Prompt:
41.  On 12 September 2007 the applicant brought a civil action against Mr Z. Ziobro for infringement of his personal rights under Articles 24 and 448 of the Civil Code. He sought an order requiring the defendant to personally express the following apology on the main national radio and television stations and in four major newspapers:
“I,


Prompt: 510.  Mr Abbasioğlu rejected the charges read out to him as groundless, as well as his statement to the gendarmes. He denied the accusations of Mr Güven with whom he had been purportedly confronted, but as he had been blindfolded he had not been able to identify him fully. He had been punched at that moment. He had not acted as a courier for him and had only signed the statements because he had been scared by the screams of Tahir Elçi,


Prompt:
136.  On 8 January 2001 Mr Rauf Denktaş sent the following letter to the UN Secretary General regarding the alleged abductions of the first applicant and of Mr Tekoğul.
“I understand that letters of protest about the arrest by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus police of one Panicos Tsakourmas [sic], aged 39, while in possession of drugs is being circulated in all directions by the Greek Cypriot leadership. It is alleged that the said Tsakourmas was abducted by Turkish Cypriots in retaliation to “the arrest” by the Greek Cypriot police of Turkish Cypriot


Prompt: 32.  On 27 February 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov’s supervisor, Mr R.N., who stated, among other things, that about a week prior to Mr Saydulkhanov’s disappearance five or six men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at the Pension Fund in a light UAZ minivan. They had checked officer V.D.’s identity documents introducing themselves as belonging to “Djamaat “and acting under the command of Yamadayev. According to the witness, they could have been from the first military regiment stationed in the village of Oktyabrskaya. Then, the witness and his colleagues had understood that the men had been looking for Mr


Prompt: 13.  The noise of the battering ram awoke and frightened the applicants. The first applicant came down the stairs and was told by the police who they were and to open the door. The first applicant complied and the sergeant entered and showed his warrant card and explained that he was looking for


Prompt: 17.  The applicants are owners or co-owners of residential buildings in Bratislava and Trnava to which the rent-control scheme applies, or has applied, (further details are set out in Appendix 2). They obtained the ownership of the flats by various means, such as restitution, donation or inheritance from their relatives to whom the flats had been restored in the early 1990s. In two cases the applicants purchased further shares of ownership from the other co-owner, the Bratislava Municipality. Mr Dobšovič and Ms


Prompt: 105.  On 22 November 2007 a deputy town prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation, in particular the failure to question Mr R.Z. and to send queries to all the authorities concerned as to


Prompt: 73.  The statement consists of five typed pages. At the bottom of each page the name “Kasım Açık” is written by hand and is followed by an illegible signature. In this statement, Kasım Açık declares that he was born in 1979 in Çayırköy, in Ağrı and that in November 1994 he moved to Çorlu, a town close to Edirne. He found a job in a flour factory in Çorlu and met Murat İpek,


Prompt: 82.  On 7 February 2008 the second applicant complained to the Head of the Investigations Department of the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office that investigation into her brother’s disappearance was ineffective. She stated that her brother had been abducted by police officers and that the investigation had failed to take adequate steps to identify the perpetrators. She pointed out that she and her father had provided the authorities with the phone numbers of the people who had contacted them in May 2007 concerning the whereabouts of


Prompt: 27.  On 13 February 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, holding that his constitutional rights had not been violated. The Constitutional Court’s decision was adopted by seven votes to two. Judge J. Sovdat and Judge


Prompt: 7.  At some point in 1999 due to heavy hostilities between Russian forces and Chechen fighters the applicant moved to a refugee camp in Ingushetia. Two of her sisters, Shema Inderbiyeva and Shamani Inderbiyeva, and her mother


Prompt:
62.  The Public Prosecutor, Şevki Artar, informed the Institute of Forensic Medicine that on 25 November 1990 an autopsy had been performed on the body of Yakup Aktaş, who had died that same day at the Mardin State Hospital after having been taken suddenly ill at the Mardin provincial gendarmerie headquarters, where he was detained. Given that it had not proved possible to determine the exact cause of death it had been decided that tissue samples from the body should be sent to the Institute of Forensic Medicine and that the Institute's opinion be sought as to the exact cause of death.
(g)  Decision issued by the Mardin Public Prosecutor,


Prompt:
14.  In 2001 the applicants' minor son was invited to attend an interview for a place at the Omsk State Agrarian University. The applicants submitted that he did not attend the interview since neither of them was allowed to accompany him in the journey to Omsk. On an unspecified date the acting prosecutor of the Kargasok District provided the second applicant with the following letter:
“[The letter] is given to Ms


Prompt: 183.  Between 2 and 3 p.m. on 24 April 2001 a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the camp in four APCs, several UAZ vehicles. They broke in and abducted Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr


Prompt: 11.  During this operation an armed man, who was being pursued by soldiers, entered the applicants' house and hid in one of the rooms. According to the Government, the man was A., a member of an illegal armed group. The servicemen strafed the house, using machine-guns and grenade-launchers. Two daughters and a grandson of the first two applicants, the second applicant, the third applicant,


Prompt: 8.  The witnesses then heard six gunshots and immediately afterwards saw two men with pistols in their hands running away from the café. The applicant’s husband Sefer Cerf and his friend R.Ç. were shot and Sefer Cerf died at the scene. R.Ç. was injured and died while being taken to a hospital by a friend, Mr


Prompt: 12.  At about 2 a.m. on 30 November 2003 unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns and travelling in APCs entered the house at 11 Groznenskiy Lane, Argun, and kidnapped Mr


Prompt: 5.  The applicants, listed in the appendix, were all professors who at the material time were working at Tbilisi State University (“the University”). They opposed reforms initiated by the new University administration as a part of the nation-wide higher education reform in 2004-2005 and had initiated several court proceedings against the University in that regard. As part of their activities, they also held numerous public meetings at the University, made public statements and wrote to various public officials, denouncing what they called the “destruction” of the University. The applicants, with the exception of Mr Tuskia, Ms


Prompt:
17.  In an addendum appearing just below the box the applicant wrote:
“Dear ladies and gentlemen educationalists, Please accept my apologies if I have offended you by imputing to you acts that you did not perpetrate. I sincerely wish you success in the difficult struggle to protect your rights as civil servants and citizens by all lawful means. I trust that this struggle will include efforts allowing truth and justice to prevail.
Yours,


Prompt: 79.  This protocol stated that an investigation had been carried out into the complaints of the applicant and Mehmet Safi Aranacak that their houses and gardens had been burned in Ormandışı. No complaint had been made to the local gendarme station about this.


Prompt: 23.  On the same date two other servicemen of the military unit, K.E. and G.M., were questioned. Serviceman K.E. stated that he had been present during the table tennis match in question, while serviceman G.M. stated that he was the person who had lent the watch to


Prompt: 13.  On 16 September 1999 the court sent the applicant the operative part of its judgment of 15 September 1999, by which it had found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration because she had been an intentional, secret collaborator of the communist secret services after 1953. It further informed the applicant that the written grounds of the judgment had been prepared under Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that she could consult them in the office of its secret registry (kancelaria tajna). As she had not appointed legal representation, the full written grounds could only be read by herself, to the exclusion of all other persons, except the


Prompt: 106.  On 26 February 2001 S.U., an Ilyinskoye resident stated that at 10.30 a.m. on 23 February 2000 he had been grazing cattle when he had seen a Ural lorry without registration plates parking at the military checkpoint. Servicemen got out of the vehicle and two armed men in camouflage uniforms approached him saying that they would take some cattle from him. At around 12 noon he saw


Prompt: 121.  In November 2010 the investigators questioned several witnesses to the events, who mainly confirmed the account of the events submitted by the applicants, and examined the crime scene. No evidence from Mr


Prompt:
28.  In December 2006 the applicant asked the trial court to annul the Prosecutor General's decision of 29 December 2004 to re-open the criminal investigation into his case and to discontinue the investigation. He argued that the re-opening had violated both his right not to be prosecuted twice for the same act and the principle of legal certainty, contrary to Articles 22 and 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
In its judgment of 13 December 2006 the Buiucani District Court cited Articles 22 and 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and found that:
“...
Having examined all the evidence during the hearing, the court considers it necessary to discontinue the case due to the existence of circumstances which prevent the initiation of proceedings and the pursuance of criminal charges, namely the prohibition on repeated charges being brought against the same person for the same offence.
During the court hearing, it was established that the criminal proceedings in the case of


Prompt: 60.  In his decision he stated that it appeared from the evidence that Special Constable G.S. had asked the applicant, who at the time had been at the ATM machine, for his particulars. The applicant had reacted and had hit the police officer in an attempt to flee. The applicant had explained his behaviour by stating that he had thought it had been a robbery.


Prompt: 8.  In the autumn of 1999 the applicants and Valid Gerasiyev resided in their privately owned house in the village of Gekhi. After the launch of the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, the first applicant and some of his relatives moved to Ingushetiya.


