her husband, Mr Kolovangin with a power of attorney (registered by a notary public under no. 2226) which provided as follows:
“I, Ms Irina Petrovna Kolovangina, ... hereby authorise Mr


Prompt: 108.  The witness was the public prosecutor in Elazığ, in charge of the investigation into the death of Ferhat Tepe. In the investigation file and the autopsy report he received, there were no findings indicating that the deceased had been tortured. There was no sign of any ill-treatment on the photographs. In their statements made at the Hozat Public Prosecutor’s office, Mr


Prompt: 42.  On the same date the investigators questioned the neighbour, Mr I.L. Only the first page of his statement was furnished to the Court. From the information available it appears that Aslan Dovletukayev’s abductors had also searched his house, that they had used military radios, and that one of them had used a special call name which the witness could not remember. Once the perpetrators had left, he had found out from the other neighbours that the men had taken away


Prompt:
18.  The court went on to point out that section 29 of the Act of 29 July 1881 defined defamation as “any statement or allegation of a fact that impugns the honour or reputation of [a] person” and that the law made no distinction based on the nature of the writing in issue. On that basis, any writing, whether political, philosophical, novelistic or even poetical, was governed by the applicable rules in such matters, with regard both to public order and to the protection of individuals. However, the court added that “the application of the rules on defamation in respect of a press article or other text directly expressing the view of its author requires, if the text is a work of fiction, an examination of the question whether the civil parties are actually the individuals concerned by the offending remarks, and then of the meaning attributed by the author to the words of his characters in the light of the ideas that he expounds in reality in his work”. As to the second point – the first being manifestly established – the court found as follows: “... a distinction has to be made between the offending passages on pages 10, 86, 105, and, lastly, 136, the only extracts now to be taken into account: some of them express the view of the narrator and coincide with the author’s ideas as they emerge from the work as a whole, whilst others can be attributed only to the character making the remarks in question, in so far as the author genuinely distances himself from those remarks throughout the work, either through the narrator or by other means.”
Using that method the court ruled as follows on the four passages in question:
“1.  Page 10: ‘... an effective way to fight Le Pen is to call for him to be put in the dock and show that he isn’t the Chairman of a political party but the chief of a gang of killers – after all, people would have voted for Al Capone too’ [this view is attributed by the author to anti-racist demonstrators who have gathered outside the law courts].
This segment of text is preceded by another, which has not been mentioned by the civil parties: ‘For them, it’s not sufficient to call


Prompt: 16.  On 27 December 1994 Mr Fahri Hazar, a co-villager, came to the applicant’s house and told her that on the morning of 24 December 1994 an identity check had been carried out by uniformed police officers at the construction site where


Prompt:
12.  On 23 March 1999 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 14 April 1999 by the Lublin Court of Appeal. The appellate court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“


Prompt: 36.  On 24 March 2012 the investigators questioned the applicant who stated that at about 3 a.m. on the night between 22 and 23 March 2012 Mr I.G. had arrived at his house, informed him of the abduction of Mr


Prompt: 69.  On 30 December 2009 the investigators questioned officers of the Shatoy ROVD Mr U.A. and Mr A.I. both of whom stated that their ROVD did not have detention cells owing to repair works in the building and that the detainees were taken to the temporary detention facility of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior. They did not recall seeing Mr


Prompt: 47.  Writing to the applicants’ lawyer on 29 July and 12 August and the regional prosecutor’s office on 30 July 2014, the Kaluga FMS provided information about the medical assistance given to the applicants. In respect of M.A., the letters stated that he had been examined by a doctor upon arrival, that an interpreter had assisted him on 9 June 2014 in communicating with the detention centre doctor, who had administered treatment, and that on 14 and 25 June he had again been examined by a doctor and sent for a chest X-ray. His condition had been described as “satisfactory” and improved. The letters went on to state that the detention rooms had a ventilation system installed, that the shower and toilets, although not in the rooms, were undergoing renovation so that they would all be on one floor, that there was a courtyard for walks, and that the detention centre staff had treated detainees with respect and never allowed any behaviour which could escalate into arguments. The staff included a doctor, a psychologist and a medical disinfection specialist. On 17 July 2014 M.A. had signed a paper refusing any further assistance from Ms


Prompt: 46.  On 1 February 2004 at 9.15 p.m. Olga Biliak was visited by a prison doctor who gave her a painkiller and an anti-spasmodic drug. At 9.55 p.m. Olga Biliak died. The death certificate issued on the same day indicated bilateral pleurisy as the cause of death. According to the Government,


