Prompt: 53.  According to the Government, the investigators also requested information about the disappearance from various State authorities. According to the responses received from various district prosecutors' offices, district departments of the interior, military prosecutors' offices, and detention centres in the Southern Federal Circuit, no information concerning the detention of


Prompt: 20.  Then the servicemen went to the next building, where the first applicant and Mr Ali Khadayev were sleeping. They tried to open the door to Mr Ali Khadayev’s room, but it was locked. The first applicant asked them to let her son get dressed, which they did. When Mr


Prompt: 38.  On 10 March 2005 the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of samples of the corpse’s blood, muscle tissue and nail plate and samples taken from Aslan Maskhadov’s two nephews once removed. The expert, Ko., was asked to establish whether the body in question was that of


Prompt: 162.  On 19 January 2009 the applicant’s other daughter Ms Madina Kh. was questioned by the investigators. As regards the circumstances preceding her father’s abduction, she stated that in November 2000 her brothers had been arrested in Astrakhan and convicted of kidnapping a businesswoman, Ms M.P. Her father had gone there to find out why his sons had been arrested. He had also been arrested and a week later had been released. After his return to Chechnya, in January 2001 her father had been taken away by armed men who had introduced themselves as officers of the Urus‑Martan ROVD. Her aunt had gone to the ROVD and asked an officer named Sergey about


Prompt: 73.  On 2 September 2005 the investigators requested the Main Information Centre of the Russian Ministry of the Interior to provide information concerning the criminal record of Ibragim Uruskhanov. The name of the applicant’s son was misspelled in the document and stated as


Prompt:
35.  On the same date the head of the detention centre replied to counsel, stating the following:
“...the law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation received a request from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan concerning


Prompt: 40.  On 18 February 2013 the investigators again questioned the second applicant’s mother and Gazimagomed Abdullayev’s mother-in-law, Ms B.M., who confirmed her earlier statement (see paragraph 28 above) and stated that she and her relatives had not heard from


Prompt: 31.  In a letter of 25 May 1997 Ö.Y., who was performing military service at the time, informed the Assize Court that Officer Akgün had compelled him to retract his original statement and subsequently, shortly before the trial, had offered him free air tickets to travel to the courthouse and testify in his favour. He stated that Officer Akgün had in fact grabbed


Prompt: 27.  On 30 June 2005 the district military commander’s office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no. 24984 had been suspended, but that the operational-search measures to establish the whereabouts of


Prompt: 70.  The court further indicated that on 30 January 2004 the Head of the Disrict Police Department had requested the SIZO to bring Olga Biliak to the District Police Department on 2 February 2004. According to the SIZO incoming mail register this request has been received on 30 January 2004. The decision of 29 January 2004 to release


Prompt: 91.  In a further letter of 30 August 1995 to the Ministry of Human Rights, the applicant stated that, in addition to his letter of 26 July 1995, he had learned from an official, who wished to remain anonymous, that his brother


Prompt: 41.  On 5 September 2008 the Lódz District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court referred to the complicated nature of the case and the fact that no autopsy was performed, and therefore it was impossible to establish whether Y suffered from


Prompt:
53.  This report recorded 1-2 day old bruising on the head and large ecchymotic areas on the left side of his back and costar vertebral region. There were signs of suspected broken ribs. The patient was referred to Diyarbakır State Hospital for diagnosis and treatment.
Medical report on


Prompt:
18.  By an order of 5 February 1999 the applicant was committed for trial in the Paris Criminal Court for involvement – in France and in England, from an unspecified date until 4 November 1995 – in an association or conspiracy formed with a view to the preparation, in the form of one or more material acts, of one of the terrorist acts in question. The investigating judge stated, in particular, as follows:
 “- [the applicant] was responsible for distributing the journal Al Ansar, a propaganda outlet of the Armed Islamic Group;
- ... was involved on this account in disseminating propaganda for that organisation, which is banned in France;
- ... was the main contact person in Europe for [D.Z.], alias


Prompt: 9.  On 2 February 2000 the applicant’s family decided to travel to Katyr‑Yurt, which the applicant’s father described as a “peace zone”. The applicant’s father drove his black Volga car; her mother and brother Magomed sat in front, while the applicant, her sister Madina and brother Ruslan, as well as two cousins, Khava and


Prompt: 59.  In cases which followed the Privy Council accepted a claim that a period of four years and ten months also warranted a finding in favour of the appellant (Guerra v. Baptiste and Others [1996] 1 A.C. 397) but dismissed appeals concerning shorter periods (Henfield v. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas [1997] A.C. 413; Fischer (No. 1) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others (Bahamas) [1998] A.C. 673; and Higgs and


Prompt:
74.  Mr H.K., who was the Macedonian Minister of the Interior between November 2002 and May 2004 and Prime Minister between June and November 2004, gave a written statement, certified by a notary public on 4 March 2010, in which he stated, inter alia:
“... 5.  I can affirm that it was during my tenure as Minister of the Interior, in December 2003 and January 2004, that Macedonian agents belonging to the UBK, acting under my authority as Minister and under the direct supervision of the then UBK Director, were engaged in detaining a man who was travelling with a German passport under the name of


Prompt: 73.  On 5 December 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department issued a formal warning (представление) to the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD. It stated that the police department had not carried out any of the investigative steps ordered by the investigators, and had thereby hampered the investigation and precluded it from establishing the circumstances of Ms