Prompt:
22.  The Principal Public Prosecutor's Office appealed against that judgment, which the National Parole Court quashed on 18 July 2003 for the following reasons:
“... a medical report dated 28 May 2003 shows that the treatment for the diseases from which Mr Gelfmann is suffering is onerous and can only be administered '– with difficulty because the prisoner is uncooperative – in custody or in a relatively restrictive structure'. The practitioner adds: 'This is the crux of the matter' and that detention remains 'compatible with his condition'. Another medical expert, in a report lodged on 2 December 2002, states that the treatment which Mr Gelfmann must take is 'simple and can be administered in a prison environment'.
Lastly, the impugned decision notes that a psychiatric expert has stated that


Prompt:
25.  By a judgment of 23 October 2001 the court rejected his complaint. In particular, it stated that:
“... The plaintiff's submissions proved unconfirmed during the court hearing. According to the statements of the police officers V. and Z. obtained in course of the prosecutor's inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment,


Prompt: 78.  On 4 September 2006 the town prosecutor’s office carried out a confrontation between Magomed M., inspector on duty of the Ministry of the Interior, and Oleg Dzh., officer on duty of the UFSB on the night of 4 to 5 December. Magomed M. confirmed his statement of January 2005 (see paragraph 65 above) that he had talked to


Prompt: 37.  On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the third applicant in application no. 6382/09 that there was no evidence of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction of


Prompt: 44.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Salambek Suleymanov, who was born in 1974, Mr Khasanbek Suleymanov, who was born in 1979, and Mr Anderbek (also spelt as Andarbek) Suleymanov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is the wife of Mr


Prompt: 55.  Between 12 September and 27 November 2005 the investigators requested a number of State authorities, including the FSB, the Ministry of the Interior, the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) and prosecutor’s offices of various districts in the Chechen Republic to provide information on


Prompt:
79.  On 21 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and the cross-appeal ([2005] EWCA Civ 1609). Having reviewed the Court’s case-law on jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention, Brooke LJ, who gave the leading judgment, held that a State could exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction when it applied control and authority over a complainant (which he termed “State agent authority”, abbreviated to “SAA”) and when it held effective control of an area outside its borders (“effective control of an area” or “ECA”), observing as follows:
“80.  I would therefore be more cautious than the Divisional Court in my approach to the Banković [and Others] judgment. It seems to me that it left open both the ECA and SAA approaches to extraterritorial jurisdiction, while at the same time emphasising (in paragraph 60) that because an SAA approach might constitute a violation of another State’s sovereignty (for example, when someone is kidnapped by the agents of a State on the territory of another State without that State’s invitation or consent), this route to any recognition that extraterritorial jurisdiction has been exercised within the meaning of an international treaty should be approached with caution.”
He considered, inter alia, the cases of Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV); Freda v. Italy ((dec.), no. 8916/80, Commission decision of 7 October 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 21, p. 250); and


Prompt: 58.  The Government referred to a letter from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD and submitted that the investigators had not found any witnesses able to confirm that the killers had arrived at the house by car or in armoured vehicles. According to the letter, on an unspecified date after


Prompt: 90.  By a decision of 8 May 2001 the Urus-Martan VOVD ordered the transfer of case no. 25268 to a military prosecutor’s office for further investigation. The decision reiterated that on 2 October 1999, during a bomb attack by the federal air forces, two houses belonging to Mr


Prompt: 49.  On 20 November 1993 at 7.20 a.m., the applicant was taken into custody by gendarmes from his home, after it was searched. Nothing was seized. He believed that his arrest was based on the abstract declarations of a PKK confessor,


Prompt: 12.  As mentioned in the above letter, the occupying States, acting through the Commander of Coalition Forces, created the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to act as a “caretaker administration” until an Iraqi government could be established. It had power, inter alia, to issue legislation. On 13 May 2003 the US Secretary of Defence,


Prompt: 9.  On various dates the Presidiums of higher courts decided, upon the defendant authorities’ requests for supervisory review, to quash the judgments in the applicants’ favour considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law (see details in the appended table). With the exception of two cases (Kulkov and


Prompt: 11.  At the first hearing, the court requested the following: (i) oral statements of the police officers who had interrogated one of the accused, (ii) a forensic examination of one of the accused, Mr


Prompt:
120.  Entry No. 43 refers to Ramazan Ayçiçek as having been detained on charges noted above. The fourth column notes that his detention was ordered by District Gendarme Command and the fifth column notes his detention on 7 June 1994 at 16.00. The entry spills over to a second line, noting that he departed from Lice District Gendarme Command on 10 June 1994 at 14.00 as he had been referred to a public prosecutor.
(c)  The investigation file concerning


Prompt: 13.  In a letter dated 20 April and received by Ilinden on 24 April 2004 the Mayor of Blagoevgrad informed it that “[e]very citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria [had] the right to pay his respect to the memory of the national heroes and lay flowers at their monuments”. However, in the way it had been planned, the rally was in fact a procession. To proclaim


Prompt: 39.  The defendant police officer, D.Ö., submitted his final written defence arguments to the trial court and maintained that the lack of burn marks around the bullet entry hole showed that he had not shot


Prompt: 36.  At a hearing of 3 March 2015 the State Court presented to the applicant open evidence submitted by the National Security Agency. The same information had already been submitted to the applicant’s representative on 6 February 2015 by the National Security Agency. The information essentially described the applicant’s role as that of the self-proclaimed leader of the mujahidin community in Donja Bočinja and referred to his conviction for unlawful deprivation of liberty in 2000 (see paragraph 11 above). It furthermore stated that until being placed in detention, the applicant had consistently advocated the Saudi-inspired Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam and had publicly expressed his support for


Prompt: 27.  On 22 January 2004 the applicant’s relative and the aunt of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, Ms A.M., wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, stating that on an unspecified date between 6 and 21 January 2004 she had been invited by the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to a meeting with law-enforcement and military officers at the police station. During the meeting, she had pointed out to those present that the military commander had acknowledged that Mr


Prompt: 12.  On an unspecified date a doctor of the Argun town hospital issued an information statement concerning the cause of Asradiy Estamirov’s death. According to the document, “...the corpse arrived at the trauma ward of the Argun town hospital at 5.20 p.m. on 5 January 2001; [


Prompt: 42.  Mr Delimkhanov was questioned as a witness on 23 June 2010. He confirmed that after the operation of 21 October 2009 he had orally instructed his subordinates to bring Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov, his uncle and cousin to the regiment’s headquarters. During a conversation


Prompt: 17.  According to another resident of Gikalo, Mr V.Ts., at about 7.20 a.m. on 27 February 2000 he arrived at his brother's house. There he saw a military vehicle with about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms on it; some of them were wearing masks. The servicemen had specially trained German shepherd dogs with them. The majority of these men were of Slavic appearance, but two of them looked Asian. The servicemen checked the passports; after that one of them spoke with someone via a portable radio set. After that the witness and his brother were taken by the military vehicle to the village centre. There they were transferred to an Avtozak vehicle in which the witness found a number of his fellow villagers, including


Prompt: 56.  On 5 September 2002 the investigation questioned the first applicant as a witness. She stated that at about 4 a.m. on 11 August 2002 unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had burst into the courtyard of the family home.


Prompt:
19.  The first-instance judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 14 March. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“The accused M.G. and Neđo Ajdarić in their respective appeals unsuccessfully try to challenge the evidence given by witness S.Š. However, contrary to their assertions, the first-instance court gave valid reasons for accepting the statement given by that witness and these reasons have not been called into question by the allegations in the appeals.
It is firstly to be stated that the statement of witness S.Š. is not in contradiction with other evidence as the appellants wrongly claim. Witnesses J.M. and N.P., who gave more details about the circumstances in their room in Zagreb Prison Hospital than witness T.M., said that the accused M.G. and


Prompt: 26.  On 2 November 2007 the investigating department terminated the proceedings in case no. 27520028. The decision referred to statements by FSB officers V.L., I.K. and P.Ch. They submitted, among other things, that on 2 September 2007 they had gone to Karabulak to arrest members of an illegal armed group, Mr


Prompt: 21.  After the Court had declared the application admissible, it requested the Government to provide a copy of the full investigation file concerning Atilla Osmanoğlu's disappearance, together with information as to whether any investigation had been opened into


Prompt: 34.  In a second statement taken by the police from Özlem B. on 26 February 1994, Özlem B. declared that Yusuf Ekinci's law practice mostly dealt with compensation cases and that Nadire İ. was a client. She further declared that on 25 February 1994


Prompt:
30.  On 20 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated, inter alia:
“The appellant is essentially raising one issue. And his learned counsel has acknowledged that judgment as to this [issue] will determine the conclusion ... We summarise the appellant’s positions as set out in the grounds of appeal as explained.
He does not invoke the Regulations as an autonomous ground for his release, especially since ... they are not applicable any more. Furthermore, he does not suggest or attempt a review of the Assize Court’s judgment, as was wrongly perceived at first instance. We are not going against, as he explained, the Assize Court’s judgment but the Republic as a whole. The Regulations were then applicable at that time and since the Assize Court had not annulled them for being unconstitutional, we must conclude that it considered them valid. And since the law does not provide a definition of the term ‘life imprisonment’, it was an element of the regulation of the sentence provided. As Mr


Prompt: 5.  The applicants - Mr Blagota Barać, Mr Milan Terzić, Mr Zoran Stanišić, Mr Stanko Burić, Ms Stanica Marković, Mr Radovan Kadović, Mr Ranko Tomašević, Mr Novo Stanišić, Mr Branko Radulović, Mr Novak Nikolić, Mr