Prompt: 191.  In particular, when questioned, the six officers acknowledged that Russian servicemen had conducted a sweeping-up operation on 6 January 2001. According to Mr Kuryayev, Colonel L. had been in charge of the operation. As a result of the operation three men had been taken to the ROVD but their detention had not been officially registered. After a call from the Urus-Martan FSB at around 5 p.m., four or five FSB officers had come to take Mr


Prompt: 90.  On 11 March 2006 statements made by B.E. on 2 March 2006 were verified at the scene of the crime. This young man, who lives in Okrokana, had helped Sandro Girgvliani’s friends to find his body in the woods. B.E. showed the place where, in the gorges of the river that runs past the cemetery, he had first spied the traces of a bloodied body that had fallen down in the snow. With


Prompt: 15.  The applicants also enclosed a copy of a complaint from over 100 residents of the village of Katayama, Staropromyslovskiy District, to the administration of the Chechen Republic, submitted on an unspecified date in 2002. The residents complained that their fellow villagers had been disappearing and referred in particular to the abduction of Mr


Prompt: 19.  On 12 February 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer, who asserted that the restriction of his client’s liberty was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because he would then be unable to meet potential voters and proclaim his electoral programme. The Lithuanian court had regard to the Court’s case-law on the subject and emphasised that the right to stand for elections was not absolute (the Supreme Administrative Court referred to


Prompt: 10.  The servicemen told everyone that they were looking for a person who was on the authorities' wanted list. They conducted an identity check and took away the passports of Mr Makhadi M. and Mr Magomed M. On completion of the check the servicemen were about to leave when one of them asked


Prompt:
53.  On 2 September 2013 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court examined the specific circumstances of the case and extended the first applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The release of the accused


Prompt: 6.  At the material time the applicant and her family, including Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov, lived in Vedeno, Chechnya. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement which was situated at high altitude. Since January 2002 Mr


Prompt: 14.  It appears that in the meantime, some of the applicants’ families contacted the Istanbul Bar Association seeking legal aid for their relatives during their detention in police custody. A lawyer was accordingly appointed. On 13 January 2002 the lawyer applied to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court for information in relation to twelve of the applicants (Esma Döner,


Prompt: 39.  The witness is a police superintendent and commander of Police Division C at the Police Headquarters. On 11 August 1996 at about 6.45 p.m. he visited the scene of the killing of Anastasios Isaak with a team of men from CID Headquarters and the Forensic Service. In his statement he noted that he had given instructions on the spot to the Acting Superintendent in charge of CID (E) Headquarters concerning the investigation of the killing, asking that the scene be photographed and video-recorded. He had also attended the post-mortem examination of the corpse of


Prompt: 9.  In a written submission dated 20 January 1993 the applicant added mainly the following to his initial account. He was born in Basra but had moved to Baghdad in 1986 when he married. Between October 1981 and February 1990, during the war with Iran, he had served in the military and he had been called up again between August 1990 and January 1992, during the occupation of Kuwait, to serve in an armoured transport division assigned to transport tanks. He had been given four military awards for bravery and four medals, however such medals had been given to a large number of officers and soldiers. In October 1992 he had been called upon to carry out military assignments (allegedly murders and terrorist acts) against the Shi’as in Al Ahwar. As he had felt unable to murder his own people, he had deserted and left Iraq on 20 December 1992. In this respect, he submitted that he sympathised with all organisations working against


Prompt: 40.  An article published in the daily newspaper Večer on 2 June 2009 reported on the alleged discontent of the applicant’s followers about its name as submitted in the second registration proceedings. In this connection the article quoted a letter by Mr


Prompt: 58.  Lord Brown was in full agreement with Lord Bingham. He noted that threats to witnesses were a problem: Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (“ACPO”) statistics showed that 10% of crimes led to incidents of intimidation. He underlined, however, that the Osman test was “clearly a stringent one” which was not easily satisfied, as recognised by the Osman judgment itself. It was “a constant one” which did not vary depending on the circumstances so that the fact that


Prompt: 140.  On 20 July, and again on 7 and 9 August 2002 the investigators questioned several police officers who had been manning checkpoint no. 33 at the time of the events in question. They stated that on 22 June 2002 the FSB officers had arrived at the checkpoint in order to undertake a special operation. On the morning of 23 June 2002 they searched cars passing through the checkpoint. None of the officers questioned had information about the abduction. The checkpoint had also been manned by OMON officers. Several of them were also questioned by the investigators, but none of them had witnessed the arrest of Mr