Prompt: 5.  Upon receipt of intelligence reports that on 5 August 2000 a group of demonstrators would gather in the İstiklal Street in Istanbul to read a press declaration and block the tram line to protest against F-type prisons, police officers and members of the “Rapid Intervention Force” (çevik kuvvet) were deployed in the area. At noon, the applicants, together with thirty-nine others, gathered in İstiklal Street to make a press declaration to protest against F-type prisons. The police asked the group to disperse and to end the gathering and informed them that the demonstration was unlawful since no advance notice had been submitted to the authorities. The demonstrators refused to obey and attempted to march along İstiklal Street, chanting slogans and reading out a press declaration. Subsequently, at about 12.30 p.m. the police dispersed the group, allegedly by using truncheons and tear-gas. The applicants were arrested along with thirty-nine other persons. The applicants Sema Gül and


Prompt: 8.  During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected parliament, government and President of Turkey. The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to


Prompt: 56.  On 12 February 2002 the public prosecutor's office instructed a panel of experts (made up of Mr Balossino, Mr Benedetti, Mr Romanini and Mr Torre) “to reconstruct, even in virtual form, the actions of M.P. and


Prompt: 19.  The Government, in a memorandum of 26 January 2011, acknowledged the basic facts as submitted by the applicant. They confirmed that a special operation had been carried out in Goyty, in Sovetskaya Street, on 21 October 2009, during which one soldier of the external guards regiment had been killed and two others wounded. Two members of illegal armed groups had been killed and a third had escaped. As a result of this conflict, the houses at 117 Sovetskaya Street had burned down. In connection with this incident, at about midnight on 21 October 2009 the servicemen of the external guards regiment had taken


Prompt: 9.  On 20 May 2004, following changes introduced to the Criminal Code, the Kursk Regional Court reduced the applicant's prison sentence to seven years and ordered it to be served in a facility of average security level.


Prompt:
18.  The Civil Court considered that in his article Mr Dilipak had insinuated that the deceased would pay for his wrongdoing and that justice would be done The Civil Court noted that he had used the phrase “may your land be abundant”, which was reserved for non-Muslims. It cited the following passage in particular:
“Whatever you do, do not remind me of the injunction ‘do not speak ill of the dead’. This injunction does not apply to Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. Otherwise the Koran would not say what it does about Nimrod and Pharaoh.


Prompt: 44.  Mr Ján Koky Jr. described the pub incident, including the remark that P.S. had told him and others to go away because his brother would come and there would be trouble. Mr Ján Koky Jr. also submitted that, after he had seen his brother, applicant Mr


Prompt: 9.  On the same day A.L-iani, the Khoni prison governor, informed in writing the head of the Western Georgian investigation department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry's investigation department”), the authority in charge of custodial institutions, and the Georgian General Prosecutor's Office, an unrelated authority which supervised investigation procedures within the Ministry of Justice, that Mr


Prompt: 5.  The first applicant is the mother, the second and third applicants are the sisters and the fourth applicant is the son of Mr Ismail Issayevich Dzhamayev, born in 1981. They lived together in the village of Stariye Atagi, the Grozny District. Mr


Prompt:
80.  He then examined whether, on the facts, it could be said that British troops were in effective control of Basra City during the period in question, such as to fix the United Kingdom with jurisdiction under the “effective control of an area” doctrine. On this point, Brooke LJ concluded as follows:
“119.  Basra City was in the [Coalition Provisional Authority] regional area called ‘CPA South’. During the period of military occupation there was a significant degree of British responsibility and authority in CPA South, although its staff were drawn from five different countries and until the end of July 2003 the regional coordinator was a Dane. Indeed, only one of the four governorate teams in CPA South was headed by a British coordinator. However, although the chain of command for the British military presence in Iraq led ultimately to a US general, the Al-Basra and Maysan provinces were an area of direct British military responsibility. As I have already said ..., the Secretary of State accepts that the UK was an Occupying Power within the meaning of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations ..., at least in those areas of southern Iraq, and particularly Basra City, where British troops exercised sufficient authority for this purpose. 120.  But whatever may have been the position under the Hague Regulations, the question this court has to address is whether British troops were in effective control of Basra City for ECA purposes. The situation in August to November 2003 contrasts starkly with the situations in northern Cyprus and in the Russian-occupied part of Moldova which feature in Strasbourg case-law. In each of those cases part of the territory of a Contracting State was occupied by another Contracting State which had every intention of exercising its control on a long-term basis. The civilian administration of those territories was under the control of the Occupying State, and it deployed sufficient troops to ensure that its control of the area was effective. 121.  [The statement of Brigadier Moore, whose command included the British forces in the Basra area between May and November 2003] tells a very different story. He was not provided with nearly enough troops and other resources to enable his brigade to exercise effective control of Basra City. ... [H]e described how the local police would not uphold the law. If British troops arrested somebody and gave them to the Iraqi police, the police would hand them over to the judiciary, who were themselves intimidated by the local tribes, and the suspected criminals were back on the streets within a day or two. This state of affairs gave the British no confidence in the local criminal justice system. It also diluted their credibility with local people. Although British troops arranged local protection for the judges, this made little difference. The prisons, for their part, were barely functioning. 122.  After describing other aspects of the highly volatile situation in which a relatively small number of British military personnel were trying to police a large city as best they could,


Prompt:
61.  On 1 July 2009 the investigating unit ordered an investigating group to be set up with the participation of civilian and military prosecutors to deal with case no. 59094. The decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“At about 9.30 a.m. on 14 February 2002 in the village of Starye Atagi there was a skirmish between unidentified military servicemen and unidentified members of illegal armed groups. After the skirmish the unidentified servicemen kidnapped


Prompt:
7.  On 25 March 2013 the Speaker initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. He submitted a proposal to the plenary to fine him – under section 48(3) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament – 131,410 Hungarian forints (approximately 450 euros) for using a blatantly offensive expression.
The Speaker’s proposal reads as follows:
“SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT
Decision in disciplinary matter
Proposal to impose a fine
According to the minutes of Parliament’s session of 18 March 2013,