Prompt:
8.  On the night of 13 November 2002 the first, second, third and fourth applicants, Ayub Takhayev and his grandfather slept in their family home at 42 Shkolnaya Street, Mesker-Yurt. The house had a common courtyard with three other houses inhabited by the applicants’ relatives. The fifth applicant slept in one of those houses.
(a)  Abduction of


Prompt: 37.  By a letter of 16 December 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on 9 December 2003 the investigation into his son’s abduction had been resumed and that “the investigative actions aiming at establishing


Prompt:
23.  On 16 October 2003 the House of Lords upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Holding that the Human Rights Act 1998 was not applicable as the events took place before its entry into force on 2 October 2000, the House of Lords nevertheless went on to consider whether, if the Act had been in force, breaches of the Convention could be made out. Lord Hoffmann, delivering the leading judgment, found that there was no infringement of Article 3 as the conduct had not been sufficiently humiliating to constitute degrading treatment.
“50.  In the present case, the judge found that the prison officers acted in good faith and that there had been no more than ‘sloppiness’ in the failures to comply with the rules. The prison officers did not wish to humiliate the claimants; the evidence of Mrs Wainwright was that they carried out the search in a matter-of-fact way and were speaking to each other about unrelated matters. The


Prompt:
31.  The last part of the article was entitled “Ramkovski refuses settlement, the Government changes the law” (“Рамковски одбива спогодба, Владата го менува законот”). The article went on to say:
“After the Court asked the questions, the State offered a settlement,


Prompt: 11.  After being released at approximately 11 a.m. the next day, Leonid Ghimp went home. According to his wife and a person who had seen him walking home, he was pale and walking very slowly. He told his wife that he had stomach ache and spent all day in bed. Only later during the evening, after the pain had intensified, did he tell his wife about the beating at the police station. He told her that the pain had started after a blow to his stomach which had caused him to feel a sharp pain and lose his breath. Later during the night


Prompt: 21.  The Government in their observations did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. They stated that on 8 January 2000 Usman Mavluyev had been apprehended by “unidentified persons” at the checkpoint in Chernorechye and taken away to an unknown destination. The Government disputed the involvement of State agents in


Prompt: 16.  On 1 December 2008 the applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which he alleged that the facts had been wrongly established and that his rights enshrined in Article 29 of the Slovenian Constitution had been violated. He disputed the allegation that the bar had been open at the time in question and emphasised, among other things, that the police had not approached him on the day the offence was allegedly committed, and that he and the witnesses had not subsequently been heard by the


Prompt: 179.  On 10 February 2012 the investigators questioned the second applicant. She stated, in particular, that after the first Chechen war, from 1997 until 1999, her sister, Ms Tumisha Sadykova, had worked at the Ministry of Sharia National Security (Министерство Шариатской Государственной безопасности) during the period when


Prompt: 56.  On Monday 14 November 2005 the applicant's lawyer informed the President of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii) of the failure of Judge L.V., President of the Centru District Court, to examine his request of 11 November 2005, and asked for urgent action in order to ensure compliance with the Court's directions for interim measures. On the same day the lawyer submitted a similar request to


Prompt: 22.  On 13 October 1999 Adana Magistrates' Court questioned the police officers. Officers Mustan and Topaç stated that on their arrival on the third floor landing gunfire had been coming from inside Mr Erdinç's flat. The Magistrates' Court rejected the prosecutor's request to order the pre-trial detention of six of the police officers, namely


Prompt:
27.  The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozeßordnung) read as follows:
Article 116
“In the case of persons on whom process can only be served by publication because their address is unknown, the court shall appoint a representative (Article 9), on application or of its own motion, if the persons concerned would have to perform a step in the proceedings as a result of being served with the documents, and in particular if the documents to be served contain a summons.”
Article 121
“1.  In the case of service on persons outside the country who do not fall into the categories of recipients referred to in section 11(2) and (3) of the Service Act, the Federal


Prompt: 12.  On 8 September 2000 a peaceful meeting of some 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place at the property of K. and E. Pirtskheliani (applicants nos. 40 and 41), when it was suddenly disrupted by the police. According to the applicants, the police opened fire inside their property. Masked police officers entered the house, turned it upside down and removed various items. Around fifty Jehovah’s Witnesses who were present were beaten, including applicants D. Gulua,


Prompt: 121.  On 30 April 2009 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice stated that it did not have jurisdiction to examine this branch of the case, mainly because members of the police force – including


Prompt: 28.  On 14 September 2009 the investigators again questioned Mr Ta.Sh., who reiterated his previously given statements of 9 and 12 September 2009. He added that Sirazhudin Shafiyev had promised to assist several people in obtaining visas for Hajj in Saudi Arabia, and that on 7 September 2009 Sirazhudin had gone to Imam Rasul in Izberbash and had given him the documents and the money for the processing of the documents for Hajj. On 9 September 2009 officers from the 6th Department had questioned the imam (see paragraph 25 above) about the documents, as one set of them belonged to a man suspected of terrorism. Mr Ta.Sh. further asserted that his brother


Prompt: 42.  Around 5 a.m. on 17 July 2002 several armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Shali. Another group of service personnel also broke into the house of Mr


Prompt: 12.  According to the applicant, they told her that the persons who had killed her son had been identified; and that the perpetrators of the killing had spoken to the heads of the battalion and returned the service guns and the service identity card which they had taken away during the incident. The perpetrators had explained that they were from the local ‘Oil battalion’ (нефте-полк), under the command of Mr A.M., and that they had killed


Prompt: 235.  Indeed it was “impossible” for a military unit to detain persons at the school. When he was informed that his predecessor in Lice Central Gendarme Station (Hasan Çakır) had said that it was possible, the witness responded that there was no point in taking detainees to the school and he had no idea what


Prompt: 33.  On 8 January 2000, 21 members of the original Parishioners' Assembly composed of 27 members held a meeting to discuss the events of 1-3 January 2000. They elected a Parishioners' Council with the following composition: Mr


Prompt: 161.  The Court questioned Mr L. Darbaydze and Ms A. Nadareishvili, trainee prosecutors at the Procurator-General's Office at the relevant time, Mr P. Mskhiladze, director of international relations at the Procurator-General's Office, and Mr


Prompt: 20.  According to a separate report on the questioning of the three police officers drawn up by D.Z. from the DIOA, they had provided concurring statements to the same effect as those detailed in the incident report (see paragraph 11 above). The police officers also stated that Mr


Prompt: 13.  At about 5.30 p.m., when the VAZ-2103 car was within about 1000 metres of check-point no. 18, a group of armed men forced it to stop. The armed men hit the car with a burst of machine gun fire and wounded


Prompt: 12.  The serviceman took Bekkhan and Aslanbek Alaudinov to their uncle’s house, which was situated nearby. When the Alaudinov brothers walked into the yard they saw a large group of servicemen. One of the officers pointed at


Prompt: 28.  On 7 September 2001 the Urus-Martan Town Court certified the death of Ali Musayev, upon the first applicant's request. The court heard evidence from two witnesses, who confirmed the first applicant's submissions about the detention of her son on 8 August 2000, the discovery of his body and his burial on 13 September 2000 at the Gekhi village cemetery. The court certified that


Prompt: 32.  On 21 March 2009 an investigator from the Gudermes department drew up an “overview report” of the investigation. He concluded that the statements of the servicemen of the Gudermes ROVD to the effect that


Prompt:
83.  On 29 September 1999 the applicants Mustafa Selçuk, Cem Şahin, Barış Gönülşen, Erdal Gökoğlu and Sadık Türk – who had meanwhile been transferred to Burdur Prison – joined the complainants. They complained about the members of the security forces and the prison authorities, who they submitted had been responsible for the tragic events of 26 September. Those complaints were also added to the aforementioned file no. 1999/101539.
The applicant


Prompt: 99.  On that date he saw both Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz in the waiting-room on the second floor of the gendarmerie station. They had come to see Süleyman Can about Ebubekir Deniz being disqualified from driving. The witness did not summon them to the building. As the commanding officer was not there, they left the waiting-room,


Prompt: 70.  According to the applicants, on 3 June 2000 Markha Gakayeva and Raisa Gakayeva, along with their cousin Nura Luluyeva, went to the market place at Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny.