Prompt: 108.  The witness, a private in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the Mardin provincial gendarmerie, stated that as part of his guard duty at the detention area he would let detainees out of their cell when they needed to go to the lavatory or when they went for their meals. He would also give the detainees water if they asked for it. While carrying out those duties he had not observed anything unusual about


Prompt: 29.  The single sports shoe and the pair of blood-stained jeans found in the bag during Bülent Karataş’s post mortem examination, as well as a pair of shoes and a track-suit bottom which apparently belonged to the tenth applicant, were analysed at the Forensic Medicine institute on 31 January 2008. It was established that the blood samples taken from near the river bed by the prosecutor on 28 September 2007 (see paragraph 10 above) belonged to the tenth applicant,


Prompt: 37.  On the same day the investigator in charge of the case applied for judicial authorisation of access to all call logs for the night of 28 to 29 October 2009 kept by mobile-phone providers operating in the area. On 18 November 2009 he also applied for access to the logs of all incoming and outgoing calls to and from Mr


Prompt: 55.  On 27 April 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant’s counsel in reply to an earlier request, that in the course of a disciplinary investigation it had been established that Mr P., the former acting prosecutor of


Prompt: 48.  The hearings on 27 March, 4 June and 15 September 1997 had to be postponed on account of the failure of the authorities to submit to the trial court the identity card of Kadri Dursun and the criminal records of


Prompt: 63.  Between 6 October 2004 and 3 February 2005 the investigation interviewed some thirty residents of Valerik as witnesses. They stated, in almost identical terms, that they had learnt about the abduction of


Prompt: 4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1950, respectively. The first applicant, Mr Kryukov, lives in Kolpashevo, the Tomsk Region. The second applicant, Mr Lantsev, died on 28 October 2007. On 10 March 2008 his widow, Ms


Prompt: 49.  Both witnesses affirmed that they had been held in custody between 15 December 1994 and 2 January 1995 in the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate and that they had not seen or known of a person named


Prompt: 52.  On 21 September 2011 the City Court upheld the extradition order. It reiterated that the applicant’s submissions concerning the risk of ill‑treatment and denial of fair trial, as well as political persecution, had already been assessed and dismissed in the asylum proceedings. It went on to note that, after examining those arguments itself, as well as the abundant materials submitted by her, which included reports from various governmental and non-governmental organisations on the human rights situation in Kazakhstan, judgments of the European Court, articles published in the media, and relevant public statements by Kazakhstani officials, as well as video materials, it considered that the applicant had failed to produce convincing evidence to substantiate her submissions that she would be at risk of ill-treatment and denial of fair trial. With reference to the


Prompt:
29.  On 11 December 2000 the head of the village administration issued a note which contained the following account of the events of 22-25 October 2000:
“At about 2 p.m. on 22 October 2000 a resident of Akhkinchu-Barzoy,


Prompt: 9.  From 11.45 p.m. on 19 October to 12.50 a.m. on 20 October 2005, the applicant was questioned for the first time after his arrest earlier that day. A State-appointed lawyer was present during the questioning. The applicant was asked about a loan of 100,000 euros (EUR) that he had allegedly made to


Prompt: 27.  Also in May 2000 the tenth applicant wrote to the public prosecutor’s office of Chechnya (“the Chechnya prosecutor’s office”) and to the General Prosecutor’s Office complaining about the unlawful detention of his son and two other persons by officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. The tenth applicant submitted that although the head of the VOVD had denied that the three persons had been detained, he had talked to other detainees who had told him that they had seen


Prompt:
16.  The Northern Ireland Civil Liberties Council requested a report from Dr Kirschner of the International Forensic Programme, Chicago. Dr Kirschner considered the reports of Professors Crane and Vanezis as well as other material including statements from prisoners in the deceased’s cell block. Dr Kischner’s report of 7 September 1997 concluded:
“[I]t is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty that the injuries that


Prompt:
9.  On 12 February 2004 the applicant failed to appear at the hearing. The Szczecin District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of three months. The decision reads as follows:
“the court orders that


Prompt:
14.  On 22 June 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office issued an extradition order against the applicant. The text of the decision included the following:
“... the Andijan Region Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior is investigating a criminal case against