Prompt: 366.  In September 2010, in Rosinvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce considered the tax claims that had forced Yukos into bankruptcy in the context of a claim by a Yukos shareholder Rosinvest Co. for loss of investments on the basis of a 1989 bilateral UK-USSR treaty for the protection of capital investments. The Tribunal found that the Russian Federation had breached Article 5 of the IPPA, forbidding expropriation of the investments of investors of either Contracting Party. The Tribunal found that “the treatment of Yukos and of Mr


Prompt:
19.  It is a matter of contention, whether the applicant had been detained, whether his expulsion was ordered by a court and whether he was deported (see paragraphs 56-59 below).
(e)  Artur SARKISIAN and


Prompt: 7.  Gülbahar Özer is the mother of Sibel Sartık, Yusuf Özer is the father of Nergiz Özer, Halil Esen is the father of Zerga Esen, Hüseyin Esen is the father of Zühal Esen, and Abdurrahman Çınar is the father of


Prompt: 28.  The witness said that he had also been summoned by Süleyman Can, the commanding officer of the Silopi district gendarmerie, in January 2001, approximately two weeks before his son went missing. Süleyman Can had said to him “Tell Serdar to give up this business” and had telephoned


Prompt:
47.  In the morning of 17 March 1993 an investigation team consisting of the public prosecutor of Mazıdağı, Yekta Çobanoğlu, and, amongst others, Dr. Sedat İşçi left Mazıdağı for Karataş.
After the investigation team had arrived in Karataş and before attending the post mortem examination of the victims' bodies, the public prosecutor briefly inspected the scene of the killings and ordered


Prompt: 48.  On 8 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received the applicants’ complaint about the abduction of Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev. On the same date, 8 January 2003, the tenth applicant and


Prompt:
77.  The Kyrgyzstan chapter of Human Rights Watch’s “2014 World Report” reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Shortcomings in law enforcement and the judiciary contribute to the persistence of grave abuses in connection to the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. Ethnic Uzbeks and other minorities remain especially vulnerable. Courtroom attacks on lawyers and defendants, particularly in cases related to the June 2010 events, occur with impunity.
Government officials and civil society representatives formed a national center for the prevention of torture in 2013. In practice, ill-treatment and torture remain pervasive in places of detention, and impunity for torture is the norm.
...
Three years on, justice for crimes committed during the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 remains elusive. The flawed justice process has produced long prison sentences for mostly ethnic Uzbeks after convictions marred by torture‑tainted confessions and other due process violations. Authorities have not reviewed convictions where defendants alleged torture or other glaring violations of fair trial standards. At least nine ethnic Uzbeks continue to languish in pretrial detention, some for a third year. New convictions in August 2013 of three ethnic Uzbeks in Osh, and pending extradition orders of at least six others in Russia again point to judicial bias against ethnic Uzbeks.
The authorities failed to tackle the acute problem of courtroom violence by audiences in trials across Kyrgyzstan, including at the trial of three opposition members of parliament in June, perpetuating an environment that undermines defendants’ fair trial rights. Lawyers were harassed or beaten in court in 2013, including for defending ethnic Uzbek clients in June 2010 cases.


Prompt:
66.  On 4 June 1993 the Irish Minister for Tourism and Trade adopted the European Communities (Prohibition of Trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Regulations 1993 (Statutory Instrument no. 144 of 1993), the relevant part of which provided as follows:
“3.  A person shall not contravene a provision of [Regulation (EEC) no. 990/93]. 4.  A person who, on or after the 4th day of June, 1993, contravenes Regulation 3 of these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. 5.  The Minister for Transport, Energy


Prompt: 15.  In the meantime, in 1998 the applicant, in his capacity as sole trader, had also initiated an administrative action against the Ministry of Industry in which he sought to have declared partially null and void, to the extent that it related to the property, (1) the decision of


Prompt: 52.  The applicant complained that numerous articles had been published in the local press concerning the last set of criminal proceedings against him and his co-defendants. They had been referred to as “a gang of Mr


Prompt:
8.  On 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov was detained for a few hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD”), who subjected him to ill-treatment and pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act in May 2011. Upon his release the applicant’s son neither lodged complaints about this detention nor applied for medical help.
(b)  Abduction of


Prompt:
51.  The Government submitted a copy of an application form for return to village, filled in by the applicant Mr Kazım Balık. This form contains information on the applicant’s identity and family situation, his education level, the village he left, settlement unit he wants to return to and a query as to whether he has suffered any damage on account of the terrorism and if so, how.
In his application form filed with the Hozat District Governor’s office, Mr


Prompt: 16.  During the second hearing, held on 1 March 1996, the applicant was still not represented by a lawyer but was questioned by the trial court. The applicant told the trial court that his childhood friend Özcan Atik had told him one day that he had been selling newspapers and that one of his customers had refused to pay. Mr Atik had then suggested “teaching that customer a lesson”. One night the applicant and Mr Atik had arrived outside a big building. Mr Atik had poured some petrol on the street outside the building from a jerry can and set fire to it. The applicant himself had not set fire to any vehicle and he did not know


Prompt: 11.  The same day, the police officers prepared an incident report, drew a sketch map and took statements from eye-witnesses to the event. Police officers Mustafa Sezer, Burhanettin Tekler, Mustafa Yüksel, and


Prompt: 226.  On 12 December 2002 the investigation questioned the first, second and third applicants and Mr A.V., who had witnessed the abduction of their relatives. They stated that at around 3 a.m. on 28 October 2002 groups of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and taken Aslanbek, Yasin and


