Prompt: 12.  The Erdemli prosecutor went to the house at around 11.40 a.m. and drew up an examination report with the assistance of the same doctor. Mustafa Döleksoy’s body was formally identified by a colleague from the law firm where


Prompt: 59.  On 19 September 1997 the Enez public prosecutor informed the Edirne public prosecutor that there were no pending investigations of unidentified bodies found in his area of jurisdiction and that his department had no records on


Prompt: 10.  The Court of Appeal further established, referring inter alia to Wikipedia, that the term “locust company“ (“Heuschreckenunternehmen“) was introduced into the political discussion in German speaking countries in 2005 by Mr


Prompt: 27.  At a preliminary hearing on 25 April 2013 the “TRNC” representatives asked the applicant to submit certificates from the mukhtar showing that the names Andriani Joannou, Andriani Ioannou and Andriani Georgiou Antoniou all referred to the applicant, and further certificates showing that her aunt had been variously known as


Prompt: 50.  On 20 August 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of


Prompt: 40.  The trial court noted that the first time the applicants had given evidence to the investigating authorities was some ten days after the killing (see paragraph 22 above). In the opinion of the trial court, the applicants' failure to make statements in the immediate aftermath of the events showed that the applicants had not witnessed the killing, but had made the allegations in order to blame the State for it. Thus, not only the statements made by the applicants but also the statements made by their witnesses were not to be relied on in evidence. On the other hand, there were no legal reasons to disregard the conclusions of the investigations carried out by the soldiers who had themselves had taken part in the investigation. It was “impossible” that the soldiers would collude in order to protect the first lieutenant by blaming private


Prompt:
75.  Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2013: Kyrgyzstan” contains the following findings concerning the situation in Kyrgyzstan in 2012:
“Kyrgyzstan has failed to adequately address abuses in the south, in particular against ethnic Uzbeks, undermining long-term efforts to promote stability and reconciliation following inter-ethnic clashes in June 2010 that killed more than 400 people. Despite an uneasy calm in southern Kyrgyzstan, ethnic Uzbeks are still subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, and extortion, without redress.
...
Local human rights non-governmental organizations reported that the overall number of reported incidents of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in police custody continued to decrease in 2012 in the south, although they still document new cases. Groups also reported the growing problem of law enforcement extorting money, in particular from ethnic Uzbeks, threatening criminal prosecution related to the June 2010 events. Victims of extortion rarely report incidents for fear of reprisals.
Investigations into the June 2010 violence have stalled. Trials of mostly ethnic Uzbeks connected to the violence continued to take place in violation of international fair trial standards, including the trials of


Prompt: 245.  As to the searches in other premises, the court decided that they had been conducted in an orderly and lawful manner. The court referred to the statements by Mr Uvarov and Mr Pletnev, members of the investigative team, who had participated in the searches. The court held their testimony for truthful since they “had no reasons to give false testimony”. The court further held that several attesting witnesses had participated in the searches and were able to supervise their progress. As to the statements by Ms Ardatova, Ms Morozova and Mr


Prompt: 5.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1924, 1955 and 1957 respectively. The first applicant lives in Istanbul, the second and third applicants live in Erzincan and the fourth applicant lives in Neunkirchen (Austria). The first applicant is the wife, the second applicant is the mother and the third and fourth applicants are the brothers of Mr


Prompt: 25.  The fifth applicant went into the courtyard at 74 Shkolnaya Street. There he saw the four bodies of the young men who had been led away by the soldiers. Under the fence-roof (a roof covering part of the courtyard) there were the bodies of


Prompt: 59.  I.A., a journalist, stated that there had been some disturbances in the town between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and that the police had used water cannons and rubber bullets against the protesters. At around 4 p.m. other journalists had arrived from Baku. The applicant and


Prompt: 33.  The discovery of the mass grave was reported in the media and became a subject of two special reports by the human rights NGOs Memorial (March 2001) and Human Rights Watch (May 2001). Both NGO reports stated that, of the identified bodies in the mass grave, 16 or 17 belonged to persons previously detained by the Russian forces, and specifically mentioned the case of


Prompt: 27.  Forensic experts from the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force secured evidence, mainly in the form of photographs, which was afterwards added to the investigation file. They found the bullet, which had passed through


Prompt: 191.  The fourteenth applicant was questioned on 3 January 2002. She gave a detailed statement about the kidnapping of her son in the early hours of 22 December 2001. She described their dark army uniforms and the electric lamps attached to the foreheads, as well as masks and said that they were armed with handguns. They had spoken Russian and forbidden the family members to follow them into the courtyard, unless they wanted


Prompt: 131.  On the other hand, applicants Şaban Kavaklıoğlu, Mehiyet Emsalsiz, Selame Türker, Ali Gençaslan, Hanım Çiftçi, Hasan et Hüseyin Çat, Firdevs Kırbıyık et Melek Altıntaş (List A), as well as applicants Resul Ayaz,


Prompt:
7.  Still on the same day, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Pula Minor Offences Court who, after she had heard the applicant, remanded him in custody for eight days under Section 135 § 1 of the Minor Offences Act in connection with the above charges. The reasoning reads as follows:
“On 9 October 2009 the Istarska Police Department submitted to this court an indictment in urgent proceedings against the accused,


Prompt: 6.  The first applicant, Mr Panah Huseyn (also sometimes referred to as Panah Huseynov), was a prominent member of the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. The second applicant, Mr Rauf Abbasov (commonly known as


Prompt:
58.  On 20 November 2000 the court decided to acquit the village guards. The court drew the following conclusions from the evidence:
“The statements which the witnesses and the complainants made when interrogated by the public prosecutor were different from those they later made before the court. In particular, in his statement before the public prosecutor, Salih Acar stated that the accused had covered their faces when they stopped the convoy, whereas in his statement to the court he did not specify whether or not the attackers had covered their faces.


Prompt:
16.  A retrial began before the Denizli Assize Court, which, on 20 May 2003, found the ten village guards guilty of the murder of the eight villagers as well as the attempted murder of a number of others, including the third and fourth applicants. The village guards were sentenced to life imprisonment. In its judgment the Denizli Assize Court stated the following:
“In view of the autopsy reports, there is no question as to the cause of death of the villagers. Instead, the question to be resolved is whether those who fired on the villagers were the accused village guards.
It is not possible to rely solely on the witness statements as they are contradictory on several points. However the witness statements given during the preliminary investigation seem to be, in general, objective. Relying on these initial statements it is established that the persons who had fired had their faces covered in order not to be recognised.
Furthermore, in the court's opinion, what a military commander should normally do when he is notified of an incident is to go to the scene of the incident as soon as possible. However in the present case, the fact that the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç checked all twenty-seven weapons one by one, without taking any action, is incomprehensible. Moreover the court notes that the Midyat Public Prosecutor maintained that the soldiers were not collecting the empty cartridges to help him and that he had to personally collect the empty cartridges which were near the dead bodies. In view of the above, the court concludes that Ali Kılıç,


Prompt: 17.  The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that at about 2.20 a.m. on 29 December 2002 unidentified persons armed with machine guns and wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had entered the house at 14, Beregovaya Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic, and kidnapped


Prompt: 43.  On 15 May 2005 the applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, describing in detail the circumstances of her son's apprehension and pointing out that her son had been abducted by representatives of the State. The applicant complained that the investigation into


Prompt:
89.  On 13 October 2006 the main military prosecutor’s office transmitted the seventh applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her brother to the military prosecutor of the UGA. The letter stated in particular that:
“... on 27 December 2002 federal servicemen arrested


Prompt: 20.  On 5 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office issued a report stating the following. At about 11 a.m. on 30 December 2002 in the area of Starye Atagi unidentified masked persons in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns had arrested


Prompt: 9.  The applicant, Ms Şemsi Önen, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1968. At the relevant time, she lived in the village Karataş near Mazıdağı (Mardin) in south-east Turkey. The application was brought by the applicant on behalf of her deceased parents and brother, on her own behalf and on behalf of her ten suriving siblings, namely Mekiye, Ishan, Ercan,


Prompt: 175.  Çağlayan was attached to his station, he went there from time to time and knew it well. Çağlayan and Gümüşsuyu were about 15-20 minutes walk apart. He knew the muhtar of Çağlayan personally, as he did almost all of the muhtars. He did not know Salih, Selim or


Prompt: 46.  It appears that on the same date, 19 September 2004, the ROVD officers also interviewed the first applicant. She stated that at about 2 a.m. on 19 September 2004 she had been woken up by knocking on the front door. When she had opened it, three masked and armed persons in camouflage uniforms had burst inside and had asked her to give them her son's passport. The intruders had then locked the first applicant and her relatives up. The first applicant had managed to get outside through the window, whereupon she had seen the second applicant, who had told her that the intruders had taken


Prompt: 177.  The fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are, respectively, the daughter, the son and the wife of Mr Aslan Tsurayev, who was born in 1972 (in the documents submitted the year of birth was also referred to as 1970). On 10 July 2018 the applicants informed the Court that the fifth applicant, Ms


Prompt: 17.  The applicants asked Mr A.G. to assist them in the release of Magomed Kudayev. Mr A.G. promised that he would speak to his brother, Mr Kh. G., about that. For three months the applicants and their relatives waited for any information about


Prompt: 11.  Ali Nas and Beşir Gasyak made statements to the police on 29 January 2003; Havil Adırbelli, Resul Kervanoğlu and Metin Goran did so on 30 January 2003 and Yetgin Adırbelli, Gülek Adırbelli and Mehmet Goran on 31 January 2003. They were asked whether they had been involved in the armed attack of 27 January 2003.