Prompt: 31.  On 5 March 2003 the Chechen department of the Federal Security Service (the Chechen department of the FSB) informed the applicant that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of her sons. The letter stated that


Prompt: 37.  On the facts of the case the trial court also rejected the applicant’s arguments that he could not be held liable for the fate of A.R. “Vanagas” and B.M. “Vanda” since he had not personally arrested them, nor had he been involved in the sentencing of


Prompt: 33.  The Tbilisi Regional Court delivered its judgment on the same day, allowing the respondent Ministry's appeal in full. The court acknowledged the fact that the first applicant had used the cottage and the adjacent premises between January 1994 and 1 November 2004. Referring to the order of 29 October 1993 of


Prompt: 46.  On 15 February 2005 the SRJI complained on behalf of the first applicant to the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the town court”) of the investigators’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into


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


Prompt: 45.  On 8 October 2002 the investigators questioned the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, Mr E.B., who stated that he did not have any personal animosity towards Lema Khakiyev, that the complaint of 20 June 2002 had been written as a routine working document and that he had no information as to the identities of


Prompt:
34.  On the same date the Grozny city prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events, under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 52112. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“...On 30 August 2002


Prompt: 52.  In February and March 2017, the two other candidates, E.J. and J.H., who were among the fifteen candidates that the Committee considered most qualified, but had been removed from the final list of nominees proposed to Parliament by the Minister of Justice, brought judicial proceedings in the District Court of Reykjavík against the Icelandic State. E.J. requested a declaratory judgment to the effect that the State was obliged to pay him pecuniary damage for not being appointed one of the judges to the Court of Appeal due to an unlawful decision by


Prompt: 8.  At the material time the applicant worked in the administration of the Urus-Martan District (администрация Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan administration”) and lived in an apartment in a block of flats in Urus-Martan. She had a son, Mr


Prompt: 104.  In response to questions from the applicants and Zh., D-n. of the special police unit stated, in particular, that he had been equipped with a bullet-proof vest, a helmet that he had not had time to put on, and a handgun. The special police unit did not have rubber truncheons. He further submitted that there had been no order to storm the flat as such, but their superior had instructed them to apprehend Mr


Prompt: 22.  The applicant then applied to the deputy head of the Urus-Martan administration. The latter telephoned the temporary office of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (временный отдел внутренних дел Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan VOVD”) and enquired about the applicant’s son. The Urus-Martan VOVD confirmed that, during the night on 13 June 2001, twelve persons, including


Prompt: 4.  The applicant, Mr Neytullah Getiren, was a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and had been living in Bursa. By a letter dated 20 December 2004, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had died on 23 January 2003 and that his brother,


Prompt:
66.  On the same date the applicant’s lawyer complained to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) and the district prosecutor that the investigation of the criminal case was ineffective. In particular, he pointed out the following:
“... The investigation is being conducted in a slipshod manner. It is obvious that the death of


Prompt:
68.  While the objective of enabling people of modest means to protect their reputations and privacy from powerful publishers was a good one, Lord Hoffman considered that it might be that a legislative solution would be needed for the scheme to comply with Article 10 of the Convention.
(b) Lord


Prompt: 45.  On 27 March 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. The applicant described the circumstances of the abduction. In particular, she stated that her husband


Prompt: 14.  On 29 September 1997, acting upon an application from the Secretary of State for Industry, the Public Works Division of the Conseil d'Etat, under the presidency of Mr Le Vert, the reporting judge being Mr


Prompt: 96.  Üzeyir Nazlım stated that he was a Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the Mardin provincial gendarmerie. He had checked on Yakup Aktaş in cell no. 18 while on guard duty on 21 and 24 November 1990.


Prompt:
94.  According to the Government, on 13 April 2006 “in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries to the Makhashev brothers by unidentified persons ...” the investigators decided to separate a part of the material collected within the framework of criminal case no. 21/233-04 and open a new criminal case file which was given the number 21/103-06. The relevant decision stated that Mr M. Sh. and unidentified persons had severely beaten up the first applicant:
“ ... the investigation established that at about 7.45 p.m. on 14 November 2004 Mr M.Sh. in the [concert] hall ‘Olimp’ had beaten [the first applicant]


Prompt:
17.  In the meantime, on 1 June 2009 the Sisak County Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 109 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further nine months, i.e. until 1 March 2010. On 12 June 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the maximum period for which he could be detained had expired. This appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22 July 2009. The relevant part of that decision reads:
“The Supreme Court, as the court of second instance, considers that the first-instance court correctly established that in the present case the conditions for the extension of the overall detention of the accused,


Prompt:
68.  By a judgment of 31 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected Mr Pace’s appeal. It noted, inter alia, that it was true that it was still open to the applicant to raise his complaint despite the passage of time. Nevertheless, the court could draw other conclusions as a result, such as those related to credibility. Indeed had the statement been taken under duress the applicant would have raised the matter prior to 2011, it was thus likely that Mr Pace was solely trying to take advantage of the evolution of the ECtHR case-law. It considered that to determine the fairness of the proceedings they had to be taken as a whole, on the facts of the case it did not appear to be so in the present case where Mr Pace did not object to the presentation of his statements to the jurors during the criminal proceedings, to the contrary he noted that he was not challenging the validity of the second statement, which showed that the applicant had not felt prejudiced by his statements, which had been reiterated before the Court of Magistrates. Moreover, his statements had not been the only evidence against him.
(iii)  Other case-law


Prompt:
17.  On 4 December 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was terminated for want of proof of a crime. At the same time, in his decree terminating the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the investigator mentioned that the courts had quashed the previous decisions on termination of the criminal case on non-exonerative grounds, because the applicant had not agreed. In the investigator’s opinion the applicant’s consent was not necessary, because even though her conduct could be qualified as a crime of negligence, no criminal proceedings could be instituted, as prosecution was time-barred and she could not be considered as an accused in this respect. The investigator, therefore, decided that:
“In the actions of Ms


Prompt: 21.  On 11 May 2009 the police interviewed F.O. and F.K., both of whom were neighbours of the Zdjelar family in Crni Potok. F.K. confirmed that it had been soldiers from the Croatian Army who had come to the village when


Prompt:
20.  On the same day an internet newspaper called “Kavkazskiy uzel” reported as follows:
“Today a considerable number of residents of the village of Valerik gathered at the central square of Achkhoy-Martan, Chechen Republic. They wanted the State authorities to liberate their 22-year-old fellow resident


Prompt: 5.  The Ohrid Archdiocese (Охридска Архиепископија), in its original form, existed until 1767, when it was abolished by the Turkish Sultan. As stated by the applicant association, after its abolition the territory over which the Ohrid Archdiocese had jurisdiction, which had included what is now the territory of the respondent State, fell under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which in 1918 issued a canonical release of those territories to the benefit of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC). As stated by the Government, in 1943 it was decided that the Ohrid Archdiocese would be restored and continued by an autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC). In 1959 the MOC seceded from the SOC, and in 1967 it declared autocephaly. The Head of the Holy Synod of MOC is designated as “


Prompt: 97.  The Registry office of the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır Court was located in the basement of the court building, next to the exit door used by police officers to bring detainees in and out. At a later date, officials working at the registry told the witness that


Prompt: 14.  On 4 June 2001 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 258 of the Criminal Code for resisting the police. In his indictment, the public prosecutor stated that, while the police officers were conducting a search in the applicant’s house, the applicant had assaulted the police officer


Prompt: 36.  The Regional Court further upheld the judgments of 13 September and 3 October 2002 in substance. In particular, it found that the District Court had addressed the applicants’ arguments relating to the existence of an objective link between the contested statements and the plaintiff. It had analysed the tile, structure and contents of the impugned article and had correctly found that its last sentence concerned Mr


Prompt: 71.  The Government further submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Said-Emin Sambiyev, it was still in progress. The authorities took all possible steps to have the crime resolved. The law-enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained


Prompt: 142.  He said that the Kurşunlu plain was about two kilometres long and 600-800 metres wide. It was flat with three or four sporadic trees. It was completely surrounded by mountains. In the forested area there were oak trees, bushes and rocks. He identified the location shown on two photographs of the places where the bodies of


Prompt: 58.  On an unspecified date the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior notified the investigating authorities that it had no information concerning the whereabouts of T., Islam Dombayev and


Prompt: 36.  On 3 March 2003 the Zavodskoy ROVD carried out an internal inquiry into the disappearance of Beslan Dolsayev. It was established that he had been kidnapped by “unidentified persons armed with machine guns and wearing camouflage uniform and masks”.


Prompt: 14.  On the date of the incident the Lori regional prosecutor’s office decided to institute criminal case no. 55200706 for attempted murder under Article 104, in conjunction with Article 34 of the Criminal Code (CC), on account of


Prompt: 22.  The Moldovan Government considered that the Convention responsibility of the Russian Federation continued to be engaged having regard to the latter’s support for the Transdniestrian regime and to the fact that they maintained their troops on the territory of Moldova, in breach of international law, of the OSCE Summit Statements in Istanbul (1999) and in Porto (2002) (see also Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and


Prompt:
16.  The Constitutional Court referred to Article 11 of the Convention in its judgment and stated that the rights guaranteed in that provision were not absolute and could be restricted in the circumstances listed in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. It also referred to Article 17 of the Convention, and reached the following conclusion:
“Carrying out activities, by relying on democratic rights and freedoms, against the indivisible unity of the State with its nation is unacceptable. In such circumstances it is the duty and raison d'être of the State to prevent the abuse of these rights and freedoms. Allowing a political party which supports terrorism and which is supported by terrorism to continue to exist cannot be contemplated.
In statements and speeches made on behalf of the People's Democracy Party and in the course of various meetings, the party's general secretary


Prompt: 27.  The administrative proceedings concerning each of these applicants were conducted at first instance by the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 369 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow. Like the first applicant, they were individually convicted of having breached the procedure for the conduct of public assemblies, an administrative offence under Article 20.2 of the Administrative Offences Code, and had to pay a fine of RUB 1,000 each. During the trial all of them contested the police reports, in particular as regards the time and circumstances of their arrest, and requested the court to call and examine eyewitnesses.