Prompt:
7.  In a decision of 16 August 2004 the Minor Offences Court found that, at about 6.40 p.m. on 12 February 2003, the applicant had physically attacked his former wife, M.P., at her flat in Kakanj. The applicant hit M.P. in the head several times and proceeded to punch her about the body in the presence of their minor children. He was found guilty of a minor offence against public order (affray) under section 3(1)(2) of the Public Order Act 2000, for which he was fined 150 convertible marks (BAM)[1]. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Defendant


Prompt: 49.  Lance Corporal S. was a member of a patrol carrying out a check around the perimeter of a Coalition military base (Fort Apache), where three Royal Military Police officers had been killed by gunfire from a vehicle the previous day. According to the British soldier’s account of the incident,


Prompt: 12.  In 1998 the applicants Adrian Lupaş, Nicolae Lupaş, Ovidiu Lupaş, Verginiu Lupaş and Ana Teodosiu, as the children and heirs of Nicolae Lupaş, who had died in 1959, brought an action against Mr and Mrs B., alleging that they had illegally taken possession of a plot of land measuring 638 sq. m at 30 Turda Street, on part of the land that had formerly belonged to


Prompt: 9.  In the meantime, on 16 March 1993 Mr Yüce gave a statement to the police in which he claimed, inter alia, that he and Harun Çetin had been beaten both by the police officers who had arrested them and by the police officers at the Avcılar police station where they were interrogated, and that


Prompt: 21.  Between 8 and 10 September 2009 five operational search officers from the Derbent OVD informed their supervisors that in spite of the steps taken, they had been unable to identify the eye-witnesses of


Prompt: 28.  Having examined the evidence in the case, the Commercial Court of the Kursk Region found that there was no single document from which it would follow that Mr Zhigalev had been the sole founder of Luch Farm. The court held that Luch Farm had been set up by the six farmers (


Prompt: 11.  The novel recounts the trial of a Front National militant, Ronald Blistier, who, while putting up posters for his party with other militants, commits the cold-blooded murder of a young man of North African descent and admits that it was a racist crime. He is defended by a Jewish, left-wing and homosexual lawyer,


Prompt:
22.  As regards the applicant, the Court of Appeal also noted that she was well aware of the criminal activities of her husband’s criminal association:
“Even though M.S.’s wife J. Silickienė herself has not been charged [in this case], the examined evidence leaves no doubt that she was well aware of her spouse’s and the other co-accuseds’ criminal activities. ...


Prompt:
14.  During the proceedings before the first-instance court, namely until the hearing of 4 February 2009 (see paragraph 16 below), the applicants pleaded not guilty, claiming that they had had no knowledge of the plastic bags, which they believed had been placed in the garage by the three persons who had accompanied S.R.B., in order to set them up.
Up until the same hearing, S.R.B., legally assisted by Mr


Prompt:
14.  At approximately 5.30 p.m. on 24 October 2005 a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant's detention for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure as follows:
“Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence committed by


Prompt: 134.  At about 7 a.m. on 8 September 2004 a white VAZ-2107 car with tinted windows arrived at the applicant’s house in Chernorechye, in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. Three more cars, a silver VAZ-21099, a Volga and a UAZ, parked in a neighbouring street. The cars had no registration numbers. Ten to fifteen masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with short-barreled machine guns, broke into the applicant’s house. They spoke Chechen. The applicant thought that the intruders were policemen conducting a sweeping operation. The men grabbed the applicant’s son, Mr


Prompt: 121.  On 16 January 2007 the district prosecutor's office decided not to open a criminal investigation into an allegation by the sixth applicant that money and jewellery had been stolen from her home. The decision stated that, in her application of 5 June 2002, the sixth applicant had alleged that during the arrest of her son


Prompt: 48.  On 23 March 2004 a certain Ms M. gave the investigators a written statement which was appended to case file no. 30012. Ms M. stated, in particular, that she traded food at a market in Altayskaya Street, opposite the MVD. On 14 January 2004 Ms M had been trading at the market. On that day she had not noticed anything suspicious and had not heard about the abduction of


Prompt: 13.  At some point the armed men decided to leave Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev's house. In the courtyard they met Abu Zhanalayev and ordered him to produce his identity papers. Abu Zhanalayev asked his uncle to bring the papers.


Prompt: 10.  About forty minutes later Ali Zabiyev, accompanied by Musa Zabiyev, policemen and fellow villagers, arrived at the scene of the incident to find the first applicant lying on the ground and no trace of


Prompt: 40.  In response to the complaints lodged by the CLR (see paragraph 26 above), on 8 March 2004 the prefect of Dolj County established a commission with the task of carrying out an investigation into the circumstances surrounding


Prompt: 36.  On 9 December 2007 the investigators questioned Ingushetia Deputy Minister of the Interior A. Kh., who stated that he was in charge of the security of the administrative border of Ingushetia. To his knowledge, the hotel’s police security service had consisted of officers from the Special Task Unit, in view of the fact that high-ranking law-enforcement officials were staying at the hotel, including two Deputy Ministers of the Interior, Mr


Prompt:
16.  On 26 November 2004 the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Grozny instituted an investigation into the killing of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder). The case file was given the number 30139. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“...At about 10.30 p.m. on 19 November 2004 two officers of Regiment PPSM‑1, Mr M.K. and Mr


Prompt: 25.  The Supreme Court of Cassation stated that the 1995 and 1996 judgments had been pronounced in proceedings which were administrative by their nature and that therefore the plaintiff in the rei vindicatio proceedings was not bound by them. Furthermore, in the 1995 and 1996 proceedings the applicants had been trying to prove that their ancestor, Mrs