Prompt:
16.  On 14 June 2005 the investigator at the Zagatala District Police Station delivered a decision on assessment of the evidence. It appears from the decision that the applicant was also examined by a forensic narcotics expert who established that he had not been using narcotic substances and was not a drug user. By the same decision, the investigator also refused to launch a criminal inquiry in respect of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“T. Layijov alleged in his testimony that he had been beaten up by police officers and had even fainted. It appears from the case file that T. Layijov tried to escape when he was being taken to the district police station and that police officers dragged him upstairs. In that case, there should have been contusions and bruises on his body. It was established in the forensic report that there was an oval-shaped bruise on Layijov’s neck, but no injuries were found on other parts of his body. The degree of the injury was not determined because it was not an injury causing harm to health and it was established that the injury [found] would not have caused [him] to lose consciousness. Nevertheless, the procedural legislation allows causing harm to a person who has committed a crime, if he tries to escape during arrest. As the extent of


Prompt: 53.  Also on 25 August 2004 officer M. of the Organised Crime Unit was questioned. He submitted that he had been working at the Unit since 2000. Since 2001 he had been responsible for the provision of arms, receipt of information and organisation of field missions. Usually he remained on duty for twenty-four hours, after which he stayed at home for forty-eight hours. On 20 July 2004 officer M. had taken up duty at 8.30 a.m. On that date officer G., officer T. and officer Tut. had also been on duty. At 9 a.m. officers of the federal units of the Ministry of the Interior deployed in Ingushetia brought two detainees with black bags on their heads to the Organised Crime Unit. The officers were wearing masks and gave no information about the detainees, promising to provide it later. Officer M. made no entries in the register at that time. After waiting until 10 a.m., he asked the officers to provide him with the information concerning the detainees. They replied that they would obtain explanations from the latter and forward them to officer M. later. He did not know who the officers were, they were wearing camouflaged uniform. Officer M. also submitted that after the events of 21-22 June 2004 officers of the federal units were regularly stationed at the Organised Crime Unit. They would bring people there and question them. At approximately 1.40 p.m. on 20 July 2004 officer M. heard a loud noise on the staircase. After leaving his post, he saw two officers of the federal units lifting a man in dark clothes with a bag on his head. He asked them what was going on. They replied that the man had slipped on the stairs and fallen down. Having lifted him, they took the man upstairs. At approximately 2.50 p.m. the officers of the federal units left for a field mission, having informed officer M. that they had to fetch one more person who was an accomplice of those already brought to the Organised Crime Unit. At around 3 p.m. the officers returned. At 3.20 p.m. B., the Deputy Head of the Organised Crime Unit, called officer M. and told him to call an ambulance, which he did immediately. At 3.40 p.m. the ambulance arrived and, together with the doctors, officer M. went to the second floor and entered office no. 17. In the office medical assistant Kh. and Deputy Head B. were providing first aid to a man lying on the floor. The man, Mr


Prompt:
22.  According to a decision by the same prosecutor’s office dated 20 September 1995, issued in case no. 97/P/1990, the subject-matter of the investigation was specified as follows:
“With regard to the aims of case no. 97/P/1990, it is also necessary to specify the timeframe to be taken into account. Thus, it should be emphasised that the investigations focused on acts committed during the period which elapsed between the dispersion of the demonstration on Palace Square ordered by


Prompt:
26.  By a decision of 1 August 2006 the Tskaltubo District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated. Relying on the applicant’s pre-trial confession, the statements of the police officers and the medical documents of 28 December 2005 and 21 March 2006, the court confirmed the account of events presented by the police officers. In particular, the court held:
“In view of the above it is established that


Prompt: 24.  Also on the same day a large number of injured people were examined at the local hospital in the town of Cizre. Some of the injured persons whose condition was deemed to be critical were referred to Mardin State Hospital. These included the thirty-ninth to forty-first applicants,


Prompt: 66.  The Constitutional Court reiterated that the right to legal assistance was not intended to create a formality, which, if not observed, provided the accused with a means to avoid conviction. Before the introduction of Article 355 AT the right to legal assistance was part and parcel of the right to a fair hearing, intended to protect persons who as a result of a particular vulnerability might have given statements as a result of which they could be found to be guilty when in reality they were innocent. In various domestic and ECtHR cases violations had been found in the cases of minors. In the present case, the applicant was neither a minor nor suffering from any other vulnerability, nor had he complained that the statement had been made under duress. Moreover, referring to the Salduz judgment, it recalled that under domestic law as stood at the relevant time, no inferences could be made from silence, thus the applicant could have chosen to remain silent. Furthermore, the applicant had been found guilty not only on the basis of his statement but also on other statements of eye witnesses.


Prompt: 47.  In the Government’s submission, the preliminary investigation established that Mr R.D. had been doing military service in military unit 44822 of the Vostok special-purpose battalion (previously an infantry battalion) since 10 August 2004. In mid-July 2006 Mr R.D. had colluded with two unidentified individuals with a view to abducting


Prompt: 32.  On 27 December 2004 the investigators again questioned officer M.S., who stated that on 19 November 2004 he and his five colleagues had been patrolling the area next to ‘Musa Motors’ service station when they had heard gunfire. In about ten minutes they had arrived at the place of the shooting. There they had found a group of about thirty armed men in camouflaged uniforms who had informed them that they were from the OMON, and in the process of carrying out a special operation. These men, who had beaten up private M.K. and had killed patrolling officer


Prompt: 23.  Along with their statements giving details of the incident, the applicants also provided the Court with a photograph of M. Chikovani, who, after jumping out of the window, sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for months, a photograph of


Prompt:
85.  Kamil Kündüz was requested to investigate, as Adjudicator, the claims (outlined in the Kulp Chief Public Prosecutor's file) according to the law on the prosecution of civil servants and to report within 3 months.
(e)  The Adjudicator's report (


Prompt: 18.  As submitted by the applicants, on the evening in question Sandro Girgvliani and L.B.-dze, both young bankers, arrived at the Café Chardin later than the group of friends mentioned above. The applicants’ son was actually hoping to see Th.M.-dze, whom he was apparently courting. On entering the café, he went up to the table where T.S.-aia, the Interior Minister’s wife, and her friends were sitting to say hello to Th.M.-dze. After greeting Th.M.-dze with a kiss, he went to sit with L.B.-dze at a nearby table. At one point he signalled to Th.M.-dze to join them at his table and she temporarily changed tables. The discussion between


Prompt:
70.  Village guards from Boyunlu had come into the village of Ormandışı firing their weapons. He saw his son Cihan shot by the chief village guard as he came to the house. Later the guards burnt the crops. At nightfall, the guards left. There had been no terrorists in the village and there had been no armed clash. Soldiers apparently arrived after the guards had left – he did not see them as he stayed inside out of fear.
Statement by


Prompt: 33.  Mr Hasan Şakrak was the Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır who had been in charge of the case since 1999. It was he who had conducted the investigation into the disappearance of A.T. and into the alleged intimidation of the applicant by police officers. His investigation file only contained testimonies from the applicant and her daughters, Yasemin and Remziye, in which they made no references to the other people who had allegedly witnessed both incidents. Mr Şakrak said that a large part of the documents concerning A.T. had never been handed over to him. He had never heard of


Prompt: 34.  On 4 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office replied to the SRJI stating that the investigation into the Bantayev brothers’ kidnapping had been instituted on 6 January 2003 and that it had been suspended on an unspecified date for failure to identify the culprits. They further noted that victim status in the criminal proceedings had already been granted to


Prompt:
7.  This background was not mentioned in the above article but “der Standard” had reported on Mr Haider’s conviction in its issue of 2 October 1998. It read as follows:
“Criminal court convicts HaiderLawyer Böhmdorfer also convicted of defamation
The FPÖ federal party leader,


Prompt: 14. According to the medical records, at the request of a pregnant woman, a medical team had gone to the scene and brought her to the hospital. An entry in the hospital’s medical records of 3 August 1998 showed that one


Prompt: 31.  In a decree of 10 November 2006 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings since he considered that Chief Sergeant S had not committed an offence. In relation to the court’s instructions regarding further inquiries, the prosecutor stated that, despite efforts made, no other eyewitnesses had been identified; the inspection of the knife had not revealed any new evidence; it had been impossible to establish the owner of the mobile telephone; and that a reconstruction of the events would have been futile as


Prompt: 65.  On 5 December 2007 the Diyarbakır prosecutor opened a new investigation file (no. 2007/1934) and sent a letter to the Şırnak prosecutor. In his letter the Diyarbakır prosecutor stated that the investigation file only contained


Prompt: 28.  By a judgment of 13 October 1993 the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) set the appellate court’s judgment aside and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. The Federal Social Court considered in particular that Mrs


Prompt: 11.  At about 6 p.m. on that day the applicant, having pulled over to his house, saw a black VAZ Priora vehicle with registration number A 720 AT 95 parked next to the village administration in Sovetskaya Street. Meanwhile, Mr


Prompt:
25.  The tribunal then referred to the arguments used by the Diocese to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, namely the fact that he had made public his situation as a “married priest” (he had not received a dispensation from the Vatican until 1997) and father, together with the need to avoid scandal and to respect the sensitivity of the parents of the school’s pupils, as they might be offended if the applicant continued to teach Catholic religion and ethics. In this connection the tribunal took the following view:
“[I]n the light of the facts thus presented, Mr


