Prompt: 54.  Thus, on 28 March 2000 the French embassy in Lisbon asked the Portuguese Foreign Ministry to intervene in order to “expedite enforcement of the Oeiras District Court’s decision of 15 June 1999 requiring Mrs [S.C.] to hand over the child


Prompt: 11.  In an opinion dated 6 December 1944 the Ministry of the Interior's Committee for the Purge of Collaborators (comité d'épuration) proposed that the applicant should retain his post, taking the view that although he had held office under the Vichy regime, he had shown a favourable attitude towards the Resistance. He was therefore allowed to continue serving as head of the private office of


Prompt: 49.  On 18 December 2002 the first applicant complained about her brother’s disappearance to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Envoy”). She underlined that Mr S.P., Mr E.B., the head of the Chechnya Department of the Interior (“the Chechnya MVD”), and Mr D.U., her brother’s former ROVD colleague, had information on


Prompt: 5.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1953, 1919 and 1957 respectively. The first two applicants live in Hagimus; Mr V. Gusovschi lives in Tighina and Mr A. Gusovschi is interned in a psychiatric hospital in Chişinău. Ms


Prompt: 18.  The article also contained comments made by Mrs Bettencourt on 13 May 2008, in a box headed: “Exclusive: what Liliane Bettencourt told the police”. The journalist, after quoting extracts from the statement showing that Mrs


Prompt: 16.  The second and third applicants are the wife and mother of Ali Baudinovich Magomadov, born in 1966. The applicants' family live in Chechen-Aul in their own house at 81 Lenina Street. The second applicant has four minor children, who in October 2002 were aged between 2 and 11, from her marriage to


Prompt: 62.  Mehmet Nuri Sansar, the headman (muhtar) of the Karaorman village at the time of the alleged events, was questioned by the Kulp Prosecutor on 15 April 1998. Mr Sansar stated that on 20 February 1994 he had been in the Karaorman village mosque praying, when two soldiers had come in and asked those present to leave the mosque. Mr Sansar and the villagers in the mosque had complied with this order and left the mosque. Mr Sansar had then seen that the village had been surrounded by soldiers and that the villagers had been gathered outside the village. The commander of the soldiers had called Mr Sansar over and told him that food supplies had been brought to the Karaorman village by vehicles and that, from the village, they had been taken by mules to the PKK in the mountains. The commander asked Mr Sansar for the identity of the villagers who had carried the foodstuff to the PKK. When Mr Sansar replied that he did not know, the soldiers had taken him away and beaten him. Among the soldiers there had also been an itirafçı, whose face was covered. The itirafçı had not spoken a word but pointed to the six persons. All six persons had been taken away and all but


Prompt: 239.  On an unspecified date the first applicant complained to the investigators that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed. In particular, she pointed out that even though the three eyewitnesses to the abduction lived in the village of Verkhniy Noyber, they had not been questioned by the investigation. She further stated that on the day of her son’s disappearance, those witnesses had seen


Prompt: 56.  Lastly, the Supreme Court noted that the fact that the applicant had taken part in an operation in 1956, after active armed resistance to the Soviet occupation had ended [as noted by the Constitutional Court, such active armed resistance took place between 1944 and 1953], had no bearing on the classification of his actions as genocide. Actions could qualify as genocide even if they had not been committed during one single period. In the applicant’s case, it was paramount that his and the KGB’s actions had been prompted by one single goal, namely to physically exterminate all or part of the members of a protected group. The case-file documents showed that the Soviet authorities’ goal of completely eliminating the leadership and members of the national resistance had remained in place even after the period of their active resistance was over. In this connection it was also pertinent that


Prompt: 31.  The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment (see paragraph 10 above). They further submitted that they had not stated on 12 March 1999 before the public prosecutor and the judge that they had been subjected to ill-treatment as they were scared.


Prompt: 61.  The witness, a Boyunlu village guard, was told on the radio that terrorists had opened fire on his brother and others who were chopping wood. They informed the Bayrambası gendarme station immediately. The gendarmes told them to go to the location of the incident where they themselves would arrive shortly. The guards arrived at the place of the clash. The terrorists were running away. The guards followed them. The terrorists entered Ormandışı village. The guards took position to the south and on the hill. There was an exchange of fire. The terrorists started to run away and got into a tractor shortly before nightfall. A helicopter arrived. The officer brigade commander was in it. The helicopter fired on the terrorists in the tractor. During the clash, a fire broke out in the crops surrounding the village. Darkness fell. First Lieutenant Hakan told the guards to return to Boyunlu. He later heard that there were two dead villagers but the guards had not killed anyone.


Prompt: 114.  On 12 May 2004 the investigation questioned Mr A.E., the head of the Katyr-Yurt administration. Mr A.E. testified that at around 4 a.m. on the night of 23 November 2003 he had been woken up by relatives of


Prompt:
19.  However, the decision of the Supreme Court was not unanimous, as one of the judges in his dissenting opinion stated the following:
“One of the basic principles of court proceedings is that all relevant material submitted to the court and which may have a bearing on the outcome of the case, shall be communicated to the parties (Supreme Court’s decision No. 1995:95). According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (


Prompt: 67.  The investigators also questioned Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s friend, Mr M.P., a police officer, who stated that at about 11 p.m. on 6 December 2012 he had been driving home when he had seen Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s white car with a dent in the front. The car had skidded and had been driven erratically. The witness had then seen two cars, one of which was a silver‑coloured Lada–Priora, following Mr


Prompt:
12.  In its judgment of 23 November 2001 the Supreme Court, by a majority (Judges Artemides, Nicolaides, Kallis, Iliades, Kramvis and Gavrielides), held that sections 22(3) and 25(1) of the Children Law complied with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention. In particular, the Supreme Court noted the following:
“The applicant's lawyer suggests that the violation of Articles 15 and 30 of the Constitution is caused by the fact that the applicant learnt the identity of her natural father in 1997. It was, consequently, objectively impossible to lodge the application for her recognition within the three-year period from the date the Law came into force. Therefore, as he concludes, Article 30 § 1 of the Constitution is also violated because the applicant is deprived of access to court to assert her statutory right, a right which originates directly from Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects private and family life. A further suggestion of the applicant's lawyer, concerning unfavourable discrimination caused by the different time-limits for the exercise of other rights that are provided for by the Law, we will not deal with because it was not pursued.
...
The matters raised are extremely serious because they touch on the institution and the function of the family: the most important nucleus of society, the members of which are bound by the deepest and purest feelings of love and solidarity. The State considers self-evident the value of the institution of the family, which it also protects in its most powerful statute, the Constitution. This also regulates the whole range of family relationships – also on the basis of the criterion of their lawful functioning in society as a whole – in legislative rules which constitute the basis of the body of law known as Family Law.
The basis of our discussion is Articles 15 and 30 of the Constitution, corresponding to Articles 8 and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was ratified by our House of Representatives by Law No. 39/62. Accordingly, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission on the matters with which we are concerned illustrate the approach to be taken, as does our jurisprudence .
...
In the recent decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court in


Prompt: 12.  On 11 May 2007 another individual was examined before the investigating judge and the public prosecutor under the pseudonym “Vardar” for the same reasons as the witness “Vodno”. He confirmed that Mr


Prompt:
9.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant was served with the decision concerning the date fixed for the hearing. On the same date the court gave a decision ex officio concerning the applicant’s presence at the hearing. By a letter from the court’s registry, served on the applicant on 12 October 2001, he was informed of that decision. The letter read:
“The Warsaw Court of Appeal states that by a decision of 3 October 2001 it has decided not to bring the accused


Prompt: 39.  An article published in the daily newspaper Večer on 23 November 2006 reported on discussions held between the Prime Minister of the respondent State and the Archbishop of the MOC regarding certain provisions of the 2007 Act. Following that discussion, the majority of bishops in the MOC, as stated in the article, had requested that the MOC should not accept any compromise which would prevent it from protecting itself against a parallel church, led by Mr


Prompt: 20.  The military forced all the men of the third applicant’s family into the courtyard and checked their papers. The soldiers seized Mr Amir Pokayev’s temporary identity document and took it to one of the UAZ cars. Then they said that they would take the third applicant’s son with them so as to check his documents through a computer database. The military further stated that they would bring Mr


Prompt: 70.  In his statements concerning the conclusions he had reached at the end of the investigation into the killing of Petros Kakoulli, Inspector Tazeoğlu expressed the view that Private Harun Avşar had acted in accordance with the instructions given to him. Private Avşar had given the necessary warnings and had shot and killed


Prompt:
42.  On 21 August 2001 a local newspaper, “Komsomolskaya Pravda v Kaliningrade”, published an article entitled “Cranberry Drink” (“Кисель из Клюквы”). The article concerned the killing of a prominent mafia leader in the town of Neman. The reporter described how police officers had chased a stolen car in which the “driver-thief” and the mafia leader were travelling. The parts of the article which concerned the applicant read as follows:
“During questioning the driver-thief


Prompt: 55.  On 20 January 2007 police officer F. of the special unit was questioned. Answering the investigator’s questions concerning police training in any martial arts, he submitted that D-n. and Kh. were snipers, whereas B. and S. had no special qualifications. He further stated that tear gas, light-sound distraction tools or devices for demolishing barriers were not used while apprehending Mr


Prompt: 57.  On the same date the district prosecutor's office requested the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the interior (ROVD) to identify close relatives of Usman Mavluyev residing in Zakan-Yurt and to check whether he had been a member of an illegal armed group. At the same time the head of the Zavodskoy ROVD was requested to establish which units of the federal forces had been deployed at the checkpoint in Chernorechye, which officers had been on duty at the checkpoint on 8 January 2000, to identify close relatives of


Prompt: 14.  Later that day, at about 12.30 p.m., road workers found the body of Yusuf Ekinci along the E-90 TEM highway in Gölbaşı on the outskirts of Ankara, i.e. 1.5 kilometres from the Doktorlar Sitesi neighbourhood and 1 kilometre in the direction of Eskişehir. They informed the police.