Prompt:
27.  On 24 October 2017 the applicant’s representative, Ms Trenina, informed the Court that she was still in contact with the applicant through his relatives and the lawyer representing him in Uzbekistan, and that he wished to maintain his application. In support of that assertion, she provided the following evidence:
(a) a handwritten note (in Uzbek with a Russian translation) from the applicant’s mother dated 28 September 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which stated that the applicant had expressed his wish to maintain the application during a meeting which he had had with her in the penal colony;
(b) a handwritten affidavit from the applicant dated 12 October 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which stated that he wished to maintain his application, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during the investigation in Uzbekistan, that he was being detained in inhuman conditions, that he had almost lost his eyesight, and that he had attempted to commit suicide while in detention;
(c) a handwritten affidavit from the applicant dated 12 October 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which described his deportation from Russia and specifically mentioned that he had been in contact with his representatives via telephone throughout the deportation procedure on 30 June and 1 July 2016, and that the law-enforcement agents carrying out the deportation had been repeatedly informed of the indication of the interim measure by the Court, but had chosen to ignore this information;
(d) a report from Ms


Prompt: 38.  The witness said that he made a statement before the Silopi public prosecutor. He also answered questions by an investigating officer and provided a description enabling an identikit picture to be prepared of the two people who attempted to force


Prompt:
23.  On 10 May 2011 the applicant was indicted, in accordance with the Parliamentary resolution of 28 September 2010:
“1. 1.1  For having shown serious neglect of his duties as Prime Minister in the face of major danger looming over Icelandic financial institutions and the State Treasury, a danger of which he was or ought to have been aware and would have been able to respond to by initiating measures, legislation, general governmental instructions or governmental decisions on the basis of current law, for the purpose of avoiding foreseeable danger to the fortunes of the State. 1.2  For having failed to take initiative, either by taking measures of his own or by proposing measures to other ministers, to the effect that there would be a comprehensive and professional analysis within the administrative system of the financial risk faced by the State because of the risk of financial crisis. 1.3  For having neglected to ensure that the work and emphasis of a consultative group of the Government of financial stability and preparedness, which was established in 2006, were purposeful and produced the desired results. 1.4  For having neglected to take initiative on active measures on behalf of the State to reduce the size of the Icelandic banking system by, for example, advocating that the banks reduce their balance sheets or that some of them move their headquarters out of Iceland. 1.5  For not having followed up and assured himself that active measures were being taken in order to transfer Landsbanki Íslands hf.’s Icesave accounts in Britain to a subsidiary, and then to look for ways to enable this to happen with the active involvement of the State.
The above-specified conduct is deemed subject to section 10(b), cf. section 11, of Act no. 4/1963 [on Ministerial Responsibility], and, alternatively, section 141 of the General Penal Code, no. 19/1940. 2.
For having, during the above-mentioned period [February 2008 – October 2008] failed to implement what is directed in Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic on the duty to hold ministerial meetings on important government matters. During this period there was little discussion at ministerial meetings of the imminent danger; there was no formal discussion of it at ministerial meetings, and nothing was recorded about these matters at the meetings. There was nevertheless specific reason to do so, especially after the meeting on 7 February 2008 between him,


Prompt: 63.  On 7 March 2004 the fourth applicant lodged with the Military Court of the North Caucasus Circuit (“the circuit court”) a complaint concerning the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and


Prompt:
56.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal because in its view the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation could not have been considered as proof of inconsistent case-law of courts ruling at final instance (revizijsko rešenje ne može biti dokaz o različitom postupanju sudova najviše instance).
(ii)  Mr


Prompt: 24.  On 11 February 2008 Mr and Mrs Dölek presented another petition to the same prosecutor. They reiterated the suspicions they had voiced earlier about the alleged role of Mustafa Döleksoy’s wife in their son’s death and added that they had suspicions that the wife’s sister had also been involved in


Prompt: 10.  In his book, the first applicant reconstructed the chronology of events involving the Resistance movements in Lyons in 1943 and took stock of the various archive materials that were available on that period. One of the principal mysteries surrounding this period is the Caluire meeting, an event of particular significance to the history of the French Resistance and a major episode of the Second World War. On 21 June 1943


Prompt:
52.  The court held that the preliminary investigation had been inadequate:
“We deem that the inadequate manner in which the acts and ... procedures related to the investigation were performed reflect a negative attitude ... The same can be noted regarding the delayed submission of the autopsy reports on the victims (


Prompt: 72.  On 16 December 2012 the investigators again questioned Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s friend, police officer M.P., who reiterated his previous statement (see paragraph 67 above), adding that he could show the investigators the place where he had seen Mr


Prompt: 19.  In a statement made on 3 or 4 October 1994, a lawyer, Murat Demir, said that he had spoken with Kenan Bilgin, who had informed him that he had been in custody for twenty-two days and that his name had not been entered on the custody record.


Prompt: 18.  On 30 October 2000 the applicants' relatives wrote to the Urus‑Martan district military commander's office (the district military commander's office) requesting the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of Ali Udayev and


Prompt: 9.  Although he had never been given citizenship or a residence permit in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 28 December 1995 the applicant obtained a national identity card on the basis of a forged decision of 15 February 1992 granting citizenship to a certain


Prompt: 20.  Ruling on the criminal charges, the court began by examining the case against the applicant. It found that it could be established with certainty, on the basis of precise and concurring physical evidence, that the applicant had indeed used various false names and aliases which had come up in the course of the investigations, a fact the court described as “beyond doubt and indisputable”. With regard to the GIA’s funding the court, having noted the prosecution’s claims that the applicant had funded the GIA groups which carried out the attacks in France during the second half of 1995, examined the factual evidence in the case file at length and in detail. It observed in particular that, according to one witness who was a GIA member, the organisation’s groups had different specialisations depending on their location, with the London group being responsible for sending funds. The court further noted that the applicant had transferred GBP 5,000 on 16 October 1995, two days before the attack of 17 October 1995. This was established by the statements of the British police officers tasked with keeping the applicant under surveillance and of the staff of the Western Union branch where the transfer had been made, and also by the discovery of the applicant’s fingerprints on the transfer slip kept by the Western Union branch. The court also observed that one of the perpetrators of the attacks, B.B., had stated that the money used in preparing the various attacks had always been supplied by the applicant from London. The court inferred that the facts as a whole “demonstrate[d] that


Prompt: 20.  On 16 July 2010 the first applicant requested the Kaspiysk prosecutor’s office to take additional investigative steps to establish her son’s whereabouts. In particular, she asked them to request information from various detention centres in Dagestan in case Mr


Prompt: 37.  On 11 May 2000 the second applicant received from the district department of the FSB a copy of the order, dated 17 March 2000, concerning the authorities' intention not to institute criminal proceedings against


Prompt: 9.  On the evening of the same date police officers from the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (“the Sunzhenskiy ROVD”) arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Ingushetia. Having informed the applicant that earlier that day FSB officers had arrested Mr


Prompt:
40.  On 27 August 2002, the Acting Head of the AIVD sent a further official report to the national public prosecutor responsible for combating terrorism. This report reads in its relevant part:
“I.  The recruitment network
In the exercise of its statutory task, it has appeared to the AIVD from reliable, vulnerable sources, that a network of extremist muslims is active in the Netherlands which is in particular involved in providing material, financial and logistical support and in propagating, planning and inciting to actually using violence for the benefit of the international jihad. The members of this network understand jihad as the armed battle in all its forms against enemies of Islam, including the (for them) unacceptable governments in the Middle East and the United States [of America].
It has been established that the network, in a series of similar activities, is currently preparing and organising in any event two, possibly even more, and for the time being unidentified, jihadists. These persons will travel to a, for the time being unknown, area where the battle is currently actually being held, with the aim of becoming a martyr. The departure of both unidentified jihadists would be imminent.
It can be said in general that currently there is a clear increased activity within the network, which appears to indicate an imminent departure or other covert activities of the network in a very near future.
Investigation has shown that the above network provides support to or forms a part of the Al Qaeda organisation of


Prompt: 30.  On 22 July 2004 the Department for Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior forwarded a letter to the Russian Human Rights Commissioner. The letter stated that the criminal case concerning


Prompt: 9.  The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant and of Khasan Batayev, who was born in 1979. The fourth applicant is the mother of Zaur Ibragimov, who was born in 1975. The fifth applicant is his wife. The sixth applicant is the mother of


Prompt:
23.  On 8 November 2005 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment of 21 May 2003 as rectified by the decision of 12 July 2005. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows:
“The arguments raised in the appeal are not well-founded, because the first-instance court established the facts of the case fully and correctly, and also correctly applied the substantive law.
Thus, the first-instance court correctly assessed the evidence taken ... and established that the defendant had uttered a series of insults against the plaintiff (all of which were published in the press), whereby he had harmed the honour, reputation and dignity of the plaintiff, as a result of which the plaintiff had suffered severe mental distress ... The first-instance court established this not only from the testimony of witness V.B. but also from the testimony of the defendant himself, who testified that, although the interview published in the newspaper Imperijal entitled: ‘By exposing H.’s machinations I did not set up HDZ’ had not been authorised, he stood by every word published in that article ...
As the first-instance court had established that the defendant had uttered insults against the plaintiff, harming [his] honour, reputation and dignity, it correctly awarded the plaintiff damages for mental distress suffered in the amount of HRK 30,000, according to the criteria set out in section 200 of the Obligations Act.
In particular, in this case the first-instance court, when assessing whether the award was justified, and its level, had in mind [all] the circumstances of the case, which in this case meant that the insults were made against the plaintiff, who was at that time