Prompt:
43.  On 6 May 2012 Police Colonel Deynichenko drew up a report summarising the security measures taken on that day in Moscow. The report stated that the march, in which about 8,000 people had participated, had begun at 4.15 p.m. and had followed the route to Bolotnaya Square. It listed the groups and organisations represented, the number of participants in each group, the number and colours of their flags and the number and content of their banners. It further stated as follows:
“... at 5.04 p.m. the organised column ... arrived at the [cordon] and expressed the intention to proceed straight to Bolshoy Kamennyy bridge and [to cross it] to Borovitskaya Square. The police ... ordered them to proceed to Bolotnaya Square, the venue of the meeting. However, the leaders at the head of the column – [Mr Udaltsov, Mr Nemtsov and Mr Navalnyy] – ... called on the marchers through the loudspeaker not to move. Together with some thirty protesters they sat on the ground. Another group of about twenty, called by [their leaders], sat as well. The police ... repeatedly warned them against holding an unauthorised public gathering and required them to proceed to the venue of the meeting or to leave. Besides that, two State Duma deputies,


Prompt: 11.  The search of the two designated premises took place on 14 March 2008 and was conducted by officials of the Enforcement Authority (kronofogdemyndigheten) in Stockholm and several auditors of the Tax Agency. The flat was searched first. Present were Mr


Prompt: 28.  The prosecutor charged Ali Erdurucan, Haydar Erol and Eyüp Yalçınkaya with the offence of murder. Nurettin Bülbül was charged with murder and with exceeding the limits of legitimate self-defence. Finally,


Prompt: 55.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged an action with the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (“the district court”), seeking to have Khamzat Merzhoyev declared a missing person, in order to receive a pension for the loss of the family breadwinner. On 14 February 2005 the district court allowed her action and declared


Prompt:
61.  The report recounted the findings of the autopsy and of the other reports referred to above. Dr Milroy observed, inter alia, the following shortcomings:
(a)  no organ weights, in particular the weight of the lungs, were recorded. Furthermore, no description of the presence or absence of petechiae[2] was made, despite the diagnosis of asphyxiation;
(b)  the 6 cm laceration described by Dr


Prompt: 10.  In 1990, military prosecutors in Bucharest, Timişoara, Oradea, Constanţa, Craiova, Bacău, Târgu Mureş and Cluj opened investigations into the use of force and the unlawful deprivation of liberty of the participants in demonstrations in the final days of December 1989. To date, the main criminal investigation into the use of violence, particularly against civilian demonstrators, both prior to and following the overthrow of


Prompt: 122.  On 21 October 2009 Ms A.A. was questioned again. Contrary to her previous submissions, she stated that on 8 January 2000 she had not noticed any details of the servicemen's clothes or any specific names they had used between themselves. Neither had she recalled whether the servicemen had put something on


Prompt: 41.  Following the communication of the application to the respondent Government, on 18 January 2011 the İzmir prosecutor took a statement from the applicant Ms Gülbahar Özer. The applicant repeated her allegations about the unlawful killing of her daughter


Prompt: 12.  On 15 October 1992 the Rome investigating judge made an order for the applicant's detention pending trial. However, the order could not be enforced as the applicant had become untraceable. As a result, the Italian authorities considered that he had deliberately sought to evade justice and on 14 November 1992 declared him to be a “fugitive” (latitante). The applicant was identified as Cloce (or Kroce) Sejdovic (or Sajdovic), probably born in Titograd on 5 August 1972, the son of Jusuf Sejdovic (or Sajdovic) and the brother of Zaim (ou


Prompt: 84.  On 25 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the mother of Mr M.D., Ms A.D., who stated that her husband, who had conducted the search for their son, had told her that the local administration had informed him that M.D. and


Prompt: 29.  On 14 May 1998 the Yığılca Criminal Court rejected the appeal of Yaşar Öz against the decision ordering his arrest for the kidnapping and killing of the applicants' relative and the other two persons. On 29 May 1998 an identity parade was held in the prison where Yaşar Öz was being detained on remand. Both


Prompt: 23.  In the following months the applicants continued to search for their son and contacted various official bodies, such as the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the President of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Defence and the prosecutors’ offices at different levels. In their applications they described in detail the circumstances of


Prompt:
6.  The applicants are:
(1)Ms Maryam Kadirova (also spelled as Kadyrova), bornin 1958;
(2)Ms Zultmat Betilgiriyeva, born in 1959;
(3)Mr Khasan Kadyrov, born in 1957;
(4)Mr Zelimkhan Kadyrov, born in 1987; and
(5)Ms


Prompt: 41.  The investigation was regularly suspended for failure to identify the culprits, and then reopened. In the meantime, the applicants submitted written and oral complaints to the prosecutor’s office, but no progress was made. Thus, on 2 March 2006 the district prosecutor’s office replied to a complaint by the applicant in case no. 26960/06 and stated that the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of


Prompt: 56.  On 20 April 2005 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 31 March 2003) the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to the witness, on 9 February 2003 she, her son


Prompt: 10.  On 18 April 1992 an autopsy was carried out on the deceased by forensic experts at the Istanbul Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty. According to the report, the body of Taşkın Usta bore forty-five bullet entry wounds, thirteen of which were fatal. The report concluded that nine of the shots had been fired at a long range but that a further examination needed to be conducted on the clothes of the deceased in order to determine the shooting range of the others. The report also stated that, according to the toxicology report, no foreign substance, such as alcohol or drugs, had been found in


Prompt: 77.  The first applicant partially confirmed D.’s account. He pointed out, however, that Mr Shchiborshch had stabbed G. not when he had opened the door to the lobby but later, when G. had been standing in front of the flat persuading him to drop the knife. Mr


Prompt: 138.  According to another report of the SBA police dated 12 January 2001, Mr Rauf Denktaş had allegedly said in a meeting with Sir David Hannay, Britain’s Special Envoy to Cyprus at the time, that he would be prepared to release the first applicant on bail if


Prompt: 40.  On 16 January, 27 November, 19 and 26 December 2000, 8 June 2001, 19 and 26 December 2000, 11 November 2000 and 29 April 2001 respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith. A group of Father Basil’s followers in Tbilisi, a group of around thirty followers of Father Tsaava and Father Basilaia in Martvili, and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes; they insulted them; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors, frightening children who had been left home alone (case no. 9); they tried to force one of the applicants to kiss the cross (applicant no. 80, criminal case no.10); and they seized their religious literature (case no. 14) and burned it (case no. 11). The homes of applicants


Prompt: 7.  The first and second applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Ayub Khashidovich Takhayev, born in 1982, and the third applicant. The fourth applicant is the third applicant’s son and Ayub Takhayev’s nephew. The fifth applicant is


Prompt:
5.  On 15 November 2002 Flux published an article entitled “The criminal case file of Eugenia Duca, like five kilograms of waste paper”. It reported on the evolution of a high-profile criminal case against a business woman, who was convicted at the time but was later acquitted and compensated for illegal prosecution and detention, and published in italicised script extracts from an open letter sent by her daughter to the President of the country, President of the Parliament, Prime Minister, Council of Europe, OSCE Mission in Moldova and other organisations. In the letter she complained of alleged abuses committed by the prosecution and by the judiciary against her mother. The letter contained, inter alia, the following sentence:
“On 10 July 2001, the Deputy Prosecutor General V.S. (subsequently dismissed for dubious affairs), signed the indictment in


Prompt: 13.  On 1 December 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They alleged a breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and their constitutional equivalents. The applicants specifically referred to the above-mentioned statements of


Prompt: 13.  Although the parties have not communicated any information regarding the lodging of an appeal against this decision, it is apparent from the prosecutor’s office website that it was subsequently quashed and to date the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see


Prompt: 25.  On 17 June 2004 the applicants' relative, Ms M.DzH., another aunt of the disappeared Isa Aytamirov, was granted the status of a victim in criminal case no. 42027. The decision stated, in particular, that at about 4 a.m. on 19 February 2003 a group of unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms, travelling in three APCs and two UAZ vehicles, had abducted


Prompt:
86.  On 21 August 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that their allegations that their relatives had disappeared during the sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi had been investigated and that criminal proceedings in criminal cases nos. 14/33/0184-02 and 14/33/0185-02 had been instituted in connection with the combat between the servicemen and the members of the illegal armed groups and as regards the discovery of four bodies bearing signs of a violent death in a burnt car on the road from Chechen-Aul to Stariye Atagi. The letter continued as follows:
“The preliminary investigation established that on 9 March 2002, during the special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi, the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Senior Lieutenant Z. were checking vehicles going out of the village of Stariye Atagi, since, in accordance with intelligence received, members of illegal armed groups stationed in Stariye Atagi were planning an attack on this road.
At around 3 p.m. a VAZ 21099 car approached the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Z. In reply to the servicemen’s order to stop, machine-gun fire was opened from the car. The servicemen opened return fire with the result that the car started burning. Subsequently three burnt corpses of unidentified persons were found in it.
On 18 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought in connection with the servicemen’s use of firearms were discontinued...
The preliminary investigation in case no. 14/33/0185-02 established that on 7 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., in the courtyard of the house at 81 Nagornaya Street, in the course of the operation to locate and detain members of illegal armed groups, fighting had broken out between the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Major V. and rebel fighters (boyevik), the latter having hidden in the house and opened machine-gun fire. The servicemen inflicted fire damage, using, inter alia, RPG-26 weapons with the result that the house caught fire. During the ensuing examination of the house four burnt bodies were found, one of whom was identified by [Ms K.] as her brother, [Mr]


Prompt: 22.  On 21 July 1989 he was taken to court. Foreign journalists and UN officers were present in the courtroom. The accused had no legal representation and the quality of the interpretation was poor; the applicant felt that the interpreter was not translating all of what was being said. One of the accused (