Prompt: 8.  When the police entered the next room they found the third applicant (Mr Aron Lingurar, born in 1985) with his wife. They dragged him onto the ground, kicked him and shouted abuse. The first applicant (Mr


Prompt: 55.  On 12 October 2006 the applicant was questioned. She confirmed the account of the events provided in her previous statements and in the statements of Kheda Aydamirova. On the basis of the video footage she identified one of the bodies found near the village of Goy-Chu as


Prompt: 31.  On 18 May 2012 the investigators questioned operational search officer Mr A.G. of the CTC, who stated that the Abdullayev family had been known to them as adherents of illegal armed groups. At the end of January 2012 he had participated in a search of their house conducted together with police officers from the Kirovskiy district police station in Makhachkala (see paragraph 27 above). The search had been conducted in connection with an investigation into the murder of an FSS officer. After the search, the second applicant and her mother had been taken to the CTC headquarters to provide statements to the investigators. The witness had learned of the abduction of


Prompt:
26.  On 16 December 2008 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicant's complaint for the following reasons:
“...under the provisions of Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code... decisions and actions (omissions) [of authorities involved in criminal proceedings]... could be appealed against to the District Court...
... from the submitted materials it follows that ...no investigation by the Russian authorities is being conducted against


Prompt: 356.  The Basnukayevs and the Alisultanovs were neighbours. Mr Mausyr Basnukayev lived with his family, including the first to fifth applicants. Mr Vakha Alisultanov lived with his family, including the sixth to eighth applicants, and his son, Rustam. His brother, Mr


Prompt:
53.  On 12 February 2008 the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant's detention and at the same time dismissed her request for the custodial measure to be lifted. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“A reasonable suspicion that the third [the applicant], fifth and sixth defendants committed the criminal offences defined in the indictment still exists, this being a general statutory requirement under Article 102 § 1 of the C[ode of] C[riminal] P[rocedure] for extending the detention.
The third, fifth and sixth defendants have been indicted for criminal offences against humanity and international law – war crimes against the civilian population – under Article 120 § 1 of the Criminal Code, carrying a minimum of five years' imprisonment or imprisonment for twenty years; this is one of the criteria for detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the CCP.
Furthermore, the third, fifth and sixth defendants have been indicted for the gravest acts which could possibly be committed against the civilian population, namely illegal arrests, torture and killings of civilians. The civilians were tortured and killed for no reason and the motive was national hatred.
The charge against the third defendant,


Prompt:
58.  On 23 May 2001 the doctor in charge of the Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit (“the OCTU”) wrote to the governor of La Santé Prison in these terms:
“I have met Mr Ilich Ramirez Sanchez ... as I was asked for an opinion on whether there is any contraindication to this patient’s remaining in solitary confinement.
Even though Mr


Prompt: 79.  In response, the Government submitted an update on the investigation but no documents from the investigation file except for decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and the decision to grant victim status to Mr


Prompt: 148.  On the same morning an acquaintance of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev was arrested by the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (Северокавказское региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью) (“the RUBOP”). He was detained in a detention facility for five days and then released. He stated that he had been held in the same facility with Mr


Prompt: 34.  On 25 September 2003 the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI and the first applicant that there was no proof of Mr K.’s implication in the Khalidovs’ disappearance and explained that it had not instituted proceedings regarding the kidnapping of Isa and


Prompt: 22.  On 24 May 2007 the applicants submitted their written defence submissions to the first-instance court, together with a request for the lifting of the interim injunction. The applicants argued, inter alia, that the statement under consideration in the present case was a direct quote from an interview that Mr Gül had given to a journalist from The Guardian on 27 November 1995; that this interview had also been reported in the Turkish daily Posta; that the subsequent article published by The Guardian on 15 December 1995 did not constitute a “correction” as alleged, as it did not entail a denial or retraction of the previous statement; that in a statement he had made to the newspaper Hürriyet, the Guardian journalist


Prompt: 16.  In the Government's submission, on 13 February 2003 at about 4 a.m., unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks armed with automatic firearms entered flat no. 110 at 24 Ioanisiani Street in Grozny, where they beat and tied the seventh applicant, abducted Mr


Prompt: 28.  The High Court found it clear that the refusal to grant residence permits constituted an interference with the applicants’ rights under paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention. In considering whether the interference was justified under paragraph 2, the central question was whether the measure was “necessary in a democratic society”. The High Court had regard to the consideration that where family life has been created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (


Prompt:
75.  The court further found that the applicant, together with F.H, had acted as organiser and executor of the murder of the MP and one of his bodyguards. The applicant arranged the trip of 10 September 1998 from Bajram Curri to Tirana at the request of F.H. Moreover, he was directly involved in procuring the means for the commission of the crime. This was confirmed by the testimonies of S.L, P.G and G.B, and, particularly, by the testimony of A.L. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“On the basis of the evidence that has been collected, the court is convinced that one of the authors of the crime... is the accused,


Prompt: 16.  By a letter dated 7 February 2003, the applicants’ former lawyer informed the Court that the judgment of 18 June 2001 had been served on Ferit Çengelli on 3 February 2003 upon his request, and that the proceedings against


Prompt: 31.  On 12 February 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 126 (2) of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) in connection with the disappearance of Mr


Prompt: 5.  The applicant was born in 1969. A native of Chechnya, from 1996 she lived in the settlement for internally displaced persons from Chechnya in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya (also known as Sleptsovskaya), in the Ingush Republic of the Russian Federation (Ingushetia). The applicant later left Russia with her children and sought asylum in another country, where she now resides. She is the wife of


Prompt: 187.  Mr Bakashvili, an employee of the Ministry of Security, had led a team of investigators in the proceedings against the applicants for crossing the border illegally. He had personally dealt with the cases of Mr


Prompt: 32.  On 3 April 2002 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor about his son's abduction. He stated that Murad Gelayev had been abducted with thirteen other residents of Gikalo during a special operation conducted by a group of federal servicemen in military armoured vehicles; that the servicemen had beaten the detainees and their relatives with rifle-butts; that shortly after the abduction the applicant had found out that his son had been detained in the basement of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD where, in the presence of many witnesses, one ear had been cut off as a souvenir from both


Prompt:
13.  The District Court found as follows:
“Having regard to the established facts it is reasonable to assume that the acts of the accused Dorota Jucha and Tomasz Żak matched the features of the offence of defamation in its aggravated form specified in Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
In the light of the wording of Article 212 it is generally prohibited to speak badly about another person without a legitimate interest, and the allegation levelled is an imputation when it concerns the behaviour of the defamed person or his characteristics and amounts to imputing to such a person the commission of an offence or failure to fulfil his duties.
The entire significance of the article entitled “Marek C. in episodes (2)” published on 4 February 2004, which may be summarised by reference to its subtitle “Councillor – offender?” came down to quoting a sequence of events which were to present the private prosecutor as an offender (przestępca). Speaking of somebody as an offender has a clearly pejorative meaning for public opinion; it may even be said to be “utterly disgraceful”. The fact that the allegation was not categorical, and that in the present case the subtitle Councillor – offender was followed by a question mark, is not relevant so far as concerns the features of the offence of defamation (as submitted in particular by


Prompt:
99.  On 15 October 1999 the applicants Behsat Örs, Ercan Akpınar, Cenker Aslan and Özgür Soylu were heard pursuant to letters rogatory. However, they refused to give evidence before speaking to their lawyers.
On the other hand, applicant


Prompt: 54.  Dr Peter Vanezis, from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science at the University of Glasgow, carried out a post-mortem examination at Larnaca General Hospital on 14 October 1996 on the body of


Prompt:
34.  This report aims at indicating the property owned by the applicant. Following an investigation carried out by the authorities it appeared that the applicant owned a house and a plot of land measuring 19,506 metres square according to the records of the land registry office. He has another plot of land measuring 31,000 metres square according to the municipal registry office. It was estimated that the applicant could derive 816,000,000 Turkish liras’ income from his lands. The applicant does not have any registered trees. According to the official records, he did not have any commercial activity given that he did not pay any tax.
(b)


Prompt:
25.  On 29 June 2004 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the death of Timur Khambulatov under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The case file was given the number 40046 (in the submitted documents also referred to as 40560, 40026 and 40506). The text of the document included the following:
“... On 18 March 2004 ...