Prompt: 26.  In a judgment given on the same day, the court found the applicant guilty of the unauthorised production and possession of narcotics and poisonous substances, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, as well as expulsion from the Czech Republic for an unlimited period of time. It held that, from January 1996[2] to 23 April 1997, the applicant had been selling heroin in “small envelopes”. He had sold at least twenty “envelopes” of heroin to


Prompt: 51.  On 30 June 2006 the investigators made a request to the head of the Ingushetia police to take steps to identify a man who on around 20 March 2006 had arrived at the applicants’ house and told the fifth applicant that Mr


Prompt: 159.  Mr Z. Sheshberidze explained that the special troops were based not far from Prison no. 5, which they could reach in ten minutes if they ran. On the night in question he and about fifteen of his colleagues had been instructed to defuse the situation in cell no. 88. Unaware of the reason for the disorder, the group had been positioned in staircases near the cell, from where noise and shouting in a foreign language could be heard. The prison governor had entered the cell, but had returned a few minutes later and asked the troops to intervene. They had complied and had performed their task “after encountering limited resistance”. The prisoners had been armed with pieces of metal and missile-like objects made from trousers containing a solid mass. Mr


Prompt: 62.  The Chief Public Prosecutor informed the gendarmes and the police of Ferhat Tepe’s disappearance and asked them to verify whether he had been taken into custody for any offence. The Public Prosecutor further instructed that the whereabouts of


Prompt: 22.  While, according to the applicant, it was claimed by the RUC at the inquest that John Stevens had also investigated her husband's death, the Government state that the inquiry was prompted by events other than the shooting of


Prompt: 36.  On 18 July 2003 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature. He pointed out, among other things, that the investigators had failed to take basic steps, such as questioning the police officers whom Mr


Prompt: 176.  At 6 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a blue Gazel minivan arrived at the first applicant’s house in Mesker-Yurt. A group of twelve men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house. All but two of them were masked; the unmasked men were of Slavic appearance. After searching the house, the men took Mr


Prompt: 64.  On 11 March 2007 the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office closed the criminal case on the grounds that the actions of the police officers disclosed no indication of offences under Articles 108 § 2 and 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The decision stated, in particular, that as a result of the worsening of Mr


Prompt: 20.  On 17 March 2001 the investigators questioned the wife of Mr Visadi Samrailov, Ms M.S., whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, she stated that along with her husband the servicemen had also arrested Mr


Prompt: 14.  On 4 April 1995 the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Department. The doctor found no signs of traumatic lesions on the applicants’ bodies. She noted that Ms Yaşar had complained of pain in her throat and shoulders and Ms


Prompt: 61.  On 20 August 2005 (or 3 October 2005 according to one document) the investigation was again reopened. The applicants were informed of this. The investigator instructed the local police service to identify and question witnesses to the abduction. On unknown dates the police questioned five persons, who testified that on 14 January 2001 about 15 persons driving an APC, allegedly military servicemen, had entered Novye Atagi and driven


Prompt: 25.  Having threatened the family members with firearms, the men forced the father and the son out of the house and took them away to an unknown destination. Meanwhile, some of the men searched the premises, seized the identity documents of Mr


Prompt: 21.  On 28 March 2001 the first applicant again complained to the VOVD about her son’s abduction. She stated that her son and his two cousins had been abducted by Russian military servicemen at the checkpoint located on the road between Urus-Martan and Gekhi, and that some time later


Prompt: 24.  Following the applicants' complaint about Bashir Mutsolgov's abduction, at about 6 p.m. on 18 December 2003 two law-enforcement officers arrived at the applicants' house. They introduced themselves as the head of the local department of the fight against organised crime (the RUBOP) and the district police officer. The officers interviewed an unspecified number of witnesses to the abduction of


Prompt:
14.  In a judgment of 11 October 1999, the Paris Criminal Court convicted the second applicant of defamation and the first applicant of complicity in that offence, taking account, however, of only four of the six offending extracts, namely those on pages 10, 86, 105-06 and 136 of the book. They were each sentenced to pay a fine of 15,000 French francs (FRF) (equivalent to 2,286.74 euros (EUR)) and ordered jointly and severally to pay FRF 25,000 (EUR 3,811.23) in damages to each of the civil parties, together with the cost of publishing an announcement of the judgment.
In its judgment the court found as follows:
“Whether the publication was defamatory:
It should first be noted that, whilst the author chose to write a ‘novel’, as indicated on the front cover of the book, he portrays, along with a number of fictional characters, an actual and living political figure, namely


Prompt: 15.  The article referred to various aspects of the case and in particular the very significant gifts made by “the heir of L’Oréal”, for a total of one billion euros, to B. The journalist wrote, quoting the testimony of


Prompt:
8.  On 24 September 2008 the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued order no. 511 entitled “Concerning Construction of a New Park Complex, Relocation of Residential and Non‑Residential Accommodation from that Area” (Yeni park kompleksinin salınması, ərazidə yerləşən yaşayış və qeyri-yaşayış sahələrinin köçürülməsi haqqında) (“the order of 24 September 2008”). The order of 24 September 2008 reads:
“The Baku City Executive Authority has in recent years taken the appropriate steps in the organisation of renovation projects, which comply with international standards, in the capital of the Republic of Azerbaijan within the framework of the economic development programmes carried out in the Republic, and in this connection, in accordance with the economic development of the city, renovation and reconstruction projects have been continuously carried out in areas which are for the communal use of inhabitants, such as municipal roads, streets and squares, parks and avenues, as well as residential areas.
In accordance with an instruction from the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the task of demolishing the buildings located behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets) and constructing a new garden-park complex in that area was assigned to the Baku City Executive Authority and it was decided that the compensation due in respect of residential and non-residential premises situated in that area would be paid by the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
It should be emphasised that, as current legislation has not so far provided rules concerning evaluation in connection with the relocation of dwellings situated in a demolition area and purchased for State needs, there are difficulties in relation to the relocation of the population residing in such dwellings. Moreover, when such relocation is carried out by State bodies, the population overestimates the value of their homes, offering them for a price several times higher than their market value, resulting in additional expense. For these reasons, it was decided that a natural person, namely


Prompt: 58.  On 30 August 2004 investigator A. questioned officer B., the Deputy Head of the Organised Crime Unit. The latter submitted that he occupied office no. 20 on the second floor. Across from him was office no. 17, which belonged to the Second Department of the Organised Crime Unit, headed by officer A. On 20 July 2004 at approximately 5 a.m. he left with other officers to conduct operations aimed at the detention of those responsible for the events of 21-22 June 2004. First they went to Troitskaya village, then to Karabulak and then to Barsuki. There, he and some other officers entered the yard of the


Prompt: 57.  The Government stated that “according to the information in our possession today, no special operations were conducted in Grozny, Chechnya, on 9-10 December 2002; representatives of the State did not detain


Prompt: 25.  On the same date the applicants also talked to R. Kh., who had attended the same school as Apti Isigov and knew him quite well. He stated that on 3 July 2001 he had seen Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov in a military Ural truck in Assinovskaya. R. Kh. said that he had heard someone asking for water from inside the truck saying that “we have not had any water since yesterday” and when one of the military lifted the canvas to give him some water, the witness had seen two men, one of whom he had immediately recognised as


Prompt: 16.  On 24 January 2006 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties) sent a white paper to the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament (parliamentary year 2005-06, 29876, no. 11). It was stated that the predecessor of the AIVD, the BVD (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, National Security Service), had undertaken an investigation between 1997 and 2000 into allegations of corruption of public officials by Mink K. but that no such cases of corruption had come to light. It was not yet known how and when classified documents pertaining to this investigation had become known outside the BVD/AIVD, although there was thought to be no leak from within the police or Public Prosecution Service.


Prompt: 11.  In August 1999 the Youth Court, looking at the applicant's offending history, which included offences of robbery, burglary, theft and arson, considered that it might be appropriate to impose a custodial sentence if he were convicted of the attempted robbery, and committed him for trial in the Crown Court. After committal, the applicant's legal representatives obtained two expert reports. The first report was prepared by Dr


Prompt: 93.  The above witnesses were all police officers at the time in Bitlis occupying different functions in different departments, namely anti-terrorism, contraband and traffic. None of the witnesses were involved in the investigation into the disappearance and subsequent killing of


Prompt: 64.  On 15 August 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 12 April 2003 as the district prosecutor's office had not taken all requisite investigative measures. The decision stated that, in order to carry out a comprehensive investigation, it was necessary to question the relatives of


Prompt: 36.  The applicant is the first person to be convicted of genocide by German courts under Article 220a since the incorporation of that Article into the Criminal Code. At the time the applicant committed his acts in 1992, a majority of scholars took the view that genocidal “intent to destroy a group” under Article 220a of the Criminal Code had to be aimed at the physical-biological destruction of the protected group (see, for example, A. Eser in Schönke/Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 24th edition, Munich 1991, Article 220a, §§ 4-5 with further references). However, a considerable number of scholars were of the opinion that the notion of destruction of a group as such, in its literal meaning, was wider than a physical-biological extermination and also encompassed the destruction of a group as a social unit (see, in particular,