Prompt: 72.  On 30 January 2010 the investigators again questioned the applicant’s relative Mr M.A., who stated that in his presence the Envoy had called the police to inquire about Abdul-Yazit, but that he had not used the exact phrase, “You have no right to detain him [


Prompt:
66.  In a letter dated 8 November 1995, Liga Pro Europa, a human-rights association based in Târgu-Mureş, informed the Prefect that six houses had still not been rebuilt, which meant that six families had to spend another winter without a dwelling. Moreover, according to the association, most of the victims had complained about the bad quality of the rebuilt houses and alleged that the money allocated for this purpose had been improperly used.
In a letter addressed to the Prefect in 1995, the mayor of Cheţani (of which Hădăreni is a part), G.G., a member of the reconstruction commission, reported that, of the fourteen houses destroyed by the fire, eight had been rebuilt or almost rebuilt. Concerning the remaining six houses, he reported that three of them posed “special problems” based in part on “the behaviour of the three families”, “the seriousness of the acts committed and the attitude of the population of Hădăreni towards these families”. In particular, one of the houses to be rebuilt was on land near the non-Rom victim's family (


Prompt:
18.  By a judgment of 7 March 2002 the court allowed the plaintiffs' claim in part. It considered it established, firstly, that the impugned statement had indeed been made by the applicant, and, secondly, that it had been untruthful and defamatory. The court ruled as follows:
“To oblige R. Myrskyy and the editorial office of the newspaper Ukraine and the World Today to publish (...) a disclaimer worded as follows: “The statement of


Prompt: 22.  During the subsequent court proceedings, suspect A.P. changed his statement again and submitted that nobody had ill-treated Leonid Ghimp on the evening of 10 December 2005. When asked why he had admitted on 6 July 2006 to one of the co-accused having ill-treated


Prompt: 55.  On 14 May 2003 R. was again questioned. He stated that on 2 October 2000, along with other officers of the VOVD, he had accompanied the FSB officers from Grozny to Kurchaloy, where they had detained


Prompt:
17.  On 1 May 2001 the Agence France-Presse news agency, referring to information from the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency, reported:
“Russian forces said ... they had wiped out a rebel unit led by warlord


Prompt: 77.  The following morning (19 November 1990), the witness had blindfolded Yakup Aktaş and taken him to the Mardin interrogation centre where, some time before noon, he had delivered him into the hands of Master Sergeant


Prompt: 24.  Approximately in the end of January 2003 Ye., an operational-search officer of the ROVD, informed E., the head of the village administration, that after being detained for some time in Khankala, at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya, the applicant’s sons had been transferred to the department of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny (the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD). According to Ye.,


Prompt:
91.  It had been established before Yakup Aktaş was taken to the interrogation centre that he had helped and sheltered members of the PKK. Yakup Aktaş had given TRL 30,000,000 and five Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition to the PKK.
xi.  Statement of Master Sergeant


Prompt: 28.  On 7 July 2009 the ROVD officers had been given explanations by Mr Ts., the deputy director of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. He had submitted that on 3 July 2009 he had been on duty at the hospital and Mr


Prompt: 48.  On 19 January 2005 the investigation in case no. 44050 was resumed. The decision stated, in particular, that on 17 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office had received the applicant’s complaint that on 2 October 2004 persons in camouflage uniforms had arrested


Prompt: 12.  On 21 November 1999 the Secretary of State refused her application for asylum on the ground that she had not herself been involved in any political parties or activities in Uganda and that she had not claimed to have experienced any arrests, detention or significant problems from the time of her father’s release in 1987 until the claimed raid on her home in September 1998. This was considered to be evidence that she would not be of any adverse interest to the Ugandan authorities. Furthermore, she had used the passport she had obtained from the Ugandan authorities through the correct channels in the name of


Prompt: 63.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic that the investigation in criminal case no. 44016 was ineffective. She requested the authorities to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into her sons’ abduction. In her letter she provided a detailed description of the circumstances in which her sons had been taken away and pointed out that after their abduction


Prompt: 14.  On 3 April 1996 the Klaipėda Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court. The Regional Court found that the decision of the Palanga City Council of 25 September 1992 did not comply with Article 19 of the Restitution of Property Act as the local authority had not decided whether land or money and, in either case, which land or what amount of money should have been offered to the applicant as a compensation. The Regional Court held that the local authority had to resolve these questions. The court required the administration of Klaipėda County to “adopt, by 30 June 1996, a decision on the request by


Prompt: 127.  On that day the servicemen also arrested a local resident, Mr Akhmet Kadyrov, and his two brothers. After checking their passports, the servicemen took them to the military base in an APC and placed them in cages and tents with other detainees. The cages were surrounded by dozens of military vehicles, including APCs, tanks and a helicopter. The detainees, who were asked whether they knew any rebel fighters or local residents who had weapons, were subjected to beatings. Mr


Prompt: 11.  The next day the prosecutor summoned Mr U.Ts. for questioning. In the course of the questioning a representative of the prosecutor’s office, Mr Kh., and the head of the criminal investigation department of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD confirmed that Mr


Prompt: 32.  On 26 January 2006 the investigators questioned Officer M.B. of the traffic police who stated that at about 5.30 p.m. on 25 January 2006 he and two of his colleagues, B.G. and A. Kh., had been on duty at the traffic police station near the airport. An officer of the ROVD, Yu.E., had arrived and told them that unidentified men in two Niva cars had abducted the driver of a white VAZ car about 500 metres from the station. The witness had immediately gone to the scene, where he had found a VAZ-21074 car with registration number B309TX15 and had taken it to the ROVD. The car had been searched there and a driver’s licence in the name of Mr


Prompt: 18.  Both the applicant's and his brother's houses were completely destroyed by fire. After most of the houses had been destroyed, the soldiers released the villagers. But they did not release the applicant's sons İkram İpek and


Prompt: 39.  On 22 March 2001 a prosecutor from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal without commenting on the applicants’ argument that the police officers involved had not been identified or questioned. He considered that in his decision of 21 September 1999 (see paragraph 34 above) the prosecutor from the Sofia military regional prosecutor’s office had rightly relied on Article 12a of the Criminal Code and that, in addition, it had been clearly established that Mr


Prompt: 13.  From the witnesses' statements the applicant learned that the “sweeping” operation in Podgornoye had resulted in a large number of persons – over fifty – being detained by the Russian military. All of them had been taken to the Staropromyslovskiy Temporary District Department of the Interior (VOVD) in Grozny. One of the witnesses told the applicant that he had seen her husband,


Prompt: 16.  At the hearing of 4 February 2009, the applicants, then represented by lawyer S.D., changed their plea and claimed that they had been pushed to commit the offence by the investigators, who had acted as agents provocateurs. They invoked in their defence the Court’s case-law in relation to police entrapment, namely Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and


Prompt: 12.  The investigator, along with the prison's therapist, then carried out a visual examination of the body in the therapist's office. A strangulation mark on the neck and scars from old wounds were noted. No other lesions were found. The investigator stated in his report, without any further explanation, that there was a real risk that the evidence would be tampered with, and that, consequently,


Prompt: 62.  On 14 January 2005 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia drafted a report on the internal inquiry concerning the death of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev. The report incorporated the above statements of the officers of the Organised Crime Unit and concluded that Mr


Prompt: 25.  After the criminal proceedings were opened, the first applicant was questioned on 27 January and 1 and 9 March 2010. The second applicant was questioned on 5 March and 26 April 2010. On 27 January and 5 March 2010, respectively, the first and second applicants were granted victim status in the proceedings. On 2 April 2010 the third applicant was granted victim status. On 15 April 2010 the investigator decided to grant victim status to


Prompt:
22.  By Decree no. 1200 of 1 October 1999, the Georgian President granted the applicant a pardon suspending the remaining two years of his sentence.
The relevant provisions of the decree read as follows:
“... that [the following] shall be granted a pardon: 1.


Prompt: 23.  The servicemen checked the Boltiyevs’ identity documents. Adam Boltiyev produced a certificate confirming that his passport was being exchanged. The servicemen decided to take him with them. The third applicant insisted on accompanying his son. Then the servicemen took


Prompt: 25.  On 30 June 2005 the Chechen department of the Federal Security Service (“the Chechen department of the FSB”) replied to the first applicant's request. The letter stated that they were undertaking unspecified measures to identify


Prompt: 16.  The applicants were furnished with death certificates in respect of their sons, indicating 13 October 2005 as the date of death in respect of both individuals and 23 January 2007 (in respect of Zamir Zalov) and 7 April 2008 (


Prompt:
36.  The witness is a photographer who was present at the Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August and had taken photographs of the incident. In his statement of 29 August 1996 he claimed, inter alia, the following:
“...I then withdrew heading southwards towards our side and then saw the Turks from a distance of 40 metres chasing a Greek Cypriot wearing jean trousers and a white sweater. I approached within 20 metres and started to take photos of the incident. I approached within a distance of 20 metres because the lens I had on my camera at the moment could not take photographs from a long distance. I started taking photographs from the moment they chased him until the moment they stopped beating him and UN men took him away.
I took 16 photographs and another 4 while he was being taken by the UN man to the place the Greek Cypriots were.
From what I noticed, and this is shown also in the photographs I took, about 15 persons, most of whom wore civilian clothes and many wore the uniform of the pseudo-State, took part in the beating up and murder of the youth, who as I told you in my previous statement, was


Prompt: 98.  The witness went on to say: “At the material time there had been a number of cases of disappearances and, as a prosecutor, I was very disturbed by this. On hearing the evidence of the witnesses, I realised that the information given by the police did not reflect the truth. I received no replies to the letters I sent to other police departments. I sent the documents from the investigation to the Principal Public Prosecutor,