Prompt:
19.  In a judgment of 14 December 1998, the Orléans Court of Appeal, ruling on the civil claims and following the Court of Cassation's analysis, upheld the judgments of 4 October 1994 and 8 March 1995 in so far as they concerned the applicant. The Court of Appeal made a new award of FRF 10,000 to the AGRIF on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also ordered that the following statement be published, at the defendant's expense, in a national newspaper of the civil party's choice:
“By a judgment of 14 December 1998, the Orléans Court of Appeal ordered


Prompt: 8.  On the night of 2 to 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov stayed overnight at the house of his relative, Mr Sh.D., at 4 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 four armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and four Ural vehicles pulled up in front of that house and around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke inside it. Some of them wore masks. The men did not identify themselves; they shouted at the inhabitants in Russian. Then they took Mr Sh.D. and


Prompt: 77.  Between 27 February and 18 April 2003 the authorities mentioned in paragraphs 74-76 above reported to the district prosecutor’s office that the law-enforcement authorities had not arrested the Magomed-Salekh and


Prompt:
18.  As stated above, the decision to hold the applicant in the waiting zone for forty-eight hours was taken by the administrative authority on 1 July 2005 at 11 a.m. (see paragraph 11 above). The measure was extended for a further forty-eight hours on 3 July.
On 5 July 2005 the liberties and detention judge (juge des libertés et de la détention) of the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance – before whom the applicant had appeared, assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter – authorised the holding of the applicant for a further eight days, in an order giving the following reasons:
“Mr


Prompt: 7.  The applicant’s 6 year old son, Sergey, suffered from a serious congenital heart disease. On 8 February 1995 he died during heart surgery in a State-owned clinic. The applicant requested the Smolensk town prosecutor’s office to investigate her son’s death. She suspected that he had died as a result of medical negligence. On several occasions the case was opened and then closed by the prosecutor’s office on the ground that no fault on the part of the doctors had been established. The conclusions of the investigative authorities relied, in particular, on the results of the forensic examination carried out after the death of


Prompt: 12.  On 26 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that an inquiry had established that no military personnel had been implicated in


Prompt: 65.  On the same date and on 26 April 2008 the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD was instructed to identify eye-witnesses to the murder and burial of the four corpses near the village of Goy-Chu, and the person who had handed over the video footage of the bodies to


Prompt: 10.  The first applicant, Mr Antoni Pla Puncernau, who was born in 1966, is the adopted son of the second applicant, Mrs Roser Puncernau Pedro. The second applicant was the first applicant’s supervisor, as Mr


Prompt: 12.  On 3 August 2001 the parliamentary group of the National Movement Simeon II held a closed‑doors meeting in the National Assembly in order to discuss, inter alia, the candidates for the position of deputy


Prompt:
10.  The applicants Abdullah Doğan, Ali Rıza Doğan, Ahmet Doğan, Kazım Balık, Müslüm Yılmaz and Yusuf Doğan (applications nos. 8803/02, 8805/02, 8806/02, 8811/02, 8815/02 and 8817/02 respectively) owned houses and land in Boydaş, whereas the other applicants cultivated land and lived in the houses owned by their fathers.
In particular,


Prompt: 22.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant was questioned in hospital by an investigator from Nasimi District Police Station no. 22. The applicant described in detail the circumstances of his arrest and detention by the police on 14 June 2008. In particular, he stated that on 14 June 2008 he had attended the gathering commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the birth of


Prompt: 34.  Dr L., the psychiatrist in charge of the SMPR, confirmed that the SMPR had supplied Joselito Renolde with medication for several days in his cell twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, without the nurses checking whether he actually took it. He pointed out that, where a prisoner’s mental state required regular attention, the doctor ordered the medication to be taken daily in the SMPR in the presence of the nurses. In


Prompt: 58.  During the investigation, the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia (Управление Федеральной службы безопасности РФ по Чеченской Республике) submitted information to the effect that


Prompt: 17.  On 24 April 2002 three of the applicants, namely Ali Kemal Mart, Göksel Avcı and Ertuğrul Saraçoğlu, together with another person M.D., who had also been in police custody with the applicants between 27 April and 4 May 2001, initiated proceedings before the Diyarbakır Assize Court and requested compensation for the time they had spent in police custody. On 10 December 2003 the court awarded 500,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) –approximately 300 euros- each to


Prompt: 45.  In its judgment of 5 June 2003, the Rotterdam Regional Court acquitted the applicant and his co-accused of all charges, finding that these had not been legally and convincingly substantiated. The Rotterdam Regional Court held that the BVD/AIVD official reports submitted by the prosecution could not be used in evidence, as the Head and Deputy Head of the AIVD – who had been examined by the investigation judge as well as before the Regional Court – and the national public prosecutor responsible for combating terrorism had refused to give evidence about the origins of the information set out in these official reports, invoking their obligation to observe secrecy under the 2002 Intelligence and Security Services Act whereas, in accordance with a decision of 2 May 2003, the Minister of the Interior


Prompt: 82.  On 1 August 2008 the first applicant’s submissions included a request for a continuous period of mother-child care to allow her to take the child on holiday, after she had been confined to San Marino for nearly six months. On the same day


Prompt: 29.  In challenging his conviction he repeated his arguments concerning the involuntary nature of his confession, the circumstances in which it had been taken and the violation of his right to the assistance of a lawyer. In particular, it was emphasised that


Prompt:
18.  On the same day, the Rijeka Municipal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation. The Rijeka Municipal Court relied on the witness statements of the police officers, seizure records and a forensic expert report confirming that the green substance was marijuana. In connection with the refusal to take further evidence, that court noted:
“This court dismissed the defence’s request for witnesses I.Š., U.V. and J.M. to be questioned, since it considered that all the relevant facts had been sufficiently established and that therefore questioning of these witnesses would be redundant. The request of the second accused,


Prompt:
29.  Moreover, the majority in the Supreme Court (four judges) found that the 28-year rule was in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. They stated as follows:
“Pursuant to section 9, subsection 7, as worded by Act No. 1204 of 27 December 2003, the requirement that the spouses’ or cohabitants’ aggregate ties with Denmark must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country (the attachment requirement) does not apply when the resident has been a Danish national for 28 years (the 28-year rule).
Until 2002, Danish nationals had had a general exemption from the attachment requirement. Act No. 365 of 6 June 2002 tightened the conditions of family reunion, one of the consequences being that the attachment requirement would subsequently also apply to family reunion where one of the partners was a Danish national. One of the reasons for extending the attachment requirement to include Danish nationals also given in the preparatory work (on page 3982 of Schedule A to the Official Gazette for 2001 to 2002 (2nd session)) is that there are Danish nationals who are not particularly well integrated in Danish society and for this reason the integration of a spouse newly arrived in Denmark may entail major problems.
It quickly turned out that this tightening had some unintended consequences for persons such as Danish nationals who had opted to live abroad for a lengthy period and who had started a family while away from Denmark. For that reason, the rules were relaxed with effect from 1 January 2004 so that family reunion in cases where one of the partners had been a Danish national for at least 28 years was no longer subject to satisfaction of the requirement of stronger aggregate ties with Denmark.
According to the preparatory work in respect of the relaxation, the Government found that the fundamental aim of tightening the attachment requirement in 2002 was not forfeited by refraining from demanding that the attachment requirement be met in cases where the resident had been a Danish national for 28 years (see page 49 of Schedule A to the Official Gazette for 2003 to 2004). It is mentioned in this connection that Danish expatriates planning to return to Denmark one day with their families will often have maintained strong ties with Denmark, which have also been communicated to their spouse or cohabitant and any children. This is so when they speak Danish at home, take holidays in Denmark, read Danish newspapers regularly, and so on. Thus, there will normally be a basis for successful integration of Danish expatriates’ family members into Danish society.
Persons who have not been Danish nationals for 28 years, but were born and raised in Denmark, or came to Denmark as small children and were raised here, are normally also exempt from the attachment requirement when they have stayed lawfully in Denmark for 28 years.
A consequence of this current state of the law is that different groups of Danish nationals are subject to differences in treatment in relation to their possibility of being reunited with family members in Denmark, as persons who have been Danish nationals for 28 years are in a better position than persons who have been Danish nationals for fewer than 28 years.
According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, nationals of a country do not have an unconditional right to family reunion with a foreigner in their home country, as factors of attachment may also be taken into account in the case of nationals of that country. It is not in itself contrary to the Convention if different groups of nationals are subject to statutory differences in treatment as regards the possibility of obtaining family reunion with a foreigner in the country of their nationality.
In this respect, reference is made to paragraph 88 of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 28 May 1985 in the case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom. In this case the Court found that it was not contrary to the Convention that a person born in Egypt who had later moved to the United Kingdom and become a national of the United Kingdom and Colonies was treated less favourably as regards the right to family reunion with a foreigner than a national born in the United Kingdom or whose parent(s) were born in the United Kingdom. The Court said in that respect: ‘It is true that a person who, like Mrs Balkandali, has been settled in a country for several years may also have formed close ties with it, even if he or she was not born there. Nevertheless, there are in general persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those whose links with a country stem from birth within it. The difference of treatment must therefore be regarded as having had an objective and reasonable justification and, in particular, its results have not been shown to transgress the principle of proportionality.’ The Court then held that Mrs Balkandali was not a victim of discrimination on the ground of birth.
As regards Mrs Balkandali, who was a national of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it was not contrary to the Convention to make it an additional requirement for family reunion that she must have been born in the United Kingdom. A different additional requirement is made under Danish law: a requirement of Danish nationality for 28 years. The question is whether [the first applicant] is subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to this criterion.
We find that the criterion of 28 years of Danish nationality has the same aim as the requirement of birth in the United Kingdom, which was accepted by the Court in the 1985 judgment as not being contrary to the Convention: to distinguish a group of nationals who, seen from a general perspective, had lasting and strong ties with the country.
In general, a person of 28 years who has held Danish nationality since birth will have stronger real ties with Denmark and greater insight into Danish society than a 28-year-old person who – like [the first applicant] – only established links with Danish society as a young person or an adult. This also applies to Danish nationals who have stayed abroad for a shorter or longer period, for example in connection with education or work. We find that the 28-year-rule is based on an objective criterion, as it must be considered objectively justified to select a group of nationals with such strong ties with Denmark when assessed from a general perspective that it will be unproblematic to grant family reunion with a foreign spouse or cohabitant in Denmark as it will normally be possible for such spouse or cohabitant to be successfully integrated into Danish society.
Even though it is conceivable that a national who has had Danish nationality for 28 years may in fact have weaker ties with Denmark than a national who has had Danish nationality for a shorter period, this does not imply that the 28-year rule should be set aside pursuant to the Convention. Reference is made to the case, relative to the then applicable additional British requirement of place of birth considered by the European Court of Human Rights, of a national who was not born in the United Kingdom, but who had in reality stronger ties with the United Kingdom than other nationals who satisfied the requirement of place of birth, but had moved abroad with their parents at a tender age or maybe had even been born abroad. It is noted in this respect that it was sufficient to satisfy the then British requirement of place of birth for only one of the relevant person’s parents to have been born in the United Kingdom.
We also find that the consequences of the 28-year rule cannot be considered disproportionate relative to [the first applicant]. [He] was born in Togo in 1971 and came to Denmark in 1993. After nine years’ residence, he became a Danish national in 2002. In 2003 he married [the second applicant] and applied for reunion with his spouse in Denmark. The application was finally refused in 2004. The factual circumstances of this case are thus in most material aspects identical to Mrs Balkandali’s situation assessed by the Court in its judgment in 1985, when the Court found that the principle of proportionality had not been violated. She was born in Egypt in 1946 or 1948. She first went to the United Kingdom in 1973 and obtained nationality of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1979. She married a Turkish national