Prompt:
78.  In relation to Mr Mammadov’s complaint of a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 6 the Court stated in the second Mammadov judgment, cited above:
“260.  The Court recalls that it has already held in [the first]


Prompt: 8.  In 1976 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in Seydişehir and revised the local plans. Following this revision, the land in question was registered in the Land Registry with the title of six other persons (


Prompt: 17.  Immediately after Zelimkhan Isayev’s arrest the first and second applicants pursued the UAZ vehicles in a car, but in vain. They then visited the head of the local administration and told him that


Prompt: 12.  The same evening the Istanbul prosecutor arrived at the scene of the incident. In his presence the police officers searched Erdinç Arslan's flat and found a Kalashnikov machine gun numbered SG29101, a Unique firearm, empty cartridges and bullets. The police officers found a Star firearm numbered 1898622 in


Prompt:
519.  Mr Erten denied acting as a PKK courier and said that he used to get angry when Mr Güven approached him to listen to his conversations with his clients. He disputed Mr Güven's statements against him, the confrontation record and the preliminary statement, which he alleged had been forced from him under torture. He had not had any PKK document on him when apprehended. It would have been irrational to have carried such a document at that time.

h)


Prompt:
43.  On 18 January 2013 the head of the operational search unit of the Ministry the Interior of North Ossetia-Alania replied to the investigators’ request (see paragraph 42 above) stating, amongst other things:
“In reply to your request no. 240-21/1908-2012 of 17 December 2012 I inform you that the operational services of North Ossetia-Alania have obtained information that Mr


Prompt:
34.  On 5 June 2004, the Prime Minister of the interim government of Iraq, Dr Allawi, and the US Secretary of State, Mr Powell, wrote to the President of the Security Council, as follows:
“Republic of Iraq,
Prime Minister Office.
Excellency:
On my appointment as Prime Minister of the interim government of Iraq, I am writing to express the commitment of the people of Iraq to complete the political transition process to establish a free, and democratic Iraq and to be a partner in preventing and combating terrorism. As we enter a critical new stage, regain full sovereignty and move towards elections, we will need the assistance of the international community.
The interim government of Iraq will make every effort to ensure that these elections are fully democratic, free and fair. Security and stability continue to be essential to our political transition. There continue, however, to be forces in Iraq, including foreign elements, that are opposed to our transition to peace, democracy, and security. The government is determined to overcome these forces, and to develop security forces capable of providing adequate security for the Iraqi people.
Until we are able to provide security for ourselves, including the defence of Iraq’s land, sea and air space, we ask for the support of the Security Council and the international community in this endeavour. We seek a new resolution on the Multinational Force (MNF) mandate to contribute to maintaining security in Iraq, including through the tasks and arrangements set out in the letter from Secretary of State


Prompt: 27.  On 29 March 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr A., who stated that on 25 March 2005 he had learned that in Zamay-Yurt in Chechnya, at some point in January or February 2005, federal servicemen had conducted a special operation and killed six persons. This information had been broadcast during the news programme of one of the federal television channels. On the same date he and his relative, Mr A.G., had gone to that village, where in a shed next to the cemetery they had found various pieces of clothing. Among them he had identified and collected those of his brother,


Prompt:
15.  On 27 August 2004 the senior operational search officer Mr M.A. reported to the head of the Grozny ROVD of the following:
“... upon the orders given by the investigator Mr M.T. from the Grozny town prosecutor’s office in connection with the investigation of the abduction of Mr A.Bugyaev in Khankala, I took operational search measures as a result of which it was established that Mr A. Bugayev had been released and currently is outside of the Chechen Republic. ... I have spoken to a number of his neighbours ...who had confirmed that Mr Bugayev had been released and left [the area]. It was impossible to question the relatives of Mr


Prompt:
48.  Apparently on 27 January 2004 the applicant was informed orally that he would not be granted early release. It was claimed that he had not been issued with a formal written decision. He submitted a copy of an unsigned document dated 16 January 2004 sent by the registry of the Aruba Court of First Instance to the Aruba Minister of Justice, phrased in the following terms:
“Please find attached the documents sent to the Central Rehabilitation Board [Centraal College voor de Reclassering] relating to the release of


Prompt: 33.  Furthermore, in his statement, Superintendent M. Cosgrave noted that the following day he had visited the scene of the incident at Dherynia checkpoint with State pathologists Dr Panicos Stavrianos and Dr


Prompt:
17.  On the same day the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows in the investigator’s decision of 4 February 2013:
“Beginning at around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013,