Prompt: 127.  On 26 January 2007 the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (“the KHRPG”) NGO wrote to the GPO, stating that it had become aware of the alleged beating of prisoners in Izyaslav Prison by masked special forces officers and requested an independent investigation without the involvement of the local prosecution authorities. The GPO forwarded this complaint to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which, in turn, referred it to the Shepetivka (a town in the Khmelnytskyy Region) Prosecutor in charge of supervision of compliance with the law in penal institutions (“the


Prompt: 121.  On 6 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command informed the Bismil public prosecutor that, in response to his request of 16 October 1995, Sergeant Ahmet Uyar had been sent to his office. In a statement of the same day to the Bismil public prosecutor, Ahmet Uyar declared, in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence, that he had no information about the incident and that he had not witnessed it. He had taken up his duties at the Bismil district gendarmerie eight days before the incident took place. The person who had served before him was Sergeant


Prompt: 47.  On an unspecified date the second applicant was questioned. He stated that at about 5.30 a.m. on 21 December 2004 six unknown armed men had entered his courtyard and started knocking at the entrance door of the house. Three of the armed men had gone to


Prompt: 8.  At about 6.00 p.m. on 1 June 1999 the National Service for Combating Organised Crime (“Национална служба ‘Борба с организираната престъпност’”) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was given orders to arrest the applicant in connection with information gathered by colonel B.B., a senior police officer in charge of investigating the assassination on 2 October 1996 of the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, Mr


Prompt: 40.  The first applicant further complained that, before depriving him and his family of their home, the Ministry should have proved its case in a court. However, the eviction had been carried out not only without a court decision but also without any written administrative act. In this connection, the first applicant alleged that the appellate court had arbitrarily disregarded section 7 § 3 of the IDPs Act which had been in force at the time of their eviction and explicitly prohibited the eviction of IDPs who were already settled, without due process and proper compensation. In support of his arguments, the first applicant referred to the Supreme Court's decision of 28 November 2001 in the similar case of


Prompt:
9.  According to the official version of events, at around 5.20 p.m. on the same date, as the applicant was entering a billiards hall with two friends, two police officers waiting in a vehicle parked opposite the hall called to him. The applicant approached them. He was then searched, without the police having a judicial warrant for that purpose. The police report on the personal search, which was drawn up subsequently at the police department, stated:
“... given that there were sufficient grounds to suspect that the arrested person would try to destroy evidence (narcotic substance heroin) showing that he or she had committed a crime, a personal search of [


Prompt:
186.  It was put to him that, despite his objections voiced to the Derik public prosecutor on 26 November 1990, he had told the Mardin Assize Court on 7 July 1993 that he had nothing to say about the autopsy report or the report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. He explained that although the report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine had not satisfied him, as he had also pointed out to the Assize Court, according to the law there was no organisation above the Institute of Forensic Medicine. Furthermore, by that time three years had passed and his family had not wanted another autopsy carried out.
ii.


Prompt: 14.  Having spent eight or ten minutes in the applicants' house, prior to leaving, the servicemen ordered the applicants to stay inside: “We will be watching the house, so if you dare to go outside, we will shoot you”. After that the servicemen left with


Prompt: 10.  By order of 7 August 2009, owing to his non-compliance with his conditions of discharge, the Public Prosecutor with the Charleroi Court of First Instance decided to return the applicants’ son to the psychiatric wing of Jamioulx Prison.


Prompt: 133.  On 12 February 2008 the first applicant wrote to the SRJI and said that on 1 February 2008 she and her husband and on 9 February 2008 she and her daughter had been questioned in respect of her son, Mr


Prompt: 25.  Later on the same day, the Çorlu Municipality informed the court that they were in possession of tax declarations in respect of the land in question, for the years of 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, which contained some of the addresses. It also attached to its letter copies of sixteen property tax declarations for the year 1986. According to these declarations,


Prompt: 36.  By letter dated 15 December 2000, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) provided the applicants with a report on their complaints about police conduct in dealing with Christopher Edwards and on the subsequent investigation into his death. The report upheld fifteen of the complaints and made a number of recommendations to Essex Police in relation to practice and procedure. It found, inter alia, a breach of the Code of Practice under PACE in that the police failed to summon a doctor to the police station when


Prompt:
35.  On 17 August 1996 A.B. and two persons who did not want to disclose their names gave statements to the applicant’s representative. A.B. stated as follows:
“I was sitting, together with my neighbours, on Gülistan Street where the incident occurred. I saw two plain-clothed persons who were running after a 16-17 years old boy. It was starting to get dark. It was around 7.00 p.m. [...] They were shooting at the boy from behind. There were approximately 15 meters [between the two men and the boy]. As a result of the shooting the boy fell on the ground. When he was falling he turned himself around and fell on his face. There were 10 meters between me and the boy. When I ran and bent down over him in order to take him to a hospital, one of the men said “Lady! Stay back!” They immediately took him by his hands and legs, put him on the back seat of their white car and drove away. During the chase I saw very clearly that the boy did not posses any weapon or anything like it. I also saw very clearly that the boy was shot in the back. When they were putting him in the car he was still alive. I learned afterwards that he died at the hospital. I learned from the press that his name was


Prompt: 77.  On 25 June 2007 the military prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status. By the same decision it set aside the decision of 24 October 2001 by which the third applicant had been granted victim status in the proceedings concerning the death of


Prompt: 15.  However, 7,500 Cypriot pounds (CYP), plus 8 per cent interest as from the date that the action was lodged, was awarded in compensation for moral damage. The court pointed out that, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of


Prompt:
17.  On 22 October 2009 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 24 November 2009. The judge reasoned the need for this extension by citing the possibility that she would abscond from or obstruct the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Taking into account the facts that the detention period of the accused


Prompt: 49.  On 16 June 2004 the third applicant’s new lawyer, A.A., filed a similar motion with the Military Prosecutor, challenging the impartiality of investigator A.H. and requesting that he be removed from the case on the ground that the investigator had, inter alia, ill-treated the third applicant in


Prompt: 31.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant lodged a fresh appeal with the Prosecutor at the Salonika Court of Appeal. On 29 November 2002 his appeal was dismissed as “factually unfounded” again. In particular, the prosecutor confirmed the conclusions of decision no 30/2002 without personally questioning the witnesses. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were considered to be false and the prosecutor concluded that there was no need to launch an in-depth judicial investigation into the incident. Lastly, the prosecutor confirmed the conclusions of the Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance as to the admissibility of the files which had been compiled by Police Officer


Prompt: 16.  The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that on 14 February 2001 at approximately 6 a.m. unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage and masks and accompanied by armoured vehicles had taken the first applicant and his son, Mr


Prompt: 15.  On 4 January 2001 the investigator at the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) decided to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning allegations of defamation of the President of Ukraine, Mr L. Kuchma, as well as Mr V. Lytvyn and Mr


Prompt: 101.  On 13 March 2004 the Georgian Government claimed that an investigation by the Ministry of the Interior had ascertained that the two applicants had disappeared on 16 February 2004 at 10.30 a.m. They had subsequently been arrested by the Russian authorities near the village of Larsi (Republic of North Ossetia) for crossing the border illegally. On 29 March 2004 the Russian Government alleged that the two applicants had been arrested in Larsi on 19 February 2004 by the Federal Security Service on the ground that they were on the list of wanted persons. At the time of his arrest, Mr Khashiev had been carrying a false passport in the name of Mulkoyev (see paragraph 88 above). On 20 February 2004 Mr Khashiev and Mr


Prompt: 28.  After 14 July 2005 the mother started to prevent the applicant’s contact with the children. On 11 August 2005 she also lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for neglect and maltreatment of a minor. The criminal complaints related to an incident when the applicant allowed his daughter to read a book by


Prompt: 9.  On an unknown date the applicant lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. Since she had not received any answer, she brought court proceedings against


Prompt: 76.  Mr Sünbül was born in 1970 and was a Gendarmes Non-commissioned Officer. At the material time he was Station Commander at the Şehitarif Sub-station which was attached to the Central District Station in Gaziantep. His superior was


Prompt: 149.  In December 1995 the witness gave evidence before the Ankara Criminal Court. In his statement to that court, he confirmed that he had contacted the operating forces by radio after he had been asked by the muhtar of Kurşunlu,


Prompt:
27.  In November 1995 the Bank made a fresh application to the Court of Execution and Enforcement for the compulsory sale of the applicants' property in Vågsøy. The applicants objected and again challenged the first instance judge's eligibility to adjudicate their case and requested him to withdraw.
By decision of 25 June 1996, the judge rejected their request and granted the Bank's application. The judgment included the following reasons:
“The plaintiff has sent notice that a claim for enforcement will be made if the claim is not complied with. The said notice is in accordance with the requirements laid down in section 4-18 of the Enforcement Act (tvangsfullbyrdelsesloven). The application has been lawfully served on the defendants.
As explained above, the defendants have had objections to the application for forced sale. The court finds it appropriate to deal firstly with the objection concerning ability to sit.
The said objection is linked to the circumstance that the undersigned judge has been employed by [the Bank].
The employment relationship that has been invoked concerns the fact that the undersigned was employed as a lawyer in the Legal Department of [the Bank], Oslo, for a period from July 1984 to December 1986. During this period I had nothing to do with the loan commitment to Møyfrid and


Prompt: 27.  They and their other relatives continued to search for the two missing men. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, they applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the administrative authorities in Chechnya, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, to the media and to public figures. In their letters to the authorities the applicants gave details of the detention of


Prompt:
5.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Khava Aziyeva, who was born in 1983,
2) Ms Aysha Aziyeva, who was born in 2008, and
3) Mr Abdurrakhman Aziyev, who was born in 2010.
They live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. They are the relatives of Mr