Prompt: 13.  The applicant appealed to the Pospelikhinskiy District Court and sought leave to appear before the appeal court. By an interim decision of 12 September 2007, the District Court refused the applicant leave to appear, finding that the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide for escorting detained litigants to courts hearing civil cases. On 10 October 2007 the Pospelikhinskiy District Court upheld the judgment on appeal, endorsing the findings of


Prompt: 39.  The lawyers also pointed to the testimony given by officer Aküzüm (see paragraph 36 above) in his capacity as a witness, confirming that he had also opened fire on the deceased persons. The lawyers stated that their request to have Mr Aküzüm prosecuted had been rejected. They alleged that their request for the defendant


Prompt: 21.  Most of the detained villagers were released either on 9 or 16 March 1993. They appeared before public prosecutors at Eruh (Siirt district) and many complained of the torture that they had suffered. On 30 April 1993 a number of the men were charged with terrorist offences, which were to be tried before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. A number of villagers remained in custody until approximately June 1993. Two villagers,


Prompt: 77.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mr I.B., who stated that at about 2.30 a.m. on 11 January 2003 he had been woken by the noise of vehicles. From the window he had seen an APC and a khaki Ural vehicle and heard people talking among themselves in Russian. Twenty minutes later the vehicles had left and he had gone outside. His neighbours had told him that these men had taken away


Prompt:
5.  On 31 October 2002 Ţara published an article entitled “While ignoring the legislation on fair competition, the Stepaniuc clan is taking away the property of others by blackmail”. It reported by partly citing and partly summarising a letter addressed to the President of Moldova by a transport company, which used to operate several bus lines linking Chişinău with other towns. The article read, inter alia, as follows:
“The other day Ţara received a document with a very interesting content. It is a letter addressed to President


Prompt:
19.  The Court of Appeal further dismissed the argument that the applicants had acted in good faith, on the following grounds:
“Defamatory allegations are deemed to have been made in bad faith unless the defendant can show that they fulfil all of the following conditions: they must correspond to the pursuit of a legitimate aim; they must not reflect any personal animosity on his part towards the civil party; there must have been a serious preliminary investigation; and the language used must be dispassionate.
In the present case, the legitimacy of the aim pursued by the defendants through the novel, namely ‘to fight against


Prompt: 81.  On 2 September 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who stated that he suspected that the abduction of his sons had been perpetrated by State agents because of his family’s kinship with a certain Mr Abubakar, who had been an active member of illegal armed groups. He also stated that his son Mr


Prompt: 470.  Mr Demırham was recorded as stating that he had commenced sympathising with the PKK at school where its publications were circulated. Once in legal practice, he visited clients in prison and met people like


Prompt: 18.  On 6 October 2008 the Lice prosecutor sent the investigation file to the Diyarbakır prosecutor who had jurisdiction to investigate incidents perpetrated by illegal organisations. In his letter accompanying the file the Lice prosecutor named the first applicant


Prompt: 17.  According to the applicants, on 16 September 2000 a large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses departed for a meeting in Marneuli (Eastern Georgia). The police had set up checkpoints along the route, blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination. Nineteen buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back. Meanwhile, the police allowed a bus carrying Orthodox believers to continue to Marneuli. Upon arrival, the group of Orthodox believers burst into the property belonging to


Prompt:
37.  On 27 December 2007 the applicant’s lawyers appealed to the supervisory prosecutor against the investigators’ decisions in respect of the applicant’s complaint of ill‑treatment and requested that the prosecutor recognise as unlawful the following:
“(a) the delays in the verification of


Prompt:
174.  On 30 May 2000, in response to the complaint filed by Meliha Dal, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor decided not to open an investigation. This decision reads:
“The complainant stated in her petition that her brother had disappeared six years ago and that nothing had been heard from him since, that she recognised one of the men shown on a news programme in February about persons apprehended during operations conducted against the terrorist organisation Hizbullah, that this man's name was the same as her brother's, and that she wished to be given the opportunity to watch a video recording [of the news broadcast] so that she could identify her brother.
It has been stated in the Muş Chief Public Prosecutor's decision of non-jurisdiction dated 2 May 2000 that the person detained in the province of Muş – a man called


Prompt: 35.  On the basis of a report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Directorate on 25 October 1991, which stated that Mesut Dündar was seriously, mentally impaired, the trial court held that Mesut Dündar could not be held criminally responsible for his actions. On 17 December 1991 the trial court ordered


Prompt: 10.  On 20 and 24 December 2012 a local newspaper published an article concerning a meeting held on 17 December 2012 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 December 2012) by the President of Ingushetia, Mr


Prompt:
118.  V.S.-dze confirmed that at one point Th.M.-dze had gone over to another table and at another juncture the Minister of the Interior’s wife had sent O.M.-ov to buy her some cigarettes. According to V.S.-dze, O.M.‑ov had returned 15-20 minutes later. V.S.-dze did not smoke. He too said that there had been no incident or altercation between his friends and any other person in the café.
v.  T.S.-aia,


Prompt:
25.  On 26 June 2006 the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Moldova, Valeriu Balaban, wrote a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association, in which he stated, inter alia, the following:
“Lately, the Prosecutor General's Office has been confronted with the phenomenon whereby some Moldovan lawyers involve international organisations specialising in the protection of human rights in the examination by the national authorities of criminal cases. These organisations are used as an instrument for serving personal interests and for avoiding the criminal responsibility of suspected persons.
Examples of such incidents are the case of G., triggered by the lawyer A.U., and the case of


Prompt: 26.  However, Brigadier Moore decided that from 28 July 2003 this policy should be revised. The new policy required that all such incidents should be reported immediately by the soldier involved to the Multinational Division (South-East) by means of a “serious incident report”. There would then be an investigation into the incident by the Company Commander or the soldier’s Commanding Officer. In his evidence to the domestic courts,


Prompt:
9.  The investigating judge granted the request and on the same day issued an order for the use of secret surveillance measures. Its statement of reasons reads as follows:
“On 23 March 2007 the OSCOC lodged a request, no. ..., for secret surveillance measures under Article 180 § 1 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of


Prompt: 12.  The first group of charges relates to the taking of sixteen hostages in Yemen in December 1998, four of whom died during a rescue mission conducted by Yemeni forces. The indictment charges the fourth applicant with conspiracy to take hostages and hostage taking and relates principally to his contact with the leader of the hostage takers,


Prompt: 75.  As with the 2014 order, the Minister of Justice reiterated the regime’s rationale and purpose and provided an overview of information provided by different police bodies, prosecution offices, and


Prompt: 55.  On an unspecified date the court proceedings into the disjoined criminal case against officers V.G. and D.H. on account of insult commenced at the Syunik Regional Court of Armenia, sitting in Stepanakert (Nagorno Karabakh). It appears that officer V.G. pleaded guilty and admitted that he had sworn at and pushed


Prompt:
32.  The Court of Appeal decided that the unserved term of one year five months and 21 days should be deducted from his final sentence. Applying Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan it granted him a two year probation period to expire on 13 August 2020. Mr Mammadov was released from prison the day of the Court of Appeal’s judgment – 13 August 2018. The Court of Appeal indicated:
“The supervision of the convicted person’s behaviour shall be assigned to the Enforcement and Probation Department of his place of residence. In accordance with Article 70.5 of the Criminal Code, during the probation period


Prompt: 121.  With reference to Ms Z.A.'s written statements of 5 September 2006 appended to the tenth applicant's application to the Court, the Government submitted that it bore the signature of Ms Z.A., and not that of A.A. They also questioned the credibility and veracity of Ms Z.A.'s written statements since they contrasted with the statements given by Ms A.A. as a witness on 16 and 19 April 2004. Ms Z.A. in particular testified that once apprehended,