Prompt:
30.  On the basis of the facts, as established above, the SAC reached the following conclusions:
“By Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the State is liable for damage caused through the unlawful actions and omissions of its bodies and officials. The provision is of a general character and its implementation is to be regulated by statute. The tort liability of the State and the municipalities is thus regulated in the States and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (SMRDA), which is the applicable special statute [...] The State’s liability is strict, the victim receives damages directly from the juridical person to which the respective body or official belongs. The liability is objective as it is not necessary to show that the damage was caused through the fault of anyone. [...]
By section 1 (1) SMRDA, the State and the municipalities are liable for any damage caused to individuals and legal persons from the unlawful acts, actions or omissions of their bodies and officials, in the course of or in connection with an administrative activity. By section 7 of the SMRDA, the action is to be directed against the [bodies] whose unlawful acts, actions or omissions led to the damage caused. By section 4, the compensation is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which is a direct and proximate result of the harm done. For the liability to be engaged, the following preconditions have to be met: 1) there has to be pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage – actual damage or lost profit; 2) it must have been caused by an unlawful act, action or omission of a body or an official of the State or the municipalities; 3) it has to be in the performance of an administrative activity, namely the damage has been caused by the unlawful act, action or omission of the body or official, in the course of or in connection with an administrative activity; and 4) direct and proximate causal link between the unlawful act, action or omission and the damage caused. [...]
The analysis of all written evidence in the present case leads to the unconditional conclusion that on 21 and 22 March 2005 officials of the First police directorate in Sofia caused to the plaintiff minor bodily injury. As early as 23 March 2005 the [doctor at the Sofia Investigative Service] noted a “light bruise on the left side of the chest and the back”. During the plaintiff’s examination on 26 March 2005 [the coroner] noted eight different injuries in the areas of the left ear, left part of the chest, left side of the back, left and central parts of the waist, right side of the chest down to the waist and left side of the waist towards the pelvis. Part of these injuries correspond to the one established by [the in-house doctor], at the same time the coroner himself is explicit in his conclusion that the injuries could have been caused in the way and at the time indicated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s description of the events of 21 and 22 March 2005 at the [police directorate’s building] is consistent, as seen from the records of his [examinations during the criminal proceedings]. During these examinations the plaintiff was interviewed as a witness, after having been notified of the criminal sanctions in the event of perjury. [...] The combined assessment of [these records] together with the remainder of the evidence shows that they all establish identical factual circumstances. In that regard, objective data are also contained in the two court decisions given in the framework of the criminal proceedings [concerning appeals of the applicant against decisions of the prosecution to discontinue the proceedings], which are obviously based on evidence collected during the investigation. It has not been disputed that the [criminal proceedings in question] were opened following a complaint by the plaintiff against unknown officers of the First police directorate in Sofia that on 21 and 22 March 2005 they had caused him a minor bodily injury, an offence under Article 131 § 1 (2) taken in conjunction with Article 130 § 2 of the Criminal Code. As seen from [the decision] of the Sofia Military Court of 2 April 2008, in the course of the criminal proceedings a medical expert report was commissioned, which established that Velev’s injuries had caused him pain and suffering. [...]
On the basis of all the evidence indicated above, the court concludes that on 21 and 22 March 2005 the plaintiff


Prompt: 72.  The applicant and her relative, Ms S.M, followed the servicemen and saw Mr Alash Mugadiyev being put into an UAZ (tabletka) minivan. The vehicle’s registration plate contained the figures 386 кх. On the same day two other residents of the village, Mr S.A. and Mr A.B., were detained by servicemen. Mr S.A. was put into the same vehicle as Mr


Prompt: 11.  On 26 June 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicants' appeal. It noted that the reading and understanding of the article demanded a very high level of intelligence and concentration. The court of first instance had therefore rightfully also taken account of readers who might peruse the first paragraphs of the article without understanding its satirical meaning and then discontinue their reading of the essay because it was too demanding. The fact that the offending statement was pure fiction and that


Prompt: 19.  Next, at about 7 a.m. on the same morning, the sixth applicant and the first applicant's son went to the house of Mr M., the head of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). There they met the seventh and eighth applicants, who informed them that on the very same night Russian military servicemen had beaten and taken away their relative,


Prompt: 45.  On 13 March 2005 Mr T., head of the village administration, was questioned. He submitted that in 1994-1996 some young men from the area, under the command of a certain Geriskhanov from the Gudermes district, had obtained weapons and set up watch at the village’s entrance. He did not know what exactly they had been doing. According to rumours,