Prompt:
26.  The country assessment report on Sudan drawn up by the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs in July 2015 reads in its relevant part:
“There is no specific statutory provision rendering genital mutilation of women (FGM) a criminal offence. The Criminal Code merely mentions in general terms the ban on ‘female circumcision’ without any further definition. The interpretation of this legislative provision is left to the judge. In practice, those who commit FGM are not prosecuted.
FGM in Sudan is still being carried out at a large scale. Girls are circumcised traditionally to prepare them for marriage, for religious reasons and – based on superstition – for ‘health reasons’. The most recent estimate of the percentage of circumcised women between 15-49 years old in Sudan is 89%. ... UNICEF and UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] conduct large-scale campaigns to stop FGM. These campaigns have rendered circumcision a topic of debate. Discussions are being held within families and in the press and on social media even photographs are being shown. There is, however, also a strong influence of the pro-FGM lobby which presents it as the traditional values and norms being affected by the West. Sheikh


Prompt: 47.  On 12 February 2002 M., an officer of the Khanty-Mansiysk police, was questioned. He submitted that since February to May 2000 he served as a doctor at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, where he provided medical service to residents and persons placed in the temporary detention centre. He could not remember whether he had provided medical aid to Mr


Prompt: 51.  On 4 December 2004 Mr Szewczyk formally requested the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office to recognise the rights of Mr Janowiec and Mr Trybowski as relatives of the executed Polish officers and to provide them with copies of the procedural documents and also of personal documents relating to Mr


Prompt: 19.  On 18 March 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered an autopsy on Timur Khambulatov’s body. Between 19 March and 26 April 2004 an expert from the Mozdok forensic assessment office carried out the autopsy. Its results were given in a six-page report, which described the circumstances of


Prompt: 51.  The applicant, his two co-defendants and Judge M. all lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. In his pleadings, the applicant relied, as his first ground of appeal, on Article 10 of the Convention and the immunity provided for in section 41 of the Freedom of the Press Act, arguing that this provision sought to safeguard defence rights and protected lawyers in respect of any oral or written comments made in the context of any type of judicial proceedings, in particular of a disciplinary nature. As his second ground of appeal, he relied on Article 10 of the Convention, asserting that: the impugned comments concerned a case that had been receiving media coverage for some time, involving the suspicious circumstances in which a French judge seconded to Djibouti had been found dead “from suicide” and the questionable manner in which the judicial investigation had been conducted, with a clear bias against the civil party’s theory of premeditated murder; having regard to the importance of the subject of general interest in the context of which the comments had been made, the Court of Appeal was not entitled to find that he had overstepped the bounds of his freedom of expression; the Court of Appeal had not examined his good faith in the light of the comments that had been published in Le Monde, but in relation to the content of the letter to


Prompt: 16.  The court held that with the first two articles, the applicants spread propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. As regards the third article, the court found that the article in question referred to


Prompt:
25.  On 5 June 2014 the State Court again upheld the Ministry of Security’s decision of 3 March 2014 (see paragraph 23 above). The court stated that on 21 May 2014 the National Security Agency had submitted classified evidence for the court’s review and “open” evidence for the applicant’s review. On 23 May 2014 the court heard the applicant and disclosed to him the open evidence, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“


Prompt:
24.  On 28 December 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that despite the suspension of the investigation in case no. 61105 the search for Apti Elmurzayev was under way.
(d)  Abduction of


Prompt: 28.  In this report, the experts submitted that they had compared the first edition of the plaintiff’s book, published in 1952, with a copy of Dr Spock’s book as originally published. In sum, the experts held that the plaintiff’s book was a popular health book, that it was not a word-for-word translation or citation from Dr Spock’s book, that in the first edition of his book the plaintiff referred at the end of his book to Dr Spock and


Prompt:
76.  In that judgment, delivered on 16 November 2017, after the Committee of Ministers had put Azerbaijan on formal notice in relation to the first Mammadov judgment (see paragraph 66 above), the Court first considered in detail the scope of its examination, stating:
“202.  The scope of the [first]


Prompt:
29.  In three almost identical judgments, the Federal Court dismissed the appeals, confining itself to verifying that the applicants’ names actually appeared on the lists drawn up by the Sanctions Committee and that the assets concerned belonged to them. The relevant parts of those judgments read as follows (unless otherwise stated, this is the text of the judgment concerning the first applicant):
“5.1  On 10 September 2002 Switzerland became a member of the United Nations and ratified the United Nations Charter of 26 June 1945 (the Charter; RS 0.120). Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter provides that, in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. Under Article 25 of the Charter, the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. The binding nature of Security Council decisions concerning measures taken in accordance with Articles 39, 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security also stems from Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Charter, which provides that such decisions must be carried out by the members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members. The mandatory effect of Security Council decisions is the basis for the similar effect of decisions taken by subsidiary organs such as the sanctions committees (see Eric Suy and


Prompt: 26.  Later that day she had once again attempted to return to her home along with other Roma villagers. This time the applicant had found the road to her house entirely blocked by an even larger crowd of villagers, all of whom had been carrying clubs. Police officers had also been among the crowd. Among the enraged mob of villagers, the applicant had recognised Officer


Prompt: 14.  On the evening of Sunday 19 July 1998, during the “Kwakoe” festival in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam (a celebration by the Surinamese immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in Suriname 135 years earlier),


Prompt: 27.  The following day, 5 April 1994, the families of the two men applied to the Prosecutor in order to obtain information. The Prosecutor told them that Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay had been released and that they had not been re-arrested. When


Prompt: 19.  On 30 April 1997 the Attorney General requested the re-opening of the inquiry in order to hear Mr Hecker and other witnesses, as well as the witnesses examined on 11 March 1997. With the exception of Mrs


Prompt: 92.  Susurluk was the scene of a road accident on 3 November 1996 involving a truck and a car. The four passengers in the car were Mr Sedat Bucak, a member of Parliament for the conservative True Path Party and close to


Prompt:
71.  On 22 July 2013 an operational-search officer from the criminal search division of Grozny OVD, Mr R.D., provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational-search steps taken in the criminal case. The relevant part reads as follows:
“... It has been established by operational-search measures that at about 3.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 servicemen from the Argun OVD, the 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the Argun town administration security service conducted a special operation, as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups, Mr A.Kh., was found. He resisted arrest and [was] therefore eliminated ... It has also been established that in that household Mr A.Kh. had lived with his wife,


Prompt: 77.  On 10 March 2010 Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that immediately after the abduction she had contacted the mother of Mr A.D., who had already searched for him. The mother of Mr A.D. had told her that Mr


Prompt: 28.  The respondent Government have further produced a list dated 16 October 1995, which according to them had been sent to the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Russian consulate in Riga. According to the respondent Government,


Prompt: 18.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant complained in writing about her son's disappearance to a number of State authorities, including the district military commander's office, the district prosecutor's office and the ROVD. She stated that on 22 November 2002 she and her sons Arbi and Adam had gone to Urus-Martan to obtain her sons' identity documents. At about 10 p.m. on that day armed and masked members of law-enforcement authorities, wearing camouflage uniforms, had broken into the house at no. 14 Lomonosova Street and had abducted


Prompt: 24.  It appears that within the next few days the first applicant went to the temporary district department of the interior of the Urus-Martan district (the Urus-Martan VOVD) and to the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan district (the district prosecutor's office). The interim district prosecutor told the first applicant that


Prompt: 160.  On 12 December 1996 a meeting was held in the witness' office with the applicant, her daughter, Mr Hasan Peker Günal and Mr Mehmet Özdamar, who was then the chief of the forensic police. The meeting was held at the request of the applicant. The latter gave all relevant information to the participants about the impugned incident and complained that she had been receiving anonymous phone calls during which she had been threatened. She was advised to apply to the telecommunications department to have her line monitored. The applicant raised her suspicion about Mr


Prompt: 36.  On 18 May 2004 Ms Yu. was again questioned. She stated that on 25 July 2002 she and her sister Mrs R. Yu. had been travelling on a bus which had broken down near the dam. She had approached a crowd standing at the bus stop, where servicemen were carrying out identity checks. Her nephew


Prompt: 6.  At about 12 midnight on 25 April 2005 a group of four men wearing uniforms and armed with assault rifles burst into the applicants’ property at 23 Pervomayskaya Street in Gekhi. Two of the intruders were wearing masks. The applicants inferred that the intruders were law-enforcement officers. The men ordered the applicants to lie down and grabbed hold of Mr


Prompt: 84.  On 9 March 2006, during a reconstruction at the scene of the crime, L.B.-dze said that the two men who had taken him out of the car and beaten him had stayed with him until the end. Some way off he could see


Prompt: 18.  On 14 October 1999, the Parishioners' Assembly examined the construction works at the site of the new church and decided not to make any changes to the statute until the works had been completed. It also heard complaints from Assembly members about Mr


Prompt: 4.  The applicants, Andrei Ivanţoc, Tudor Popa, Eudochia Ivanţoc and Victor Petrov, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1961, 1963, 1963 and 1988 respectively. Mr Ivanţoc is also a Romanian national. At the time of lodging their application, the first two applicants were detained in Tiraspol and Hlinaia respectively.