Prompt: 30.  On 24 November 1994 the Adana Administrative Council, which was presided over by the deputy Governor of Adana and consisted of six civil servants, found that there was insufficient evidence to open an investigation and decided to decline authorisation for the prosecution of


Prompt:
7.  In early 2004 the applicant obtained two articles from the website Chechenpress. The first, which had the headline “Address by Akhmed Zakayev, Vice Prime Minister of the Government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, to the People of Russia”(«Обращение вице-премьера правительства Чеченской Республики Ичкерия Ахмеда Закаева к российскому народу» – “the first article”), was published by him in issue no. 1 (58) of Pravo-Zashchita for March 2004. It read as follows:
“A year ago a peace process that had just begun was interrupted by the tragic events in the Dubrovka [theatre]. There may be long arguments as to who was responsible for that tragedy, but there is no dispute as to who benefited from it.
Today, on behalf of


Prompt: 41.  On 23 July 2002 the first applicant wrote to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. She complained about her son's abduction by armed men in camouflage uniforms and stated that her numerous requests for assistance in the search for


Prompt: 19.  The third photo, which appeared in issue no. 12/04 of 11 March 2004, shows the applicants in a chair lift in Zürs am Arlberg during their skiing holiday. On the same page there is a small photo of


Prompt: 20.  John Weir's statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents. He alleged inter alia that RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure had told him that


Prompt: 1.  The case originated in an application (no. 67506/01) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr


Prompt: 16.  Upon the applicants' appeal against the land commission's decision, on 29 June 1995 the Velingrad District Court set aside the commission's decision and restored the applicants' title on part of the plots of land claimed, including those covering 14 ha in the Okusha area. On the basis of documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, the court found that in the 1940s and at the time of the collectivisation Mrs


Prompt: 22.  The killing of these two persons raised the tension and the demonstrators began advancing towards the police barricades at 2 p.m. Uniformed and plainclothes police officers, who had positioned themselves behind the barricades, on the side streets and on some of the buildings, fired intensively. For about twenty minutes, the police officers chased a number of demonstrators who were trying to run away from the scene and shot them.


Prompt: 15.  The Government submitted that on 23 December 2004 Amirkhan Alikhanov had been abducted from the traffic police checkpoint by unidentified persons, as described by the applicants. However, contrary to the applicants’ submissions, his body had never been found. The conclusions of the forensic expert examination referred to by the applicants concerning the identity of the body found next to Zamay-Yurt had been indecisive, as there had not been enough DNA material on the clothing found at the cemetery. The Government did not submit any information or theories concerning the possible whereabouts of


Prompt: 31.  On 15 October 2006 the British ambassador made representations to the Iraqi President, Jalal Talibani, that he should not sign a death warrant in the event that a death penalty was passed on those involved in the abduction of


Prompt: 18.  The Government in their observations did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 5 August 2002 at about 3 a.m. unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons had entered the applicants’ house and taken


Prompt:
26.  On 18 April 2003 the independent weekly newspaper “Timpul” published an interview with the police colonel “C.B.” who had worked as a Superior Inspector of the Cross-Border Financial Crimes Directorate within the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and who had been in charge of the applicant’s case for a long time and had arrested the applicant on 21 February 2003. He stated inter alia that:
“I declare with full responsibility that the Becciev file has been fabricated, on the orders of the heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for political reasons. The real target of this fabrication is the Mayor


Prompt:
112.  The applicant submitted a transcript of an interview from the RTR TV channel's programme “Zerkalo”, broadcast on 5 February 2000, where Major-General Vladimir Shamanov, the commander of the Western Zone Alignment in Chechnya, said:
“Well, let's give some good news to the Russians. The Western Zone Alignment has been entrusted with participation in a big operation. It's called 'wolf hunt'. The idea of the plan was to create an illusion of an existing exit corridor from Grozny along the route used by


Prompt: 34.  On 12 February 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant of the following. Shamkhan Tumayev had been abducted by around fifteen unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms driving a VAZ-2131 vehicle, a UAZ-469 and an all-terrain UAZ vehicle. The district prosecutor's office had opened an investigation into case no. 38043 and had taken certain investigative measures. In particular, they had examined the crime scene, had compiled a plan of unspecified investigative steps to be taken, had come up with a number of unspecified versions of the abduction and had interviewed the applicants' neighbours and other residents of Valerik. They had also sent requests to various law-enforcement agencies in the Chechen Republic, Ingushetia, Dagestan and the Stavropol Region. However,


Prompt: 10.  On 31 November 2003, the county commission issued two ownership titles, but for other plots of land than those to which the applicant was entitled. The applicant lodged an action seeking to obtain the annulment of the ownership titles and new ownership titles in accordance with the judgment of 19 January 1998, namely on the former placement. During the proceedings, on 6 June 2005, the applicant died and his daughter, Ms


Prompt:
33.  On 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and upheld the Baku Court of Appeal judgment. The proceedings before the Supreme Court were held in the applicant’s absence, but in the presence of his lawyer. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of the applicant was not a ground for quashing the appellate court’s judgment, because the applicant had been represented in those proceedings. The Supreme Court also noted that the applicant’s personal presence was not mandatory and his presence should be secured only if the court considered it necessary. The relevant part of the Supreme Court’s decision read as follows:
“It appears from the legislation that the right to call a person who is represented before the court by a representative, to attend the hearing in person belong to the court which examines the case, only if this court considers it necessary, and the application of this provision is not mandatory ...
... taking into consideration the fact that


Prompt: 56.  The Commission thus accepted that Huri Biçer, for instance, spent the night of 22 October in her brother Şevket's house. Tahir and Bedriye Ekmekçi took shelter in their barn on 22 October and spent the night either in that barn or, as


Prompt: 27.  On 28 July 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (hereinafter also “the republican prosecutor’s office”) forwarded a complaint lodged by the first applicant (the date of the complaint was not indicated) about the abduction of


Prompt: 37.  On 11 October 2004 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr R.F., who stated that at the end of September 2004 he had learnt from the Imam of the Khasanya mosque Mr Kh.M. that


Prompt: 12.  Upon arrival at the MVD secure gate Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. got out of the car and went into the MVD building. Mr A. stayed in the vehicle. Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. were received by Mr G.


Prompt: 7.  On 20 April 1992 a number of villagers from Çalpınar village were travelling in two vehicles. Some time after they left their village the vehicles were stopped by a group of village guards[1]. The village guards then opened fire on the villagers and killed six of them, including the first applicant's brother and the sixth applicant's husband, Mr


Prompt: 52.  On 16 July 2014 a public prosecutor from the office for investigating offences allegedly committed by civil servants (Memur Suçları Soruşturma Bürosu), attached to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, asked the Ankara provincial gendarmerie command to form a task force and to reinvestigate the deaths of


Prompt:
70.  Mr N.M. left his house at approximately 5.30 a.m. on 13 December 2000 to pick up his Turkish Cypriot workers at their designated café by the Pergamos checkpoint. A red double-cabin pickup, which he later learned belonged to the first applicant, was driving approximately seventy metres ahead of him in the same direction. When he saw that part of the road was flooded, N.M. first turned his car around to return home, as he thought the weather would not be suitable for construction work that day, but then changed his mind and resumed his journey to Pergamos. On reaching the junction leading to the ex-Pergamos camp sometime between 5.40 and 5.50 a.m., he noticed the first applicant’s car parked in the right-hand lane of the road, facing slightly to the right. He also saw someone getting out of that car and walking towards the fields on the right. There was no one else in the car, but the engine was running. The driver’s door and both rear passenger doors were open. He also noticed three or four other people approximately twenty metres further down in the fields to the right, but did not see any other cars in the vicinity. He then heard someone yelling “Let me go!” in Greek from the direction of the fields, but was too scared to get out of the car to see what was going on, and drove back home.
(d)  Statement of Mr


Prompt: 6.  Mr Ilia Velikov (“the first applicant”) was born in 1923. He passed away on 27 April 2002. His sons, the second and the third applicants, stated that they maintained the application. Mr Atanas Velikov (“the second applicant”) was born in 1944. Mr


Prompt: 17.  The Constitutional Court considered that, in the context of the meeting held on 25 October 2005, the applicants had exercised their right to freedom of expression. At the same time the second, third and fourth applicants had exercised their right to freedom of association with others. They had done so freely and independently of the will of


Prompt: 84.  The committee thus established that at the trial in the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1996 Mr David Assanidze and Mr Shotadze had “sought to identify” the applicant as one of the organisers of the attack on Mr


Prompt:
31.  In a letter of 6 November 2003 sent to the Court in his own case, G.I., a detainee at Rahova Penitentiary and applicant before the Court in application no. 25867/03, described what happened – to his knowledge – in November 2003 in the Penitentiary, as follows:
“In November 2003 in this penitentiary, the detainee


Prompt: 18.  The non-commissioned officer Resul Askerden told the prosecutor the same day that he had heard the expert sergeant fire two or three rounds into the air. He had then started running downhill after


Prompt: 46.  The testimony of the applicant's mother-in-law mostly corroborated the applicant's statements. Unlike him, she was inside the dwelling during the entire incident. She estimated that there had been around twenty to twenty-five officials and police officers during the incident and noted that they all had entered the dwelling. She also noted that, at one point, police officer N.I. had used force on the applicant by twisting his arms. She further submitted that E.G. had gone inside the dwelling and provoked