Prompt: 15.  On 4 March 1999 sixty‑one members of the Bulgarian parliament requested the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant party unconstitutional, more specifically, contrary to Articles 11 § 4 and 44 § 2 of the Constitution of 1991. They argued that the party had in fact been formed in 1990 and was a successor of the “illegal” UMO Ilinden. They further argued that the party’s ultimate aim was the formation of an independent Macedonian state through the secession of Pirin Macedonia from Bulgaria. The party’s members and leaders had on numerous occasions declared such goals. The party’s original constitution, amended in the course of the proceedings before the Sofia City Court, contained language to the effect that it would “protect the interests of the population of Pirin Macedonia [and] of the refugees from Aegean and Vardar Macedonia”. This indicated its separatist character. Also, the applicant party’s chairman, Mr


Prompt: 39.  On 16 October 2000 the investigating judge appointed two psychiatric experts, Dr G. and Dr P., instructing them to inspect Joselito Renolde’s medical records; to analyse their contents and to determine whether the condition from which he suffered was compatible with detention in a punishment block, whether the absence of medicinal substances in his blood was normal, whether it was to be concluded that he had deliberately refrained from taking his medication and whether such an interruption of treatment had influenced his behaviour, and in particular his suicide; to clarify the reason for the ERIC team’s intervention on 2 July 2000; to interview, if necessary, the SMPR psychiatrist and nurses and the members of the ERIC team; and to determine whether


Prompt: 77.  On 17 November 2004 charges were brought against hospital doctor I.M. under Article 375 § 2 of the new Criminal Code of Armenia (abuse of authority or public position, accidentally resulting in grave consequences) on the ground that he had failed to provide adequate treatment to


Prompt: 23.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 around fifteen armed men wearing masks and uniforms broke into the house at 23 Rodnikovaya Street and forced all family members to the floor. Then they took Idris Elmurzayev and his brother,


Prompt: 102.  Mehmet Yılmaz, a master sergeant in the gendarmerie serving in the intelligence unit of the Mardin provincial gendarmerie, stated that he had seen Yakup Aktaş while on guard duty on 22 November 1990. On that day he had ordered the doors of the cells to be opened three times in the morning and twice in the evening and had asked the detainees if they had any problems. He had spoken to


Prompt: 18.  On 16 February 2001 the first applicant travelled to Gudermes and handed over a complaint about his son’s detention, addressed to the head of the Chechen Administration, Mr Akhmad Kadyrov. Among other authorities the applicants applied to immediately following Mr


Prompt: 22.  On 3 September 2000, several private individuals, including Z.O., K.T., and U.A., armed with guns and knives, burst into the home of I. Papava in Senaki (Western Georgia) where a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place. One of the assailants blocked the door, while the others proceeded to attack the applicants. A gun was pointed at the head of


Prompt: 93.  After he had passed the police officer, the coloured man had drawn a pistol or a revolver, a firearm at any rate, which he had held in his right hand. He had held his arm slanted downwards, thus pointing the pistol towards the ground, and had tried to continue on his way. Mr


Prompt: 20.  In a letter of 4 October 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the second applicant that the investigation had established that at about 3 p.m. on 28 December 2004 unidentified persons had detained Mr


Prompt: 12.  A soldier who was checking Yakub Iznaurov's passport noted that his permanent place of residence was in the Republic of Kalmykia. The serviceman asked the applicant's son why he had come to Grozny and whether he had come to Chechnya to fight against the Russian forces. Without listening to


Prompt: 27.  In a judgment of 24 May 2001, deposited with the registry on 3 July 2001, the Bologna Court of Appeal declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible. It observed in particular that the evidence against the applicant had been corroborated by two persons charged in related proceedings, who had stated that the weapons in question, which had been brought in from Hungary and then used to commit an armed robbery, a murder and an attempted murder, had been bought at the applicant's house. He had then taken to Hungary a Fiat Uno car which one of the co-defendants had sold him. The District Court had correctly identified the defendant as


Prompt: 24.  On the same night a group of armed masked men took two other residents of Duba-Yurt, namely Umar and Ibragim Elmurzayev, from their home. After leaving the village, the servicemen allowed those two men and


Prompt:
9.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been beaten, subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, forced to remain standing, hosed with cold water, squeezed in the testicles, deprived of sleep, threatened with death and sworn at.
e)