Prompt:
12.  On 8 June 2000 the newspaper published as its main story an article written by Mr Wilhelmsen, which gave rise to the defamation proceedings brought against the applicants by Mr Rygh. On the front page there appeared an introduction to the article under the headline (all quotations below are translations from Norwegian):
“May be forced to sell”
and the sub-heading
“[H.K.] and


Prompt: 7.  When questioned on 6 December 2005, the applicant stated that on 17 August 2005 he had been the head of the DEHAP branch in Batman and that he had not praised the leader of the PKK in his speech. The applicant added that although


Prompt: 51.  On 28 November 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that criminal case no. 32027 was pending before them. They noted that the case had been instituted following the discovery of five corpses, including that of


Prompt: 13.  According to the applicants, on 14 January 2001 Bekkhan Bargayev was washing the family car, a Zhiguli Vaz-2101, near a stream, about 300 metres from his home. At about 1.30 p.m. he saw APCs entering the village and started driving back towards home. An APC, driving at high speed, chased his car and smashed into it. Mr Bargayev was not hurt and climbed out of the car. The fifth applicant, who was at home, ran out because of the noise and the bursts of submachine-gun fire. She saw the servicemen beating her son with rifle butts and tried to intervene. The soldiers beat her, and she fell to the ground.


Prompt: 198.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of February 2000 (in certain documents submitted the date was referred to as 2 February 2000) Mr Imran Inalkayev was going from the settlement (поселок) of Sleptsovskaya to the town of Urus-Martan in a regular local bus. At the checkpoint located at the crossroad next to the villages of Valerik, Shalazhi and Gekhi a group of armed military service personnel in camouflage uniforms stopped the bus to check the passengers’ identity. Having checked his documents, the service personnel detained Mr


Prompt: 77.  Prior to the events in question, Mr Kutlu Adalı's writing led to his being prosecuted by the authorities on one occasion. On 15 August 1981 police officers searched their house because her husband had allegedly insulted President Denktaş in an article. The search warrant was signed by Emin Okur, a judge in Kyrenia. The authorities wanted to find out the identity of the author of the article “Minaredeki Deli” (the mad on the minaret) and whether it was


Prompt: 103.  This master sergeant in the gendarmerie stated that he could not remember whether or not he had seen Yakup Aktaş, who had fallen ill in his cell on 25 November 1990 and had subsequently died in hospital.


Prompt:
26.  By a judgment of 8 December 1999, the Nantes Administrative Court decided to join the two sets of proceedings on the ground that they were connected and to dismiss the applicant and his wife’s appeals on the following grounds:
“With regard to the application ... concerning the offence of unlawful interference with the highway:
Regarding the State property proceedings
Firstly, it is not disputed that the land on which the dyke on which the house occupied by Mr and Mrs Depalle was built was entirely covered by water, independently of any exceptional meteorological circumstances, prior to the draining works undertaken in order to build the dyke. It has not been established, or even alleged by the applicants moreover, that the undrained portion of this land had ever been removed from the action of the tide. The investigation shows, moreover, that the dyke is the result of land draining carried out prior to the entry into force of the above-mentioned Act of 28 November 1963 [the Maritime Public Property Act] ... and that, notwithstanding the various authorisations of temporary occupancy granted by the authorities, as this was not done in the manner prescribed for concessions for the construction of a dyke it has not had the effect of bringing this part of the land thus removed from the action of the tide outside the category of maritime public property. In accordance with the principles of inalienability and imprescriptibility of public property, the submissions by Mr and Mrs Depalle to the effect that the house was built legally and its occupancy accepted by the authorities for a very long time and tolerated even after expiry of the last authorisation to occupy it do not alter the fact that the property falls within the category of maritime public property.
Secondly, as has been said, the last decision in favour of Mr and Mrs Depalle authorising temporary occupancy of the maritime public property expired on 31 December 1992. In the absence, since that date, of a lawful title of occupancy, the prefect of Morbihan is justified in requesting an order against the occupants to restore the site – if they have not already done so – to its original state prior to construction of the house on maritime public property. In disputing that obligation, the applicants cannot properly rely on the long period of occupancy of the premises or on the fact that the authorities have tolerated the continuation of that occupancy since 31 December 1992 and proposed draft occupancy agreements in order to regularise the situation, which, moreover, they have not taken up. ...
Fifthly, [the obligation to restore the site to its original state] does not constitute a measure prohibited by the requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest. ...
The application regarding the refusal to grant a concession to build a dyke
... Secondly, as section 27 of the above-mentioned Act of 3 January 1986 [the Coastal Areas Act] provides that draining works carried out prior to enactment of that Act shall continue to be governed by the previous legislation, the provisions codified under Article L. 64 of the Code of State Property according to which ‘the State may concede, on conditions it shall determine ... the right to build a dyke ...’ are applicable.
The prefect of Morbihan based his decision not to grant Mr and Mrs Depalle the requested concession to build a dyke on the guidelines set out in the circular of 3 January 1973 issued by


Prompt: 37.  On 1 April 2001 the district prosecutor’s office received a complaint by several Goyty villagers concerning Salman Abdulazizov’s arrest by officers of the Ministry of the Interior. As an inquiry conducted had not established any implication of law enforcement agencies in


Prompt: 116.  On 6 June 2001 the prisoner/complainant H.E. was once again questioned pursuant to letters rogatory at Afyon Prison. He confirmed, in particular, that he had seen guns in the hands of İsmet Kavaklıoğlu and


Prompt: 83.  From 25 January until 9 a.m. on 26 January 2001 he was the duty officer and assisted non-commissioned officer Faruk Atalay. His duties were to monitor and record incidents and to supervise the activities of the soldiers. Sergeant


Prompt:
21.  On 22 December 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed the Zagatala District Court’s judgment of 22 July 2005 in the part relating to the charges under Articles 234.2 and 228.4 of the Criminal Code and terminated the corresponding part of the criminal proceedings. The court held that the evidence concerning the charge under Article 234.2 of the Criminal Code had been obtained in breach of the relevant procedural requirements and failed to prove the applicant’s guilt. In particular, N.V. and H.M.’s statements were inconsistent and had been drafted by the investigator. The court also noted that the testimony of N.V. and H.M. at the hearings before the Court of Appeal had differed from their statements. The court further noted that the evidence in connection with the charge under Article 228.4 of the Criminal Code, namely the knife found in the applicant’s car, did not qualify as a weapon for the purposes of that provision. The court also found that the applicant had actually been arrested on 17 March 2005 and for a day had been unlawfully detained in police custody. As to his allegation of ill-treatment, the court noted that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and in police custody, as certified by the forensic report of 20 March 2005. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“It was established following the investigation carried out by the panel of the court that during


Prompt: 25.  On 11 November 2001 Mr Zakshevskiy surrendered himself to the police and provided statements to the effect that the second applicant and A.B. had told him in 2000 that they had committed the Donetsk murder and that he had also learned at the time that the first applicant and A.B. had committed the Luhansk murder. He also described the two attacks in Toretsk, the attacks on the shoe sellers near Kharkiv, and the Crimea attack (Episodes 3, 6 and 7). He repeated those statements the next day (see


Prompt: 22.  Some time later  the applicants' fellow villager, who worked at the material time for the local police and whose name the applicants did not disclose, told the applicants that in the morning of 6 July 2002 he had seen


Prompt: 11.  Under the new settlement plan (see paragraph 16 below) the Đurićsʼ case was scheduled for enforcement in 2014; the Bošnjaksʼ in 2019; the Bojanićsʼ and Ms Banjacʼs in 2030; the Čolićsʼ in 2024; Mr Lazarevićʼs in 2026; and the


Prompt: 120.  By virtue of the authorities to act submitted on 9 October 2002, the six non-extradited applicants were represented before the Court by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili. On the basis of the authorities to act dated 4 August 2003, those applicants, with the exception of Mr


Prompt: 40.  On 29 July 2005 the administrative officer of the hospital of the Penitentiary Department in Kursk wrote an explanatory note for the investigation file. He stated that during his in-patient treatment at the hospital


Prompt: 14.  One of the soldiers then read out a list of names of six male villagers: Halit Akdeniz (35 years old), İrfan Akdeniz (18 years old), Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi (35 years old), Ziya Çiçek (22 years old),


Prompt:
44.  On 28 March 2003 the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal investigation in case no. 65034 in respect of Visadi Shokkarov on account of his death.
(b)  Official investigation into


Prompt: 69.  In handwritten statements dated 27 January 2008 one S.V Yunoshev and one M.Yu. Kondratyev, who had served their sentences along with the applicant in IK-26, confirmed the applicant’s description of the cells in IZ‑63/1, including the fact that they had been equipped with two-tier bunk beds, and the overcrowding in all of the cells in which he had been detained. Mr


Prompt:
43.  On 15 November 2005 the applicants applied to the Directorate to have their stay regularised on the basis they had requested initially, that is, for the first applicant to be granted the status of “permanently resident non‑citizen” and for the other two applicants to be issued with permanent residence permits. The Directorate replied on the following day, 16 November 2005. After outlining the background to the case before the domestic courts and in Strasbourg, the Directorate went on:
“ ... On 11 December 2003 you stated that you would not consider the Directorate’s proposals until after the European Court of Human Rights had delivered its judgment.
In accordance with ... the Status of Stateless Persons Act ... in force at the time, an order was given for


Prompt: 17.  On 19 October 1998 the investigating judge issued two warrants for searches to be made of the first applicant’s home and workplace, the investigators being instructed to “search for and seize all objects, documents, effects and/or other items that [might] assist in establishing the truth with respect to the above offences or whose use [might] impede progress in the investigation”. The first order specified that the places to be searched were “


Prompt:
65.  In its report “Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground” of 14 September 2005, the International Crisis Group (ICG) stated the following regarding the armed forces in the “NKR” (pp. 9-10).
“[Nagorno-Karabakh] may be the world’s most militarized society. The highly trained and equipped Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army is primarily a ground force, for which Armenia provides much of the backbone. A Nagorno-Karabakh official told Crisis Group it has some 20,000 soldiers, while an independent expert [U.S. military analyst