Prompt:
5.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Zara Giriyeva, who was born in 1957,
2) Mr Musost Aygumov, who was born in 1982, and
3) Ms Zarema Aygumova, who was born in 1991.
The first applicant lives in Grozny, the second and third applicants live in Avtury, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of


Prompt: 63.  According to the video recording of the interview, the investigator asked L.B.-dze if he wished to be assisted by a lawyer. L.B.-dze said he did not. He then confirmed his previous statements, adding that


Prompt: 17.  The CO then asked the applicant if he admitted the offence described and the applicant pleaded not guilty. The CO asked him to give his evidence and he said that he had been speaking to Captain J when Sergeant H had ordered him to go to bed. The applicant had said to Sergeant H that he was speaking to Captain J, but Sergeant H had then ordered Corporal G to lock him up. The CO asked the applicant if he had any evidence to call and the applicant asked to call Captain J. The latter said that he had been speaking to the applicant in the foyer of the cookhouse and had not heard him swear at


Prompt: 12.  On 14 March 2008 the Department of the Federal Migration Service of the Tyumen Region (the FMS) informed the Tyumen regional prosecutor's office that “... in 2005 the issuance of the Russian passport to


Prompt: 74.  On 11 November 2009 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that on 9 January 2002 she had been visiting her parents when the second applicant had arrived at their house and informed her that


Prompt: 111.  On 8 October 2002 Mr E.B. testified that he did not have any personal animosity towards Lema Khakiyev but had received a number of complaints against the Michurina subdivision of the ROVD, where the latter had worked. Mr E.B. had written the report of 20 June 2002 in reaction to such complaints. That report had been a routine document totally unrelated to


Prompt:
60.  On 31 July 2007 the Dagestan MVD requested the UBOP and the UBE to confirm the following:
“... The investigation conducted by the Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office, Makhachkala, established that on 28 April 2007, following a special operation, Mr


Prompt: 17.  In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following: an account by the second applicant given on 13 April 2005, an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms I. given on 15 April 2005, an account by the first applicant given on 16 April 2005, an account given by the applicants' neighbour Mr N. on 13 September 2005 and a character reference for


Prompt: 44.  On 9 March 1992 V.A. Zhigalev had lodged an application with the Administration of the Bolshesoldatskiy District of the Kursk Region for allocation of a plot of 500 hectares of agricultural land as a life-time inheritable possession (право пожизненного наследуемого владения) for the founding of Luch Farm, together with the following partners in Luch Farm:


Prompt: 61.  As to whether any aspect of the training of, or planning by, any soldier could account for the deaths, the jury found that the soldiers fired, in accordance with their training, at the “central mass” and continued to do so until the threat was neutralised but that, otherwise, there was “insufficient evidence of planning and intelligence available to give further findings”. Other than noting that


Prompt: 55.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr M.K. who stated that in June 2002 he and other residents of Belgatoy had been on their way back to the village from haymaking. On the road they had seen some objects.


Prompt: 47.  On various dates in 2003 the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit, the Argun ROVD, the Sharoy ROVD, the Itum-Kali ROVD, the Naurskiy ROVD, the Kurchloy ROVD, the Shatoy ROVD, the Itum-Kali ROVD and the Zavodskoy ROVD of Grozny informed the investigators that they had no information concerning the arrest or detention of


Prompt: 42.  In their written explanations (“объяснение”) to the ROVD of 29 September 2001, Z.S. and L.D. stated that between 5 and 6 p.m. on 26 August 2001, in broad daylight, a group of ten to twelve armed persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had arrived at the applicant’s house in a light-coloured UAZ vehicle (“таблетка”). Two of the armed men had stayed in the car while others had gone inside the house. They had taken


Prompt:
11.  On the same day another woman, Mrs Thi Thanh Van Vo, was due to have a contraceptive coil removed at the same hospital. When Dr G., who was to remove the coil, called out the name “Mrs Vo” in the waiting-room, it was the applicant who answered.
After a brief interview, the doctor noted that the applicant had difficulty in understanding French. Having consulted the medical file, he sought to remove the coil without examining her beforehand. In so doing, he pierced the amniotic sac causing the loss of a substantial amount of amniotic fluid.
After finding on clinical examination that the uterus was enlarged, the doctor ordered a scan. He then discovered that one had just been performed and realised that there had been a case of mistaken identity. The applicant was immediately admitted to hospital.
Dr G. then attempted to remove the coil from Mrs


Prompt: 19.  On 19 April 2004 the Ankara Assize Court requested that the Forensic Medicine Institute issue a report examining whether a causal link existed between Serpil İmren’s death and the fire at her workplace. In a report dated 4 June 2004 the Forensic Medicine Institute confirmed that


Prompt: 38.  In response to the Court’s request, the Government produced copies of the statements and records of the investigative measures taken involving the applicant and her two sons that were drawn up in 2009 and 2010 by the officers of the Gudermes department. Thus, the applicant was questioned on 12 May and 8 December 2009. Her son M.I. was questioned on 4 February 2009 and 14 January 2010, and her son A.I. was questioned on 14 January 2010. On 3 December 2009 and 25 February 2010 the applicant and her two sons took part in confrontations with three officers of the Gudermes ROVD implicated in the events. Her sons had also identified the rooms and premises of the ROVD where they had been detained. The records, co‑signed by the applicant and her family members, were confined to the events of October 2004 and to a detailed description of


Prompt: 12.  Mr Ebuzeyt Aslan is the first applicant’s elder brother and is the husband of the third applicant, Mrs Türkan Aslan. Mr Halit Aslan is the second applicant’s cousin and is the husband of the fourth applicant, Mrs


Prompt: 62.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr K., who had been the acting military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district since 19 December 2000. He submitted that he had not known anything about the abduction of


Prompt: 32.  In December 2001 and January 2002 the investigators questioned several applicants and their relatives about the circumstances of the abductions. All the witnesses to the abductions stated that the intruders had taken money, documents and valuables from the households. The first applicant in application no. 6371/09 (


Prompt: 44.  On 25 and 28 June 2007 the investigators interviewed two officers from the Groznenskiy Department of the Interior (hereinafter “the ROVD”). They submitted, among other things, that the ROVD was in possession of operative information indicating that in 1994-99


Prompt: 34.  By a letter of 6 October 2009 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant’s husband that they had received the complaint about the abduction of his son. The letter stated that Timur Beksultanov was being searched for on suspicion of having committed a number of serious crimes, in connection with which criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. The authorities were carrying out unspecified measures to examine the submissions concerning


Prompt: 57.  Between 3 and 5 August 2002 the applicants crossed the Russo-Georgian border near the Guirevi checkpoint (Georgia). Some of them were injured and were carrying sub-machine guns and grenades. Having asked the Georgian border guards for help, they apparently handed over their weapons voluntarily. An identity check was carried out. As a result, the names of the individuals claiming to be


Prompt: 68.  The witness had been married to İkram İpek for six months at the relevant time. She stated that her husband had just returned to the hamlet from Ankara where he had spent three months. On the morning of 18 May 1994 her brother-in-law,


Prompt: 37.  On 21 April 1998 the neurological surgeon Ö.R. gave evidence. He stated that he did not agree with the note attached to the back of the scan image that the haematoma was “chronic”, which meant that it had formed very gradually. He added that he did not know who could have attached the note but that he was convinced, having himself operated on


Prompt: 47.  The same day, the applicants gave two petitions to the Beyoğlu Assize Court stating that they wanted to withdraw their complaints “which, in any event, had been made as a result of a misunderstanding”. Also that day, the applicants officially dismissed


Prompt: 204.  Mr Kerdikoshvili had a wound of 6 x 0.1 cm on the right shoulder and two wounds, measuring 0.5 x 1 cm and 0.3 x 0.1 cm, around the left wrist. Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted by a sharp object, dated from 4 October 2002 and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health. Mr


Prompt: 27.  On 1 November 2002 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor's office and instructed it “to consider whether an investigation should be opened into the abduction of


Prompt:
9.  The applicants' appeals against the judgments of the first-instance court were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. The applicants' requests for rectification of these decisions were also rejected by the Court of Cassation.
The details are indicated in the table below:

APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF THE APPLICANT
DATE OF DECISION OF THE FIRST‑INSTANCE COURT
DATE OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION
DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION
36166/02


Prompt: 28.  On 9 January 2003 the DPPO requested a commission of forensic experts from the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the Belgrade Faculty of Medicine to give their opinion on what other causes, apart from a fall from the window, could explain Mr


Prompt: 17.  The applicant's relatives assisted her in the search for Adam Khurayev. They contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the President of the Russian Federation, the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, the Chechen administration, departments of the interior and prosecutors' offices at different levels, asking for help in establishing the whereabouts of


Prompt: 11.  The applicant's first article of 4 January 1996 bore the title “If only I could get a good grip on life again” (Kun saisi vielä joskus elämästä kunnolla kiinni). It contained an interview with Mr


Prompt: 108.  In their observations submitted in December 2004 the Government did not dispute the information concerning the apprehension and investigation into the kidnapping of Islam Utsayev, Movsar Taysumov,


Prompt: 72.  On 4 July 2002 the applicants learned that the night before a group of armed soldiers had rushed into the house of the Malsagov family, their neighbours. The service personnel had asked one of the family members,


Prompt: 40.  On 24 October 2001 the government announced in Parliament that, amongst the measures proposed to the Irish government in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, was the proposal for the United Kingdom and Irish governments to appoint a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake an investigation into allegations of security force collusion in loyalist paramilitary killings, including that of


Prompt: 11.  At about 1.30 a.m. the first applicant woke up and heard someone banging on the door. When she approached the door, a group of about ten armed masked men with flashlights and in camouflage uniforms broke into the house and asked in Russian: “Where is


Prompt:
9.  At 5 p.m. on 31 January 1997 the third applicant, who is a journalist with France Info (a radio station controlled by the applicant company), broadcast the following report:
“According to the weekly magazine Le Point, a former deputy mayor of Paris supervised the deportation of a thousand French and foreign Jews in 1942.