Prompt: 78.  Those questioning Necati repeatedly told him that they would harm Süheyla and strip her naked if he did not cooperate. She was also told by those detaining her to behave herself if she did not want her husband to end up like


Prompt: 66.  On 23 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Ma. Ma., the head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD’s operational-search unit, who stated that on 7 May 2011 officers of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD had conducted a special operation, as a result of which they had been informed that


Prompt: 18.  On 11 August 2008, J.V., the applicants’ mother, who was present during the incident, declared that she had seen around twenty or thirty taxi drivers hitting the applicants Mihai and Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez. Then she had seen the two police officers pushing


Prompt:
22.  On 5 June 2006 the investigator questioned Mr I.E., a member of a human rights organisation affiliated with the Moscow Helsinki Project Group. The relevant part of his statement reads as follows:
“... At around 12 noon on 7 June 2003 while crossing the centre of Shali near the bus station, I witnessed a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms dragging a wounded young man in civilian clothes to a grey UAZ ... Afterwards, I questioned the eyewitnesses and found out that the armed men had fired at


Prompt: 12.  On 6 August 2004 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed their appeal against the decision of 5 March 2003. The court had regard to the medical experts’ opinions and findings. It held that in the absence of a causal link between Mr


Prompt: 96.  The investigating authorities sent numerous requests for information to the relevant State agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved. The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of Russian servicemen in the crime. The law-enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained


Prompt: 33.  On 20 December 2012 the investigators received a reply from the Counter Terrorism Centre (“the CTC”) of North Ossetia-Alania promising to inform them whether they had any incriminating information on Mr


Prompt: 55.  In a letter of 7 March 1996, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor informed the Ankara chief public prosecutor that, as in his statement of 26 February 1994 Güngör S.E. had mentioned that Murat İ. was related to


Prompt:
5.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Oleg Aleksandrovich Shchukin, who was born in 1962;
(2)  Ms Anna Ivanovna Chaplyga, born in 1969;
(3)  Ms Marina Ivanovna Stankova, born in 1963;
(4)  Mrs Yelena Leonidovna Punt (at the material time


Prompt: 117.  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found that isolation could in itself constitute inhuman treatment, and a more serious violation could result for someone with a mental disability (


Prompt: 39.  On 19 December 2006 the four special representatives on freedom of expression (Mr Ambeyi Ligabo, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Mr Miklos Haraszti, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; Mr


Prompt: 13.  Meanwhile three armed men forced the applicants back inside the house and threatened to open fire should they attempt to leave it. The applicants obeyed. Having entered the house, the first applicant looked out of the window and observed the armed men leading


Prompt: 11.  The account of the events described below is based on the information contained in the application form, a written statement by the first applicant made on 28 October 2004, a written statement by the second applicant dated 30 October 2004, a written statement by the fourth applicant dated 23 October 2004 and a written statement by Mr


Prompt: 16.  On 20 February 2002 the applicant's lawyers, Mr Loth and Mr Römer, wrote to the public prosecutor responsible, Ms Hemmes-Boender, complaining about the applicant's treatment leading up to the events of 29 November 2001. It was stated that the acting prison governor, Mr Vocking, had entered the punishment cell with two prison guards, Mr Janga and Mr


Prompt: 9.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals. They were living in Tepsili village at the time of the alleged events giving rise to the present application. In a letter dated 6 July 2001 the applicants’ lawyers informed the Court that one of the applicants, namely Ali Artun, had died on 9 August 2000 and that his heirs


Prompt:
34.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Zargan Mukhtarova, born in 1958;
2) Mr Rizvan Shakhgareyev, born in 1978;
3) Ms Tamara Kagirova, born in 1956;
4) Mr Zhamalayla Kagirov, born in 1952;
5) Mr Surkho Kagirov, born in 1985;
6) Mr


Prompt: 20.  On 25 April 2007 the police provided the NMPPO with a list of prisoners who had been injured on 24 November 2006 and subsequently treated at the Niš Hospital. The following applicants were among them: Mr


Prompt: 16.  The investigation did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. The police arrested a reserve police constable,


Prompt: 51.  On 24 January 1998 the commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters forwarded to the Kulp Prosecutor’s office the names of those persons detained between 20 February 1994 and 10 January 1995. According to this letter,


Prompt: 81.  On 20 October 2005 the investigators questioned Mr R.Sh., who stated that in 2003 he had worked as a driver of a GAZ-53 lorry for the factory. In August 2003 he had learnt that his vehicle had been used by criminals who had committed the murder of


Prompt:
42.  The UN Committee against Torture considered Kyrgyzstan’s second periodic report and in December 2013 issued concluding observations (CAT/C/KGZ/CO/2), which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Impunity for, and failure to investigate, widespread acts of torture and ill‑treatment 5.  The Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing and widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, in particular while in police custody to extract confessions. These confirm the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/19/61/Add.2, paras. 37 et seq.), and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/20/12, paras. 40–41). While the Kyrgyz delegation acknowledged that torture is practised in the country, and affirmed its commitment to combat it, the Committee remains seriously concerned about the substantial gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation, as evidenced partly by the lack of cases during the reporting period in which State officials have been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for torture (arts. 2, 4, 12 and 16). 6.  The Committee is gravely concerned at the State party’s persistent pattern of failure to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to prosecute alleged perpetrators, which has led to serious underreporting by victims of torture and ill-treatment, and impunity for State officials allegedly responsible (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16).
In particular, the Committee is concerned about:
(a)  The lack of an independent and effective mechanism for receiving complaints and conducting impartial and full investigations into allegations of torture. Serious conflicts of interest appear to prevent existing mechanisms from undertaking effective, impartial investigations into complaints received;
(b)  Barriers at the pre-investigation stage, particularly with regard to forensic medical examinations, which in many cases are not carried out promptly following allegations of abuse, are performed by medical professionals who lack independence, and/or are conducted in the presence of other public officials, leading to the failure of the medical personnel to adequately record detainees’ injuries, and consequently to investigators’ failure to open formal investigations into allegations of torture, for lack of evidence;
(c)  The apparent practice by investigators of valuing the testimonies of individuals implicated in torture over those of complainants, and of dismissing complaints summarily; and
(d)  The failure of the judiciary to effectively investigate torture allegations raised by criminal defendants and their lawyers in court. Various sources report that judges commonly ignore information alleging the use of torture, including reports from independent medical examinations.
... 7.  The Committee remains seriously concerned by the State party’s response to the allegations of torture in individual cases brought to the attention of the Committee, and particularly by the State party’s authorities’ refusal to carry out full investigations into many allegations of torture on the grounds that preliminary enquiries revealed no basis for opening a full investigation. The Committee is gravely concerned by the case of


Prompt:
27.  Meanwhile, on 20 February 1998, the Minister of the Interior had issued an order requiring the applicant to reside in the Rhône département, in a place to be determined by the prefect. It included the following passage:
“Whereas Mr


Prompt: 57.  Lord Phillips concurred with Lord Bingham, adding that one matter was left unclear by Osman which was the test to be applied when deciding whether the police “ought to have known” of the risk to life. There were at least two possibilities: that they “ought to have appreciated on the information available to them” or they “ought, had they carried out their duties with due diligence, to have acquired information that would have made them aware of the risk”. Lord Phillips considered that the former was the meaning intended but, even applying the latter, there was no valid basis for concluding that the police ought to have known that there was a real and immediate risk to the life of


Prompt: 51.  On 10 January 2003 residents of the settlement of Michurina complained to the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Their collective letter stated, inter alia, that their district had been subjected to “targeted sweeping-up operations” (адресные «зачистки») and that four residents had disappeared after the night raids at the end of 2002.


Prompt: 25.  Abdülkerim, Nuri and Sait Yolur, who had been taken into custody together with İkram and Servet İpek, were released the next day. They themselves did not speak to the applicant afterwards but informed him through a third person that they had been held together until 10 p.m. the first night with their eyes bound. At 10 p.m. they were separated from İkram and


Prompt: 13.  Shortly after the armed men had left, the neighbours gathered at the applicants' house. There they saw that the front door had been forced and that Salman Alapayev was lying on the ground, unconscious and bleeding. Zal.A. and Z.B. immediately went to the local department of the interior and alerted the police officers about the abduction of


Prompt: 14.  According to the crime scene officer’s report, a bullet had entered Murat Tekdal’s abdomen. A cursory examination of the barrel of the hunting rifle found next to the body did not reveal any smell of gunpowder. There were also no fingerprints on the rifle. In a small bag found next to the body there were personal effects such as toothpaste, a toothbrush, a flick-knife, a packet of cigarettes, two sim cards, gloves, a tax‑payer’s identity card and a bank card. Swabs were taken from


Prompt: 23.  In a judgment of 19 December 1995, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part, granting her an injunction against any further publication of the photos that had appeared in Freizeit Revue magazine (issue no. 30 of 22 July 1993) showing her with


Prompt:
12.  On 29 May 1999 a further article entitled “Techno-Z: the second audit also shows shortcomings in Bruck’s company - How he deceived colleagues – The way Mister ‘Media Professor’ cheated” (Techno-Z: Auch zweite Prüfung zeigt arge Mangel in Brucks Firma – Wie er Mitarbeiter tauschte – So trickste der Herr „Medienprofessor”) stated:

(German original)