Prompt:
31.  Later on the same day R. was questioned again, and he added the following statement:
“I would point out that during my explanation of the reasons for the [special security] measures I noticed the expression in


Prompt: 21.  As regards the alleged ill-treatment on the premises of the police station, the report observed, among other things, that “the violent behaviour of the police officers transpired from the testimonies of the persons who had provoked the illegal acts. Even if these testimonies could not be rejected as such, their accuracy and objectivity could not be taken for granted. Testimonies such as those made by


Prompt: 36.  On 22 February 2011 H.A., the psychiatrist who had been treating Mr Hüseyin Başbilen for depression, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor. He contended that he had diagnosed the deceased with serious depression and had prescribed medication for his health issues. The psychiatrist considered that the deceased had not had suicidal tendencies. He noted that had he considered


Prompt: 18.  During the beating the applicant lost consciousness several times. He told the officers that he had a gastric ulcer and pleaded with them not to hit him in the stomach. After that the policemen intentionally tried to hit him there. The head of the criminal search division, officer A. Bo., also participated in the ill-treatment of the second applicant. When the applicant told him that he would complain about the ill-treatment to the authorities, the latter responded: “You are a Chechen. I can kill you right now and nothing will happen to me. My uncle is the Republican


Prompt: 7.  On 17 March 2004 Toğay Gültekin was examined by a doctor at his regiment and the doctor decided to refer him to a hospital specialising in infectious diseases. On 22 March 2004 a doctor who examined him at his regiment’s infirmary referred him to Trakya University Hospital (“The University Hospital”) for suspected hepatitis or meningoencephalitis. The following day


Prompt: 67.  This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani (listed in the appendix as nos. 11 and 12, case no. 26), K. Korchilava (no.71, case no. 27), A. Turkia and T. Galdava (nos. 94 and 95, case no. 28),


Prompt: 48.  On 9 August 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office refused the applicant’s request, having stated that under national law she was only entitled to read the case file after the termination of the preliminary investigation, and that at present the investigation into the abduction of


Prompt: 12.  The gendarmes drew a sketch map of the crime scene and drafted an incident report addressed to the Midyat public prosecutor. It was stated in the report that a group of terrorists wearing military uniforms stopped a minibus and a truck near the hamlet of Kuyubaşı attached to the village of Çalpınar. They killed six villagers, namely Hasan Akay, İsmet Acar,


Prompt: 16.  In quest of Akhmed Shaipov, the applicants contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the military commander of the Urus-Martan District, the Urus-Martan district department of the interior, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms and the prosecutors’ offices at different levels. In their complaints they constantly referred to the circumstances of


Prompt: 85.  The court found that on 23 July 1993 a clash took place between the PKK and the defendant village guards. The terrorists escaped towards Ormandışı, where the victims lived. The village guard defendants went into the village in pursuit. The Court summarised the evidence as follows.


Prompt: 55.  On 19 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 44050, owing to its failure to find Timur Beksultanov. By the same decision the district prosecutor’s office instructed the ROVD to continue carrying out operational and search measures aimed at locating


Prompt:
39.  On 13 May 2013 the district prosecutor, by a reasoned decision, decided to stay the investigation in accordance with Article 326 of the CCP, and referred the case file to the ICS for further actions to identify the perpetrators. The decision described all the evidence that had been obtained, as well as the statements that had been given by the applicant and the other people who had either been involved in or had witnessed the brawl on 6 August 2012. In so far as relevant, the decision stated the following:
“J.K. gave information about the event, stating that


Prompt: 58.  The applicants and Mrs Khuzhina appealed. They complained, in particular, of a breach of the principle of equality of arms. Mrs Khuzhina additionally pointed out that she had not been the representative of either Damir or


Prompt: 77.  According to the witness, the school where everyone was grouped was ten metres away from the hamlet. He could see the fires burning in the hamlet. The villagers' identity documents were taken by the soldiers and six of them (himself,


Prompt: 89. The Government did not dispute the information provided by the applicants as regards most of the starting dates of the investigation into the applicants' relatives' abduction by “unidentified men in camouflage uniforms” on 18 September 2000. The Government submitted that the investigation had started with the opening of case no. 12199 in respect of


Prompt: 130.  He did not know Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz and had never met them. He was informed of the incident at about 5 p.m. on 25 January 2001 by Mr İdris Tanış. He contacted the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie on the telephone and asked his replacement to make enquiries of all the gendarmerie posts.


Prompt: 16. According to the applicant, the chronology of the examination of “Jana Charvátová” was as follows: the witness was asked about Hasan Krasniki and therefore she started to speak about a person called Hasan first. She described him and, after that, she was shown the photograph album and then incidentally mentioned that she knew most of the persons shown in the photographs including the applicant. The official record of the interview stated that


Prompt: 18.  John Weir's statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents. He alleged inter alia that RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure had told him that the murder of the Reavey family members was carried out by


Prompt:
27.  On 25 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings concerning the abduction of his brother. The decision of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office contained the following statement:
“From 24 to 26 December 2001 the military units of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB carried out a special operation in Chechen-Aul of the Grozny District, Chechnya, to locate members of illegal armed groups and check passports. During the operation the servicemen detained Mr


Prompt: 10.  The applicants allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu was blindfolded, forced to stand for a long time, and deprived of food, water and sleep. She was also insulted and threatened with death and the torture of other members of her family. She was sexually harassed and beaten.


Prompt: 387.  On 23 November 1993 he went with a team of six or so people, accompanied by the team responsible for external security, to Mr Elçi's business premises. The people in that team included Ali Kara and perhaps


Prompt: 12.  According to the autopsy report drawn up the same day, Nermin Karabulut had died as a result of internal bleeding caused by a single bullet which had entered from the back at the level of the eleventh left rib and exited at the front at the level of the ninth rib. The prosecutor who was present during the autopsy observed that the hand grenade which was allegedly found on


Prompt: 11.  The men did not introduce themselves or produce any documents to authorise their actions. They locked Mrs Tsugayeva in one of the rooms and ordered the applicant’s brother-in-law and her son to lie down. The men hit Ayndi and


Prompt:
36.  The Government submitted a written statement dated 16 August 2005 made by officer K. of Khamovniki police station to an officer of the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of the Interior. The statement, in its relevant parts, reads:
“... I was on duty on the night of 2 March 2001... That night I joined the car patrol team including officers G. and M...
At around midnight we drove past house no. 48 on Komsomolskiy Avenue. The house had an archway. G. told us that three persons were leaving through the archway and that we should check their identity...
Our car stopped and the persons also stopped. Subsequently, I learnt that they were Mr Denisenko [the first applicant], Mr


Prompt: 38.  From the documents submitted it follows that on 12 August 2010 the head of Police Station no. 1 in Makhachkala sent the investigators letter no. 2/4298, stating that on 25 July 2010 four of their police officers, M.D., D.M., M.Z. and M.A., following the order of the Russian FSB no.6/3‑3726 of 16 June 2010 given as part of the investigation of criminal case no. 171822, had arrived at the house of the judge of the Leninskiy district of Makhachkala Mr Sh.A. to establish the whereabouts of his son Mr


Prompt: 34.  At approximately 4.45 a.m. on 13 December 2000 Sub-inspector Ü.Ö., accompanied by police sergeants R.Ö. and H.M., took their positions in the vicinity of the drop-off point to wait in ambush. At around 6.05 a.m., before daybreak, they saw someone approaching on foot from the direction of the SBA, approximately seventy metres to the west of the Pergamos checkpoint. It was believed that this person, who was later identified as the first applicant, had crossed the ditch which ran along the boundary between the “TRNC” and the SBA and which was filled with rainwater at the relevant time, and then jumped over the wire fence between boundary stones nos. 96 and 97, where parts of the fence had shrunk. As the first applicant was walking towards an olive tree in the designated area, Sub-inspector Ü.Ö. came out of his hiding place and ordered him to stop, in Turkish. Upon hearing that order, the first applicant started to run back towards the SBA; however, the two police sergeants caught up with him and seized him after a struggle, during which the applicant fell to the ground. The sub-inspector then grabbed the package that the first applicant was holding in his hands, which was wrapped in a black plastic bag. In the meantime,


Prompt: 14.  According to the applicants, at 2 a.m. on 14 November 2002 five or six men armed with sub-machine guns broke into their house. The intruders, who were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, arrived in APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and UAZ vehicles. One of them, who was unmasked, was of Slavic appearance. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, bound and gagged the first, second, third and fourth applicants, then beat


Prompt: 10.  Meanwhile other servicemen quickly searched the applicants’ house. They did not explain their actions; they neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They ordered the family members to stay quiet. As a result of the search they took


Prompt:
17.  In a judgment of 25 November 1997, the Lyons Court of Appeal increased the applicant’s sentence to twelve years’ imprisonment and upheld the exclusion order. It observed, among other things:
“By Article 132-9 of the Criminal Code, a person is deemed to be a recidivist when, having already been convicted with final effect of an offence punishable by ten years’ imprisonment, he or she commits a further offence carrying a similar sentence within ten years of the expiry of the limitation period for enforcing the previous sentence.
That was so in the case of


Prompt: 42.  According to the applicant, at some point she had found out that in 2003 the investigator in charge had gone to Yekaterinburg and interrogated T. and M., who had allegedly confirmed that they had arrested


Prompt:
233.  On 10 February 2009 the sixth applicant was questioned. The relevant part of her statement reads as follows:
“...At about 5 p.m. my son [Ayub Istamulov], who was born in 1981, together with his friend [