Prompt:
47.  As regards the events of 8 March 2005, Yusupov gave the following statement:
“... On 8 March 2005 at around 9 o’clock I was sitting with my wife and daughter in the kitchen when armed men entered by the yard and started shouting: ‘Come out with raised hands one by one’. My wife and daughter and I came out and they asked me whether there were any strangers in the house. I told them that my cousin Ilyas was there, whereupon he came out. Then I was asked whether the building had any cellars, and I showed them the cellar situated under the new house, which is accessed through the new house. They then started a search and in the old house they found the entrance to the cellar in which


Prompt: 41.  Police officer A.A., interviewed as a witness on 2 February 2007, submitted that on 3 April 2006 he had participated in the arrest of a number of presumed members of illegal armed groups, including


Prompt:
19.  In a decision of 11 August 2005, following an appeal lodged by the applicant on 18 July 2005 against the order of 8 July 2005, the Conseil d’Etat held in the following terms that it was unnecessary to give a ruling:
“...
... Mr


Prompt: 39.  On 26 February 2007 the second applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor. He stated that in spite of the numerous pieces of evidence, such as the cartridge cases left by the perpetrators, the APCs and the fact that on 2 April 2003 the Shali law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation to find a leader of illegal armed groups, Mr R.Ch., the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had conducted this operation and abducted


Prompt: 7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rizvan Umtazhovich Ibragimov, born in 1977, and of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants. At the material time the Ibragimovs lived at 26 Bezymyannaya Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. Their house had burned down, and the family lived in a refurbished cattle shed consisting of two rooms. Since 1999


Prompt:
23.  On 16 March 2006 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 as then in force. Having considered the structure, methods, purpose and activities of the said organisation, the court concluded that it could be categorised as a terrorist organisation, contrary to the submissions of the accused and the public prosecutor in charge of the investigation. It noted that even though the members of the organisation had not resorted to physical violence, they had used “psychological duress” (manevi cebir), such as issuing threats, in order to achieve their aims. The trial court considered that the aim of the organisation was to start an uprising with a view to replacing the democratic regime with a totalitarian Marxist and Leninist regime. Thus, the fact that the organisation in question had not resorted to violence was not considered problematic with regard to categorising it as a terrorist organisation. It went on to state that the periodicals Çağrı and Güney had been the legal media outlets of the organisation.
The trial court further held that the applicant had admitted to the allegations in his statements to the police. Moreover, having regard, inter alia, to the statements of the applicant as well as of the other co-accused persons, the “written evidence” and the content of the case file as a whole, it held that the applicant had committed the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation by allowing the other co-accused persons, namely


Prompt: 15.  In a letter of 13 July 2006 the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır police informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that it had not been possible to identify the individuals responsible for the death of


Prompt: 59.  On 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m., Meliha Dal and Hüsna and Halise Acar watched a news broadcast on the NTV television channel. The newsreader announced that four persons had been apprehended in Diyarbakır, one of whom was named


Prompt: 29.  On 20 February 2004 the district prosecutor’s office decided to allow the applicant to join the proceedings as a civil claimant. On 26 February 2004 they also granted her the status of victim of a crime. It was mentioned in both decisions that Mr


Prompt: 9.  The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) which held an oral hearing in the case on 18 May 2010. At the hearing the applicant made, inter alia, the following additional submissions. Fedayeen had fought against the American invasion of Iraq and many Americans had died during the fighting. Fedayeen was therefore generally hated by the Americans but also by the Iraqi population who saw it as an oppressor organisation. He had served as bodyguard for a colonel and had in that capacity accompanied him at visits to


Prompt: 7.  At about 1 p.m. on 2 May 2012 Mr Kamil Mutayev and his twelve‑year old son Muradis were driving in their VAZ-21099 car in Shamil Street in the centre of the town of Kizilyurt, Dagestan, when they were blocked by two silver-coloured VAZ Priora cars with heavily tinted windows, one of which had an official registration number containing the digits “78”. Eight masked men in black uniforms and armed with pistols and machine guns got out of the Priora cars, knocked Mr


Prompt: 12.  On 9 June 1994, the applicant’s brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, gave a statement to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms


Prompt: 90.  The witness interviewed Mümtaz Çerçel in the Diyarbakır prison. The latter told him that he had seen Ferhat Tepe (“the journalist”) while being held in custody by the gendarmes. However, Mr Çerçel did not maintain his statement for fear of persecution. He also met Urfi Pasin and


Prompt: 32.  By a letter of 7 February 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date it had resumed the investigation in case no. 46130 and that operational and search measures aimed at establishing


Prompt:
8.  The applicant company’s petition for review, lodged with the Supreme Court, was dismissed after an examination of the merits on 15 December 2009.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9.  The applicant company complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10.  The Government contested that argument.
11.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 3 July 2000 and ended on 15 December 2009. It thus lasted nine years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
12.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).
13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
14.  The applicant company also complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 about the outcome and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999–I).
In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant company’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. There is no indication of a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Articles 13 or 14, either.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15.  Lastly, the applicant company complained – and this for the first time in its submissions of 18 June 2013 – that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court considers that the six-month period within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 started to run on 15 December 2009, the date when the last domestic decision was adopted in the case. However, this complaint was submitted only on 18 June 2013, that is, outside the six-month time-limit. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
16.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant company claimed altogether approximately EUR 23,000 plus accrued interests in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicant company must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards it, on the basis of equity, EUR 2,700.
17.  The applicant company further claimed HUF 3,659,230 (approximately EUR 12,500) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. It also claimed in general terms the reimbursement of costs incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, but considers it reasonable to award the applicant company, represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
18.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.