Prompt: 34.  The applicants, Mr Bojko Cholakov and Mrs Milka Cholakova, both Bulgarian nationals, were born in 1914 and 1916 respectively. Mr Cholakov passed away in March 2005. His wife (the second applicant) and her daughter and son, Mr Cholakov's heirs, stated that they wished to continue the proceedings before the Court. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mrs


Prompt: 24.  The prosecution further submitted that the applicant’s brother, Mr Fadhal Saadi, had been detained in Iran; the applicant had visited him there in either January or February 2002. After his release Mr


Prompt: 8.  The first two applicants are spouses and the parents of eight children – the third to ninth applicants and Mr Muslim Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1982. The tenth applicant is the fourth applicant’s wife. At the material time


Prompt: 117.  On 7 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.M. who stated that he had been in the Kostroma Region when Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev had been abducted. He also stated that he had heard about the membership of Mr


Prompt: 90.  On 29 November 2010 the investigation was suspended. At the same time, the investigators ordered that operational search activities be carried out, with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of Mr


Prompt:
517.  Mr Kaya denied acting as a PKK courier. He had no relation other than that of lawyer/client with the prison. He repudiated the preliminary statement which he had signed after repression and torture – cold water and sexual harassment. He also rejected the confrontation report with Mr Güven, who had intervened in conversations he had had with his clients, being the prisoners' representative. He confirmed his statement to the Public Prosecutor.

f)


Prompt: 18.  Initially, the applicant was a party to two sets of proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land which were conducted separately before the Board of the City of Warsaw (subsequently


Prompt:
38.  At a hearing on 11 December 2008 the Deputy State Attorney amended the indictment against I.Š. The relevant part reads:
“On 17 April 2003, at around 5.20 p.m., near no. 6 Voltina Street, Dubrovnik, in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School, after a physical conflict he had with


Prompt: 29.  On 23 April 2004 the scene of incident was again inspected in the presence of Mr Mutalip Damayev. According to the additional inspection report, in front of the demolished building’s façade there was a cone-shaped hole 3.20 metres long, 2.20 metres wide and 0.90 metres deep. The distance from the centre of the hole to the foundation of the façade wall was two metres.


Prompt: 8.  In 1978 the apartment was divided into two apartments which became the ownership of the second and the third applicants respectively. In 1991 the second applicant transferred his title to his two sons, Alexander and


Prompt: 60.  On 23 July, at about 17.30 hours, a raid was carried out on the village by the Boyunlu village guards. The witness’s father-in-law Bisar ran away with other villagers on hearing the shots. Four guards (


Prompt: 41.  On 9 March 2004 investigators of the district prosecutor's office questioned Mr Zh., who at the time of the incident had held the post of deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and had been head of the MVD human resources department. Mr Zh. submitted that on 11 or 12 January 2004 he had been contacted over the phone by Mr D., the acting Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. Mr D. had informed Mr Zh. that a certain


Prompt:
64.  On 15 January 2004 the investigators provided the supervising prosecutor with a brief report on the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. The document stated, amongst other things, the following:
“... the investigation established that on 5 October 2001


Prompt: 11.  The facts being disputed by the parties, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 7 to 11 December 1998. They heard all the applicants (except for Hüsniye Ölmez) as witnesses, as well as


Prompt: 143.  From the documents submitted it appears that at some point between October and December 2005 the authorities concluded that four residents had been abducted as a result of the special operation: Mr A. Musayev, Mr U. Musayev, Mr


Prompt:
141.  Halise Acar made the following statement to İrfan Odabaş:
“Mehmet Salim Acar, who has gone missing, is my husband. On the day of the incident he had gone to work in the field with my son İhsan Acar. My son later came running back to the house saying that


Prompt: 52.  The first applicant read a witness statement dated 23 August 2005 by Mr Sh., a relative of the father and son who had disappeared after 11 February 2003, to the effect that on 11 February 2003 armed people in four armoured personnel carriers and two UAZ vehicles had taken away the father and son from the Sh. family. Mr Sh. also stated that on 18 February 2003 he and an investigator of the Grozny prosecutor’s office had visited a nearby federal checkpoint and found out that on 11 February 2003 at about 3 a.m. a federal military convoy had passed through the checkpoint in the direction of the districts where