„Kein Ende im Skandal um den sogenannten “Medienprofessor”


Prompt:
32.  On 20 May 2009 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(3) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“It is alleged in the indictment that ... in the period between July and September 2008 the third defendant,


Prompt:
28.  The plurality of legal systems proposed by Mr Necmettin Erbakan was nothing to do with the freedom to enter into contracts as Refah claimed, but was an attempt to establish a distinction between citizens on the ground of their religion and beliefs and was aimed at the installation of a theocratic regime. On 23 March 1993 Mr Erbakan had made the following speech to the National Assembly:
“... ‘you shall live in a manner compatible with your beliefs’. We want despotism to be abolished. There must be several legal systems. The citizen must be able to choose for himself which legal system is most appropriate for him, within a framework of general principles. Moreover, that has always been the case throughout our history. In our history there have been various religious movements. Everyone lived according to the legal rules of his own organisation, and so everyone lived in peace. Why, then, should I be obliged to live according to another’s rules? ... The right to choose one’s own legal system is an integral part of the freedom of religion.”
In addition, Mr


Prompt: 51.  The case of Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P) (hereinafter “Kadi”) concerned a complaint about the freezing of assets under European Community regulations adopted to reflect United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1390 (2002), which dictated, inter alia, that all States were to take measures to freeze the funds and other financial assets of individuals and entities associated with


Prompt: 17.  On 12 August 2000 the applicants and the other families waited outside the Urus-Martan VOVD all day, but no one was released on that day either. In the evening the applicants left another parcel, the receipt of which


Prompt:
14.  On 3 July 2003 the Ivanovo Regional Court held an appeal hearing. The applicant's lawyer attended. At the end of the hearing the Regional Court issued a decision upholding the extension order of 9 June 2003. The relevant part of the appeal decision read as follows:
“It follows from the case file materials that the criminal case requires a certain amount of investigative actions for which additional time is needed.
At the same time there are no grounds for change or cancellation of the measure of restraint which was applied to [the applicant]. [The applicant] is charged with a criminal offence which belongs to the category of serious [offences]; [he] has previous convictions [and has had] a suspended sentence; [he] does not have any source of income [and], if released, [he] could pervert the course of justice and abscond.
On the basis of the aforementioned, the court correctly concluded [that it was] possible to extend [the applicant's] detention.
It also follows from the case materials that in the course of the pre-trial investigation [the applicant] concluded an agreement with counsel, Mr


Prompt: 8.  According to the applicants, Aslanbek Khamidov was arrested in the course of a special “sweeping” operation (зачистка) carried out by the Russian armed forces in the village of Alleroy on 25 October 2000. The servicemen arrested ten other men residing in Alleroy and brought them, together with


Prompt:
17.  On 14 March 2000 an investigator from the Koptevo district prosecutor’s office closed the criminal proceedings, finding that there was no case of ill-treatment to answer. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“In the course of the investigation it was established that on 14 December 1999, at 1.45 p.m., Kh. and V., on-duty officers from the Koptevo district police department, stopped two persons near house no. ... who resembled persons wanted in connection with telephone message no. 12316. The persons concerned refused to present identity documents and were brought to Koptevo police station for an identity check. At the station one of them identified himself as Mr


Prompt: 23.  On 2 March 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) informed the third applicant that on 20 February 2001 that office had instituted criminal proceedings (case file no. 23034) in respect of the kidnapping of


Prompt: 15.  On 8 September 2002 investigators from the prosecutor’s office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) arrived at Molodezhnaya Street and inspected the scene of the incident and the dead bodies. However, no forensic medical examination of the bodies was performed. Instead the investigators suggested that they should take the bodies with them. The applicants refused and buried


Prompt: 28.  On the same day another article containing excerpts of the applicant’s recorded telephone conversations was published on the website of the newspaper National. It started with the following statement: “Pure coincidence, the excerpts of the telephone conversations offered for publication in the investigation of mayor


Prompt: 5.  The applicant has been involved in politics since the beginning of the democratic changes in Bulgaria in 1990 and was an activist of one of the major political parties in the 1990s, the Union of Democratic Forces (“UDF”). He played an active role in the UDF’s campaign during the parliamentary elections in April 1997. After the elections, he grew gradually disenchanted with the UDF’s policies and some of its leaders. He was particularly disappointed by Mr


Prompt: 32. At the end of its last session on 5 April 2004, the commission adopted its final report, concluding that the applicant had acted alone. Several commission members submitted their own draft reports to the Sejm. After examining it at the plenary of 28 May 2004, the Sejm rejected the commission’s report and expressed its preference for that of the MP


Prompt: 53.  On 15 March 2000 several witnesses were questioned by the investigator. The first applicant stated that on 2 February 2000 armed servicemen from regiment no. 245 of the Ural military circuit had arrived at the school in an IFV with registration number 318. There were twenty women and eight men in the basement, and the servicemen checked the documents of all present. Afterwards, they moved in the direction of the stadium, where a fight had taken place. Some time later the same group returned, forced the men to stand up against a wall and searched them. The group, led by Se., put


Prompt: 15.  According to the Government, on 12 May 2001 “unidentified persons armed with firearms apprehended Isa Kaplanov, Ruslan Sadulayev and Movsar Musitov in a private household and delivered them to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD. The next day


Бранко Црвенковски

Prompt:
32.  On 24 September 2010, in an open letter broadcast in the media and addressed to “opponents of the lustration”, the Prime Minister of the respondent State (signed in his capacity as president of the governing party) stated, inter alia, that the Commission had publicly revealed that a member of the Constitutional Court had been a collaborator with the State security services and that it was now crystal clear that the collaborator sitting in the Constitutional Court, nominated by the former president of the Republic, and controlled by other centres of power, had invalidated a number of the legislative reforms of his Government. The letter was a response to his political opponents, who claimed that he was hindering the lustration process. The Prime Minister described their strategy in the following terms:
“Attack the [ruling party] to [protect] the Constitutional Court, whose member the [Lustration] Commission had publicly declared a collaborator with the secret services. Accuse [the Prime Minister] of hindering the lustration [process] so that [he] would not accuse you of it becoming crystal clear that the secret services’ collaborator in the Constitutional Court scrapped a whole range of [the Prime Minister’s] reforms, and that [the Prime Minister] would not pose a question why [the former President of the Republic] nominated as judge of the Constitutional Court that person who was a collaborator with the [secret] services, and what is that centre of power which still controls the ‘collaborator’.”
“Нападни го ВМРО-ДПМНЕ, за да го затскриеш Уставниот суд за чиј член Комисијата јавно се изјасни дека бил соработник на тајните служби. Обвини го Груевски дека ја кочи лустрацијата, за да не те обвини Груевски дека стана кристално јасно дека соработник на тајни служби од Уставниот суд му сруши цела палета на реформи и за да не постави прашање зошто


Prompt: 7.  At about 6 p.m. on 20 May 2013 Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev drove in his white GAZ Volga-3110 car along Engelsa Street to visit his relatives, who lived about a ten-minute drive from his house in Makhachkala. At about 6.45 p.m. his car was stopped and he was abducted by a group of eight armed men who were driving two civilian vehicles: a silver-coloured VAZ-21014, which had a registration number which partially read “A067”, and a black VAZ-21099. The men were dressed in civilian clothing and were masked. The applicants’ relative, Mr Ub.Ub., called Mr


Prompt: 24.  The applicant Mr Igor Levstek is an heir of Mr I. L. and Mrs N. L., who were convicted on 12 January 1946 by the Supreme Court. Mr I. L. was sentenced to death and Mrs N. L. to 8 years' imprisonment. They were both also sentenced to forfeiture of their property to the State and stripped of their civil and political rights. The applicant Ms


Prompt: 8.  The first applicant is Mrs Eugenija Užkurėlienė, born in 1939 and living in Vilnius. The second applicant is Mr Povilas Čyžius, born in 1936 and living in the Kupiškis area in the Panevėžys region. The third applicant is Mr


Prompt: 226.  At about 5 a.m. on 26 February 2003 a group of about twenty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two grey UAZ minivans and two VAZ‑2121 (“Niva”) cars. The vehicles surrounded the house. Some of the servicemen were wearing masks; some of them had helmets on. They broke into the applicants’ house and ordered everyone to show them their identity documents. They then grabbed Mr


Prompt: 43.  They also submitted a total of 37 photographs that had been taken by Mr Constantinos Kyriakides, a photographer, on 11 August 1996 during the events in Dherynia (see paragraph 36 above). Photographs numbered 18 to 37 depict the incident concerning


Prompt: 66.  According to the Government, on 23 April 2003 the investigators granted victim status to the ninth applicant. When questioned he stated that at about noon on 17 December 2002 he had returned from Grozny and had learnt from his brother, the fourteenth applicant, that at about 3 a.m. on that night unknown armed persons had entered their house and taken away their other brother,


Prompt: 8.  At the relevant time Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov lived with his family in the camp for refugees from Chechnya in the village of Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia. At about 3.30 p.m. on 1 November 2003 he and his friend Mr


Prompt: 18.  The applicant applied for judicial review. He explained the circumstances in which he had left the Ministry of the Interior and that he had a “particularly strong interest” to get acquainted with his psychological assessments. He stated furthermore that his application for access to his personnel file concerned his “professional identity”. He argued that