Prompt: 26.  On 25 June 1999 the prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır prosecutor's office that the search for Mehmet Özdemir was ongoing and that he had requested the Security Directorate to inform him of any developments in the case every three months. The Government submitted documents of various dates in 1999 issued by various branches of the Security Directorate, the prosecutor and the gendarmerie command in which it is stated that


Prompt: 15.  It appears from the report prepared by the prosecutor that an autopsy was carried out at the hospital. The prosecutor stated in his report that he had gone to the scene after having been informed by the military that “a terrorist had been killed”. The headman of the applicant’s village formally identified the body as that of


Prompt: 52.  By a letter of 4 January 2007, JR, a member of the Seimas, who at that time was the deputy head of the political faction of the Homeland Union Party (Tėvynės Sąjunga) in the Parliament, wrote to


Prompt: 9.  A dispute arose as to the applicant's access to L. and A. On 9 June 1997 H.T. reported him to the police for allegedly having sexually abused L. She based her allegations on statements made by L. The mother gave statements to the police and L. was interviewed by a judge without anything significant emerging in the case. In July 1998 the State Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, which decision


Prompt:
6.  By seven judgments of different courts of first instance of 18 May 2000, 29 February 2000, 17 December 1999, 24 March 2000, 5 April 2001, 25 April 2000 and 14 November 2001, which became final on 15 June 2000, 13 October 2000, 16 July 2002, 26 July 2001, 25 May 2001, 13 July 2001 and 9 September 2004, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:
(i)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,776 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Ćosićs and Ms


Prompt: 49.  E.G. specified that K.A. had knocked on the applicant's door and, immediately after it had been opened, several policemen had gone inside and spoken to the applicant. E.G. himself was standing, together with Y.A., outside the building, about 40-50 metres away from the entrance to the applicant's dwelling. “A little while later”, he heard screams from inside the applicant's dwelling and saw the police officers bring out


Prompt: 7.  However, according to the arrest and seizure report drafted by two police officers, the applicants were arrested because they had been acting suspiciously. The report further stated that the applicants had resisted the police officers, and had self-inflicted certain scratches and bruises on their bodies during the incident. In particular,


Prompt:
21.  On 23 December 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General submitted a request to the court for the extension of the applicant’s detention period until 28 February 2005. The relevant part of the prosecutor’s request reads as follows:
“The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained, depending on the conclusions of the audit, certain witnesses must be questioned, confrontations must be conducted, if necessary, accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out, relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused,


Prompt: 22.  The applicant did not, however, leave the Netherlands and neither was he forcibly expelled. On 29 September 1997 he lodged a new request for a residence permit for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature. This request was rejected by the


Prompt: 11.  On 2 July 2000 Joselito Renolde attempted to commit suicide by cutting his arm with a razor and was treated at the infirmary. The warder on duty found him to be somewhat “disturbed” and called in the Rapid Crisis Intervention Team (Équipe Rapide Intervention de Crise – “ERIC”) from the psychiatric unit at Charcot Hospital after


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


Prompt: 32.  There are conflicting accounts of whether a positive identification was made of Mr de Menezes as the suspect at this stage. It appears from the Stockwell One Report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the “IPCC” – see paragraphs 45-71 below) that those on the ground had not been able to identify Mr de Menezes as


Prompt: 68.  On 15 July 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress of the investigation, resume the investigation and allow her access to the case file. She stated, in particular, that they had passed the message from Mr


Prompt: 36.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant wrote to a number of State authorities, including the Prosecutor General. In her letter she described the circumstances of her son’s abduction, complained that her requests to the State authorities had not produced any results and requested assistance in the search for


Prompt: 79.  On 11 October and on 10 November 2006 the second applicant was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements and, on the basis of the video footage, identified one of the bodies found near the village of Goy‑Chu as


Prompt: 152.  He was kept in custody 26 days (25 days according to official records) and recognised other colleagues who were there by their voices, such as Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş and Arif Altinkalem. Tahir Elçi,


Prompt: 38.  On 10 July 1995 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Eyüp Assize Court against twenty police officers who had been on duty during the demonstrations between 12 and 13 May 1995. The indictment involved the death of


Prompt:
22.  On 25 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office issued a report on the investigation, stating the following:
“At about 1 p.m. on 18 February 2002 the Shali district department of the interior received a report that four charred male corpses had been found in the basement of a residential house on the outskirts of the village of Mesker-Yurt.
Later the three bodies were identified as villagers of Starye Atagi, namely,


Prompt: 102.  Although the roads in the vicinity of the applicant's house were very quickly closed off by the military after the shooting of her husband, the roads in the outlying area, and especially those leading to the airport, were not. A taxi driver told the applicant that he had taken


Prompt: 23.  On the same date, the first applicant was questioned. He stated that his son, Mr Shchiborshch, had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. He did not know precisely what his son’s condition was because the doctors had never told the parents the exact diagnosis. Mr


Prompt: 61.  At about 5 a.m. on 17 February 2005 a group of about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel vehicle and an UAZ minivan. Some of the servicemen were in balaclavas and military helmets. Those without were of Slavic appearance; they spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radio sets. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. Thereafter, they took Mr


Prompt: 47.  Hearings took place before the Mardin Assize Court on 12 May, 7 July, 21 September, and 23 November 1993, and 2 February, 30 March, and 11 May 1994. On the latter date the defendants Major Aytekin Özen and Master Sergeant