Prompt: 17.  In its judgment the Court of Appeal considered, firstly, that the work in question was a “novel”, “a ‘creation of the imagination’ as defined by the Petit Robert dictionary”, whose story line was constructed around the dilemma facing the main character: “The author has developed a plot, based on that framework, running from the beginning of the proceedings against the young defendant until his suicide in prison before counsel’s address and the prosecution speech, and has given expression to many characters who mainly appear as stereotypes characterised by their moral or political position in relation to the civil parties, who themselves are explicitly real people.” It further observed that Mr Le Pen and the Front National, both appearing under their real and current identities, were constantly at the forefront not only of the debate conducted in open court but also of the exchanges between the various characters, “and even at the heart of the intimate contradictions facing the main protagonist”. The court then noted that, on a number of occasions, words had been put into the mouth of Mr Le Pen, who “express[ed] views that [were] close or identical to those [that he took] in reality, but which [had not been] regarded by the civil parties as impugning his honour and reputation or those of the party of which he [was] the leader”. It further considered that the subject of the book was the question set out on the back cover, “How can


Prompt:
61.  The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into the alleged abduction and killing of Savaş Buldan. 1.  Official documents
The documents listed below concern the statements taken from various witnesses and the investigation in relation to the kidnapping and subsequent killing of the applicant's brother.
(a)  Witness testimonies
(i)Statement of


Prompt: 8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 9 November 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Simović, the Malkićs, the Todorovićs and the


Prompt: 25.  The Government submitted that between May and June 2005 the Kabardino-Balkaria police had obtained information indicating that Rasul Tsakoyev had actively aided members of the illegal armed group Yarmuk and those leaders had given him and Mr M.A. a large amount for money for the preparation of terrorist attacks in Kabardino-Balkaria. After the failure of the attacks, members of Yarmuk group had been displeased with


Prompt: 35.  In September 2009 the Government submitted 893 pages of criminal investigation file no. 12136. Between 2002 and 2007 the file concerned investigations into three episodes: the disappearance of Magomed Dzhabayev on 10 March 2000; the disappearances of the applicants’ three relatives on 17 April 2000; and the torture of


Prompt: 79.  Sometime later the applicants received information from unidentified sources that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Vladikavkaz. During one of the applicants’ visits to that prison, a senior officer, who introduced himself as “


Prompt: 46.  In May 2010 the applicant’s lawyer collected a written statement from Magomed M., who stated that on 3 May 2010 he had been detained for several hours in St Petersburg for questioning by a police officer who had told him that he and


Prompt: 82.  On the same day the investigator Mr F.A. visited the applicant's house. He questioned the seventh applicant, Mr A.-Kh.G. and Ms M.G., who told him that the traces of the vehicles which the abductors had used on the previous day were still visible. Mr F.A. took some photographs in the applicant's dwellings but did not examine the traces. The applicant and her relatives also told the investigator that some neighbours had been eyewitnesses to


Prompt: 5.  The applicants, Ms Natalya Borisovna Trapeznikova, Ms Yuliya Sergeyevna Trapeznikova and Ms Anastasiya Sergeyevna Antonova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969, 1985 and 2004 respectively and live in Novosibirsk. The applicants are members of the family of Mr


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


Prompt: 35.  At the Conseil d’Etat hearing on 19 September 2013 the applicant relied on the Court’s judgment in Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013). He deduced from this judgment that the Court had now adopted a position requiring preventive review of whether a life prison sentence was reducible or not before the prisoner began his sentence, and therefore that the distinction drawn in the


Prompt: 26.  On 1 November 2005 the applicant received the Batumi City Court's dispatch of 17 October 2005 (see paragraph 23 above). He learnt that the notary public who had certified the contract of sale on 8 April 1994 had requested, on 10 October 2004, the quashing of the binding decision of 18 November 2004 under Article 422 § 1 (b) of the CCP. The notary complained that she should have been involved in the civil case as a respondent, in so far as, pursuant to the Notaries Public Act of 3 May 1996, she had been personally responsible for the validity of the contract in question. As to compliance with the statutory time-limit of one month, the notary claimed that she had first learnt of the existence of the decision of 18 November 2004 from a local newspaper, Batumelebi, on 28 September 2005. The relevant article, published on the latter date, had described the details of the confiscation proceedings and the civil case, noting the existence of the conflicting interests of the applicant and of the Ajarian prosecutor over the


Prompt: 55.  In the meantime, the investigators asked various authorities, including the FSB in Ingushetia and the Ministry of the Interior to provide them with information about the special operation in Nazran, the alleged detention of Mr