Prompt:
21.  As regards the case instituted against the Kızılay, the court held that it was strictly liable for the incident as it had been established through a witness statement that the test which gave clear results on the presence of the HIV virus could not be carried out due to its high costs and that the health questionnaire system had not been in full practice at the time of the incident (see paragraph 13 above). It thus awarded the applicants 30,000,000,000 Turkish lira (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate running from 17 June 1996, the date of the incident. The court held, in particular:
“...As briefly mentioned above,


Prompt: 32.  According to an information statement issued by the ROVD on an unspecified date in 2009, Mr Rustam Kagirov had participated in illegal armed groups together with another individual, Mr R.B., which was proven by a photograph of those two men together. The document also stated that “according to recent operational information, at present, having joined an illegal armed group led by Mr I.A., he [Mr


Prompt: 56.  On 18 October 1996 the Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court (Diyarbakır Bölge İdare Mahkemesi), sitting as an appeal court, rejected the appeal and upheld the decision not to grant authorisation for the prosecution of members of the security forces. It had not been possible to communicate this decision to


Prompt: 9.  On 3 April 2001 the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda published an article named “The Truth about the Death Match” (original title: “Правда о Матче Смерти”) and was written by O.M., a journalist from that newspaper. In the article she recounted a plan to make a film based on the events surrounding the match of 1942. The article contained an interview with the future director and producer of the film, A.S. and D.K. It also featured a picture of the match poster from 1942 which included the names of all of the footballers who had played in that match. The article mentioned the names of four Dynamo Kyiv players who had been executed (Kuzmenko, Klimenko, Korotkikh and Trusevych), but did not name the applicant’s father. It also stated that A.S. intended to involve


Prompt: 16.  In a judgment of 30 March 2000 the Galaţi County Court, finding that the first five applicants had proved that they were the heirs of Nicolae Lupaş and that the latter had owned a 264/360 share of the estate of


Prompt:
19.  On 1 March 2008 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe issued the following press release:
“I am very concerned about reports of injuries during the security forces’ operation to disperse protesters in Yerevan this morning. If these reports are confirmed, all allegations of excessive force should be properly investigated. It is also vital to prevent any further violence.
I am also alarmed by the reports that the runner-up in the recent presidential elections, former President [


Prompt: 32.  On 15 April 2005 the investigator in charge of the district prosecutor’s office sent requests to prosecutors of regions neighbouring Chechnya as well as to prosecutors of various districts in Chechnya, describing


Prompt: 11.  At that time the father of Magomed-Ali Abayev, Mr V.A., arrived at the checkpoint and went to the other side of the building to meet his son and Anvar Shaipov. About five minutes later he returned and told the first and the second applicants that


Prompt:
28.  On 9 April 2003 the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov-on-Don Region refused their request by an interim decision:
“Having heard the parties and studied the case materials, the court finds that the request is unsubstantiated ... because the period when the injury was received is stated in the medical record and that is the period of military service. The establishment of the origin and nature of existing diseases will not help to find those responsible or [to elucidate] the circumstances. The case file contains the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against


Prompt: 93.  At about 7 a.m. the village came under fire from planes and helicopters. The applicant, her extended family and her neighbours gathered in the basement of her house. According to the applicant, there were three families sheltering, with a total of thirteen children. At about 10 a.m. the applicant's husband went upstairs to get drinking water. There was an explosion nearby and


Prompt: 265.  At around 3 a.m. on 9 July 2001 a large group of masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an APC, two Ural lorries and two UAZ cars at the backyard of the applicants’ house in Chervlennaya. Ten men with torches broke into the Islamovs’ house and searched it. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen ordered everybody to lie face down on the floor. They taped the hands and mouths of


Prompt: 41.  At the parliamentary session of 1 November 2001 Mr Ahmet Nurettin Aydın, a deputy for the province of Siirt, submitted that almost three million people had been forcibly displaced and that their houses had been destroyed. He welcomed however the termination by the authorities of the food embargo imposed on the inhabitants of the region (east and south-east Turkey). He pointed out that the return of the displaced persons to their homes would make an important contribution to the improvement of the Turkish economy. In response to Mr Aydın’s comments,


Prompt:
23.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11 March 2009 to the Regional Court of The Hague and her accompanying application for a provisional measure in the form of an injunction on her removal pending the determination of her appeal were rejected on 8 December 2009 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem. In its relevant part, this ruling reads as follows:
“2.11  It is not in dispute that the appellant does not hold a valid provisional residence visa and that she is not eligible for an exemption from the requirement to hold such a visa under section 17 § 1 of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) or section 3.71 § 2 of the Aliens Decree 2000 (Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000). It is only in dispute whether reason dictates that the defendant should exempt the appellant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa on the basis of section 3.71 § 4 of the Aliens Decree [for reasons of exceptional hardship (onbillijkheid van overwegende aard)]. 2.12  The Regional Court finds that the defendant could reasonably conclude that in the present case there are no special and individual circumstances on the basis of which insistence on compliance with the visa requirement would entail exceptional hardship. ... 2.18  The appellant’s reliance on Article 8 of the Convention fails. There is family life between the appellant and her husband and her minor children, but the defendant’s refusal to exempt her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa does not constitute an interference with the right to respect for family life as the defendant’s decision did not deprive her of a residence permit enabling her to enjoy her family life in the Netherlands. 2.19  It does not appear that there is a positive obligation for the Netherlands State under Article 8 of the Convention to exempt the applicant, contrary to the policy pursued in this area, from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa. It is of importance at the outset that there has been no appearance of any objective obstacle to the enjoyment of family life outside the Netherlands. Taking into account the young age of the appellant’s children, it can also reasonably be expected that they would follow the appellant to Suriname for the duration of the proceedings relating to the provisional residence visa. This is not altered by the fact that both children are Netherlands nationals. The fact that the appellant’s husband is currently being detained gives no cause for finding that ... there is an objective obstacle. 2.20  The appellant has cited the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of


Prompt: 89.  On 19 September 2000 Mr Tsartsidze met Mr Grigolashvili again and suggested that he file a complaint with the police about the events of 7 and 8 August 2000. Mr Grigolashvili refused, allegedly for fear of reprisals by the applicant and his family. Knowing that Mr


Prompt: 38.  The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Adlan Baysarov, born in 1972, and the mother of their two minor children. At the material time Mr Adlan Baysarov, a resident of Grozny and a student at the Economics and Management College, was living in Stariye Atagi as an internally displaced person. The Baysarov family lived with their relatives, including the ninth applicant, who was the wife of Mr


Prompt: 15.  In the wheat fields around the lorry the residents discovered numerous APC tyre tracks, which were clearly visible on the ground. The bodies of the applicant's relatives were gone, including the body of


Prompt: 31.  The court considered that the evidence administered during the criminal investigation had sufficed to conclude that “it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that on 8 August 2010 the defendants had physically abused [the applicant]”. The court based its verdict on the discrepancies found between the applicant’s account of the events and the statement given by S.L. More specifically, S.L. declared that he had heard the applicant screaming outside the police station, whereas the applicant claimed that he had been beaten inside. S.L. also declared that the applicant had told him that he had been handcuffed with his hands behind his back, whereas the applicant stated that he had been handcuffed to a radiator. In addition, the injuries on the applicant’s body may very well have been caused during the street brawl. That fact had been confirmed by the three police officers who had intervened at the scene, namely T.I., G.S. and B.I.M., as well as by the witness, S.L., who had declared in his statement of 8 February 2011 that he had been told when he was inside the bar that a group of people were “beating up my brother and


Prompt: 8.  In November 1995 the applicant was arrested and charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 15 May 1996, while he was in pre-trial detention, a fresh charge of complicity in attempted wilful homicide was brought against him. The applicant was accused of having tried, by means of an instruction issued to third parties, to kill Mr


Prompt: 21.  On 19 June 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan Inter-District Investigations Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (the investigations department) opened an investigation into the abduction of Mr