Prompt: 86.  L.B.-dze then explained that, first of all, inside the café there had been no incident resembling an argument or an altercation, but he did not exclude the possibility of some “latent conflict” between his friend and the other people in the café. Secondly, outside the café, that is to say, once they had stepped out into the street, there had been no incident or trouble of any kind. He could not, however, exclude the possibility that his friend had exchanged angry words with someone as they left the café, without him noticing. The prosecutor then reminded him that he had stopped off at the toilets when


Prompt: 64.  On 30 August 2000 the Darnytsky District Department of the Interior discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant association that had been instituted on the basis of a complaint lodged by Mr B. Shtym the newly appointed prior of the Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parish (Moscow Patriarchate), as it had found no evidence of an offence on Mr


Prompt:
13.  A psychiatric report commissioned for the purposes of the proceedings, drawn up on 12 April 2010 by D.P. and G.M., in so far as relevant reads as follows:
“A psychiatric examination of the respondent was carried out on 3 April 2010 at her home ... She stated that she had completed elementary school and had been an average pupil, that she had studied law for one year and knew all about the law. To me she said: ‘You know how it was when you operated on me.’ She is dissatisfied with the court proceedings [being brought]: ‘I dislike the Pešćenica [Social Welfare Centre] because they attempted to send me to [a home in] Novi Marof.’ And in respect of her son she said: ‘I am sorry when someone blackmails him’. She stated that she had been paying all her bills and that ‘I previously had a huge negative [balance], [because] I had to pay for the hospital’. She stated that she had a lot of acquaintances who were her former lodgers, whom she saw regularly when out and about in her wheelchair in her neighbourhood and ‘they all respect me’. Upon a direct question she denied having any mental problems.
Psychological status: conscious, contact easily established, uncertain about time, in other respects well oriented. Has a wide and viscous (viskozni) thought process, with loss of determining tendency. Interacts without distance. In thought content confabulatory with a paranoid position, projections and infantile explanation. Basic disposition is elevated. Intellectually – memory functions are primarily insufficient at the LMR level, additionally compromised with psychoorganic type. Lacks insight into her condition.


Prompt: 139.  During the proceedings before the Court the parties submitted a large volume of audiovisual material. The CD-ROMs produced by the Government and the applicants on 28 June and 9 July 2010 respectively were viewed by the judges of the Grand Chamber on 27 September 2010 (see paragraph 9 above). These show several phases in the demonstrations that took place in Genoa on 20 July 2001 and contain images of the moments before and after the shot which killed


Prompt: 300.  There was an interrogation and detention centre under his command within the city boundary. This unit was headed by Lieutenant Colonel Hasan Bozoğlu, the director of operations. The person in charge of interrogations was a non-commissioned officer (“NCO”), Sergeant


Prompt: 20.  The prosecutor questioned first lieutenant Muhamet Sevinç on 27 September 2000. The first lieutenant told the prosecutor that on their arrival at his house Yılmaz Özcan had been outside the house and had lied, saying he was not


Prompt: 81.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Lecha Basayev's son, Mr Kh.B., who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 he and his family had been sleeping at home when a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. The men had requested his passport. Having checked his passport, the men had asked about the whereabouts of


Prompt: 13.  The servicemen ordered the men to get dressed and to produce their identity papers. The serviceman without a mask took Beslan Baysultanov’s passport and after it was checked by other servicemen ordered him to follow them outside. The servicemen did not check Sh.D.’s passport. They said to the applicants that they would take


Prompt: 352.  Several of the Mutsayevs’ neighbours made similar submissions about the events to the effect that on 25 February 2004 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and had beaten up the male family members. The servicemen had questioned them about members of illegal armed groups and about their neighbours. Shortly afterwards, one of the intruders had informed the others that they had found the man they had been looking for and, therefore, they could leave. Afterwards, they had learnt that the servicemen had abducted


Prompt: 58.  On the same date the investigators interviewed Sh. T. as a witness. He stated that at about 3 a.m. on 19 September 2004 the applicants had come to his home and had told him about the abduction of


Prompt:
12.  On 17 July 2008 the SNCF regional director decided to dismiss the applicant from the service. His decision was worded as follows:
“ ... the analysis of the files stored on the hard disk of [the applicant’s] work computer, used for his professional duties, contained the following:
i) change of address certificate, signed in his name, certifying the transfer on 01/11/2003 of Ms


Prompt:
66.  Two of the police officers, Sergeant Penchev (A) and Sergeant Georgiev (F), mentioned Mr Zabchekov's ethnic origin in their oral evidence to the military investigator.
A stated that when he had arrived at Beli Lom Street he had seen two persons emerging from the entrance of the building, one of whom had been “a Gypsy with a criminal record –


Prompt: 63.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant learnt that her husband, Khasmagomed Vakhayev (born in 1960), had died as result of the explosion at the Vakhayevs' house. On 18 February 2000 the district civil registration office certified the death of


Prompt: 16.  On 22 September 2009 police officer B. from the Tsentralny district police station in Voronezh issued a decision refusing to open a criminal investigation into the supposed theft, on the street, of a mobile telephone, to which


Prompt: 8.  The applicants, Mr Zülfi Akkum, Mr Hüseyin Akan and Mrs Rabia Karakoç, are Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin and were born in 1944, 1928 and 1930 respectively. They are the father, brother and mother of


Prompt: 55.  On 19 April 2004 Ms A.A., also referred to by the tenth applicant as Ms Z.A., was questioned. She submitted that when she had been trying to leave Grozny with other civilians on 8 January 2000, servicemen at the checkpoint in Chernorechye had apprehended


Prompt: 7.  At the time of the events described below the applicant was one of the leading executives of Yukos, a large oil company. On 20 June 2003 a public prosecutor opened an investigation on suspicion of fraud committed in the course of the privatisation of a State-owned company in 1994 by a group of top managers of Yukos and affiliated companies. In the following months some of them were arrested and charged, including Mr