Prompt:
60.  In Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd (Case C-619/10, judgment of 6 September 2012), the CJEU was called on to give a ruling as to whether, where the judgment given in default of appearance in the Member State of origin was accompanied by the certificate referred to in Annex V to the Brussels I Regulation, the court of the Member State in which enforcement was sought could nevertheless check whether the information in the certificate was consistent with the evidence. The CJEU found as follows:
“32.  Specifically as regards the ground mentioned in Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, it must be held that it aims to ensure that the rights of defence of a defendant in default of appearance delivered in the Member State of origin are observed by a double review ... Under that system, where an appeal is lodged, the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought must refuse or revoke the enforcement of a foreign judgment given in default of appearance if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment whereas it was possible for him to do so. 33.  In that context, it is common ground that whether the defendant was served with the document which instituted the proceedings is a relevant aspect of the overall assessment of a factual nature ..., which must be conducted by the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought in order to ascertain whether that defendant has the time necessary in order to prepare his defence or to take the steps necessary to prevent a decision delivered in default of appearance. 34.  That being the case, it must be observed that the fact that the foreign judgment is accompanied by the certificate cannot limit the scope of the assessment to be made pursuant to the double control, by the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, once it examines the ground for challenge mentioned in Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.
... 36.  Next, ... since the court or authority competent to issue that certificate is not necessarily the same as that which gave the judgment whose enforcement is sought, that information can only have prima facie value. That follows also from the fact that production of the certificate is not obligatory, since in its absence in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation No 44/2001, the court in the Member State in which enforcement is sought which has jurisdiction to issue the declaration of enforceability may accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information, dispense with requesting its production. 37.  Finally, ... it must be stated that, as is clear from the wording of Annex V to the regulation, the information contained in the certificate is limited to ‘[d]ate of service of the document instituting the proceedings where judgment was given in default of appearance’, without mentioning any other information which helps to ascertain whether the defendant was in a position to defend himself such as, in particular, the means of service or the address where service was effected. 38.  It follows that, when examining the ground for challenge set out in Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought has jurisdiction to carry out an independent assessment of all the evidence and thereby ascertain, where necessary, whether that evidence is consistent with the information in the certificate, for the purpose of establishing, first, whether the defendant in default of appearance was served with the document instituting proceedings and, second, if service was effected in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence.
... 43.  In that connection, the Court has already held that it is apparent from recitals 16 to 18 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001 that the system of appeals for which it provides against the recognition or enforcement of a judgment aims to establish a fair balance between, on the one hand, mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Union, and, on the other, respect for the rights of the defence, which means that the defendant should, where necessary, be able to appeal in an adversarial procedure against the declaration of enforceability if he considers one of the grounds for non‑enforcement to be present (see, to that effect, Case C‑420/07


Prompt:
44.  Among the documents submitted by the Government (see below) the 27 September 2003 decision of the Grozny District Prosecutor's Office to adjourn the investigation contained the following description:
“On 8 November 2002 at about 10 a.m. in the forest, about 10 kilometres away from the village of Darbanmakhi, Gudermes district, towards the village of Vinogradnoye, Grozny district, two kilometres to the south from the Darbanmakhi – Vinogradnoye road, five male bodies were discovered with the heads bound with fragments of cloth, the hands tied and firearm wounds. They were later identified by their relatives as having been kidnapped in Chechen-Aul on 23 October 2002:


Prompt: 44.  On 17 December 2003 the prosecution requested the Basmanniy Court to extend the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2004. The prosecution referred to the “note seized from one of the lawyers [of the applicant] containing instructions from


Prompt: 7.  On 27 September 2010 Ilinden’s board of management applied to the Blagoevgrad Regional Court for it to be registered as an association. On 3 February 2012 the Blagoevgrad Regional Court refused the application, and on 23 April 2012 its decision was upheld by the Sofia Court of Appeal. A detailed account of those proceedings may be found in


Prompt: 12.  During their first meeting, which took place in the morning of 26 August 2005, an agreement was reached whereby the first applicant would not allow the airing of the film on his channel in exchange for USD 100,000 (EUR 80,000[1]). Immediately after this meeting, Mr B. complained to


Prompt: 54.  In the meantime, on 20 February 2001 the district prosecutor’s office had opened another criminal investigation (file no. 23034), acting upon a complaint by Mrs A. about the kidnapping of her cousin


Prompt: 34.  In early March 2002 local residents discovered three bodies on pasture land on the outskirts of Argun. The grave was excavated by the military in the presence of a prosecutor; apparently, it had been booby-trapped. One of the bodies had its head missing and was identified through surgical scars by his wife as being that of


Prompt: 21.  On 20 and 21 October 2005 the official newspapers and other mass media published two press releases with the headline “Special Statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. These press releases officially informed the public about the arrest and indictment of a number of well-known current and former State officials and provided a summary of the evidence gathered in respect of their alleged plans for the “forcible capture of power” during the election period, “under the guise of an appeal for democratic changes in the political situation in the country”. The evidence mainly consisted of the testimony of one of the arrested persons concerning secret meetings between them and their sources of financing, as well as large amounts of cash and other valuables found in the homes of some of them. Additionally, some of the arrested persons were suspected of embezzlement of public funds and abuse of authority. Specifically, the press releases mentioned the names of the applicant’s brother


Prompt: 23.  Their witness statements indicate that Mr Nodar Kholod, Mr Tenguiz Dzhikurashvili, Ms Bela Kakhishvili, Ms Lia Mantskava, Ms Khatuna Kerdzevadze, Ms Elene Mamukadze, Ms Nana Pilishvili, Ms Makvala Mamukadze, Ms


Prompt: 13.  Later in the afternoon the second applicant learned from neighbours about Nura Luluyeva's arrest. At about 3 p.m. he went to the market place and then to the Leninskiy VOVD, which had already been notified of the incident. It was also known that, in addition to


Prompt: 69.  On 22 June 2006 the investigators questioned Mrs A.Kh., who stated that at about 1 p.m. on 30 August 2001 she had arrived at the applicant’s house. Abu Khasuyev was ill and had stayed at home that day. According to the witness, she had been changing in one of the rooms when two armed men in camouflage uniforms, one of them masked, walked into the room. When Mrs A.Kh. saw the men she fainted. When she regained consciousness the intruders had already gone, taking


Prompt: 82.  On 2 November 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s brother and the father of Mr Aslan Chankayev, Mr A.Ch., whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by the second applicant. He also added that the abductors had told them that Mr


Prompt:
16.  Below, on the same page, Tønsbergs Blad published another article based on interviews with local politicians:
“Residence requirements are a two-edged sword
TJØME: May-Sylvi Hansen, who is the leader of the Conservatives on Tjøme Municipal Council, thinks that the time is ripe for a new and thorough political debate on the question of residence requirements.


Prompt:
7.  On 29 September 2006 the newspaper published an editorial written by the first applicant entitled “The strategy of the spider” (“A estratégia da aranha”); the editorial addressed the election of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, which had taken place the day before. The article expressed the first applicant’s opinion of the newly elected President, Judge N.N., and on what his election meant for the Portuguese judicial system. The first applicant’s editorial reads as follows:
“The strategy of the spider N.N., the man who will be presiding over the Supreme Court, represents the dark side of our judiciary.
Do you want a symbol, a representative, an exemplar of the wrongs of the Portuguese judicial system? That’s easy: simply mention the name of N.N. and all the wrongs you can think of regarding corporatism, conservatism, atavism, manipulation, games of shadows and influence immediately spring to mind.
The judge – because we are talking about a judge – is a man as intelligent as he is


Prompt: 44.  On the same date an examination was conducted of the knife with a plastic handle seized from Mr Shchiborshch’s flat on 7 July 2006. According to report no. 2814, the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr


Prompt: 40.  On 6 June 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan allowed the appeal and ordered that the case be resumed. The District Court held that the investigator’s decision had been unfounded and violated individual rights and that no proper investigation had been carried out and a number of important circumstances had not been established. In its decision, reasoned in detail, the District Court found, inter alia, that: (a) the investigating authority had failed to determine the lawfulness of taking


Prompt: 6.  On 29 and 30 April 2004 the newspaper Ülkede Özgür Gündem published two interviews with the applicants. The interviews contained the applicants’ statements following meetings with their client, Abdullah Öcalan, in prison. The first interview was included in two articles in the issue of 29 April 2004 entitled “Lawyers convey Abdullah Öcalan’s opinions concerning developments within the KONGRA-GEL[1]” and “The pain of change”. The second interview published on 30 April 2004 was entitled “Abdullah Öcalan is an opportunity for Turkey” and “


Prompt: 41.  The ninth applicant submitted that she was able and ready to identify two officers who had apprehended Mr Adlan Baysarov. One of them had a moustache. She also submitted that on 11 March 2002 Mr G., the head of the administration of


Prompt: 72.  Officers B and Wright as well as Superintendent Battle were interviewed in the course of the investigation. The other officers who attended the scene or had a part to play in the incident made witness statements outlining their roles and responsibilities. The civilian employees of Bedfordshire Police also made witness statements, as did members of the public including the family of


Prompt:
15.  A further article by the second applicant, dated 27 January 1993 and entitled “Aloneftis’s newspaper, casinos and missiles”, stated:
“A Cypriot newspaper, to which the Minister of Defence Mr Aloneftis is transmitting poppycock [σπερμολογίες, literally, spermologies] against the newspaper Alithia, published the following in its edition of 26 January:
‘Recent publications, appearing on a daily basis for the few last weeks in a morning daily newspaper, have prompted a threatening statement from the Turkish Prime Minister


Prompt: 34.  On 18 April 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh upheld the contested decision. In its reasoning, the court reiterated the arguments set out in the investigator’s decision and considered that the investigation had been complete and thorough. In response to the applicant’s arguments, the court expressed the opinion that a handwriting analysis was unnecessary, since the deceased’s family had confirmed the handwriting’s authenticity. Equally, a DNA examination of samples from the gas mask was unnecessary, since


Prompt: 5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1948 respectively. They live in Raduzhnoye, in the Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are the father and aunt of Aslan Mudayev, who was born in 1985, and


Prompt: 42.  The explanatory memorandum contained summaries of studies – additional to that undertaken by the NS in 1991 – that had been commissioned by the government, namely a study on the macro-economic and social effects by