Prompt:
18.  On 23 November 2000 the Moscow City Court accepted the prosecutor's request and granted the extension until 24 May 2001. The relevant part of its decision which also concerned a co-defendant reads as follows:
“The defendants [need to] study the materials of the criminal case file which comprises fifty-two volumes. It will be impossible for them to finish reading the case file before the expiration of the maximum authorised period of detention.
[The court] does not find any ground for a change in the preventive measure to which the defendants are subject. The criminal offences with which they stand charged are included in the category of serious and particularly serious offences. In view of the circumstances of the case, taking into account the information about the co-defendants' character and the materials in the case file, [I] consider that, if released, the defendants ... will be liable to resume their criminal activities, to pervert the course of justice and to abscond or evade justice.
Having examined the arguments of the defendants and their lawyers, who insisted that there was no basis for extending Mr


Prompt: 20.  On 16 January 2006, responding to the applicant’s complaint, the Deputy Head of the Chief Investigative Department of the Ministry of Interior stated that the investigation had been “patchy, passive”, “conducted at a low professional level and not in conformity with the methodology of investigating this category of offences”; and marked by “loss of time and sources of evidence”. He noted, in particular, that the case-file featured no documents explaining a one-month delay after the discovery of the body and before the initiation of the criminal proceedings; that no meaningful and prompt action had been taken to locate the purportedly missing bicycle; that no comprehensive measures had been taken to verify whether M. could be involved in the crime, notwithstanding the applicant’s suspicions corroborated by some other evidence; and that the alibis of M., D. and K. had not been verified. The officer further regretted that the police had thought of sending


Prompt:
6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Tsalipat Shamilovna Isigova, who was born in 1954;
2) Ms Aminat Abdurakhmanovna Isigova, who was born in 1976;
3) Ms Khalisat Dayevna[2] Umkhanova, who was born in 1948;
4) Ms


Prompt:
50.  On 30 January 2007 the final Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2200(INI), doc. A6-0020/2007) was published. Noting the lack of thorough investigation by the respondent State, the Report stated, inter alia:
“136.  [The European Parliament] condemns the extraordinary rendition of the German citizen


Prompt: 131.  On 22 May 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor quashed the referral as premature and returned the case to the town prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor relied on the statement given by Mr Zhizhin, the head of the criminal police, who denied that


Prompt:
14.  Fully aware that these arrangements were most probably conflicting with human rights, the international mediators considered it to be especially important to make the Constitution a dynamic instrument and provide for their possible phasing out. Article II § 2 of the Constitution was therefore inserted (see Nystuen, cited above, p. 100). It reads as follows:
“The rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These shall have priority over all other law.”
While the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in decisions nos. U 5/04 of 31 March 2006 and U 13/05 of 26 May 2006, held that the European Convention on Human Rights did not have priority over the Constitution, it came to a different conclusion in decision no. AP 2678/06 of 29 September 2006. In the latter decision, it examined a discrimination complaint concerning the appellant’s ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency on the ground of his ethnic origin (a Bosniac from the Republika Srpska) and rejected it on the merits. The relevant part of the majority opinion reads as follows (the translation has been provided by the Constitutional Court):
“18.  The appellants argue that their rights have been violated, taking into account the fact that Article II § 2 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulates that the rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention and its Protocols shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that they shall have priority over all other law. Therefore, the appellants are of the opinion that the candidacy of


Prompt: 87.  According to the documents and information submitted by the Government, between 2001 and 2008 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions, and has so far failed to identify those guilty or to establish the whereabouts of


Prompt: 17.  When preparing their report of 12 November 2007 the forensic experts also took into account two other forensic reports. The first report, dated, 24 September 2007, pertained to a toxicological examination and confirmed that there were no toxic substances in


Prompt: 8.  The applicants live in Martan-Chu, in Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. Prior to her death in December 2005 the second applicant also lived there. Applicants one to six are relatives of Mr Lecha Basayev, who was born in 1955. The first applicant is his wife; the second applicant was his mother; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughters; the fifth applicant is his grandson and the sixth applicant is his brother. The applicants from seven to eleven are the relatives of Mr


Prompt: 27.  On an unspecified date – apparently in August 2006 – a person whose name is not clear from the documents but who appears to be R., the Head of the Nagatinskiy Zaton OVD, was questioned. He stated that a year earlier he had taken part in the operation to forcibly place Mr


Prompt: 18.  Since 29 December 2002 the applicants, primarily the first applicant, have been searching for Rizvan Ibragimov. They applied to various official bodies both in person and in writing, trying to find out his whereabouts and what had happened to him, arguing that he must have been detained by some representatives of State agencies, because the armed men had arrived in a large group during curfew hours and had worn uniforms similar to those used by the Russian troops. The applicants retained copies of some of their letters to authorities and the answers, which they submitted to the Court. Their attempts to find out the whereabouts of


Prompt: 23.  On 21 February 2001 the applicants reached Zdorovye. The ground was covered with fresh snow, which complicated the search. Immediately next to the road the applicants found the bodies of Said-Rakhman Musayev and


Prompt:
14.  The article, which appeared on page eight of the 4 August 2001 issue of 24 Hours under the headline “Foreign Company to Run Customs under Concession?” and the applicant’s byline, was worded as follows:
“The King’s men were intensely discussing whether to hire a Western company to run the customs administration, Members of Parliament say. The idea became topical because of difficulties with the selection of a strong candidate for the position of deputy Minister of Finance in charge of supervising the customs administration. The proposal that Mr M. D. is tapped for the position has not yet been approved by the Prime Minister.