Prompt: 49.  The Commission noted that, according to the post mortem examination report, the applicant's brother, lying in bed, was hit by numerous bullets in his face, by one bullet in his chest and by another bullet in his knee. The Commission found this recorded observation difficult to reconcile with the fact that, according to the sketch map, only four empty cartridges were found in the room where Orhan Önen was shot and with the evidence that not a single bullet had been found in that room. Furthermore, although there was strong evidence suggesting that the applicant's father had been shot and killed outside the house, the sketch map only contained information on what had been found inside the house. Although this was denied by


Prompt: 229.  Senior Detective Jacob Cornelis Peter Schultz, a police officer serving at Flierbosdreef police station, officially seized the body where it lay at 10.02 p.m. and provisionally identified it as


Prompt: 58.  On 7 December 2012 the investigators also questioned the husband of the first applicant, Mr I.Ts., who stated that he had accompanied the first applicant in the search for Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov when the latter had not returned home. Driving around Mayskiy, they had found pieces of broken glass along with a training shoe and a sock. The first applicant had immediately identified them as belonging to Mr


Prompt: 111.  In relation to Commander McDowall, there were three alleged breaches of a duty of care: that he should have set a strategic plan to ensure that suspects were stopped between leaving the premises and reaching the public transport system; that he did not ensure that the unit from SO19 was deployed sooner; and that he had failed to keep himself informed and to ensure that his orders were being followed. In respect of each of these allegations the coroner did not accept that Commander McDowall had owed any duty of care to Mr de Menezes. However, even if a breach of duty could be established, the coroner did not accept that it had led to Mr


Prompt: 87.  He had been informed of Yakup Aktaş's death by Sergeant Major Yavaş, who had telephoned him at home with the news. Yakup Aktaş had fallen ill and been taken to hospital but had died before the doctor could intervene. Upon hearing this news the witness had gone to the provincial gendarmerie headquarters. Meanwhile, he had given instructions for the public prosecutor to be informed. The provincial gendarmerie commander had also been present at the headquarters. When the public prosecutor arrived they went to the hospital. He had seen the body for the first time at the autopsy but there had been nothing that had attracted his attention. He did not think that


Prompt:
15.  On the same date the prosecutor issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s complaints and informed the applicant of it. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“...On 15 January 2001


Prompt:
15.  On 22 November 2005 the applicant was informed by a police officer from l’Haÿ-les-Roses police station that his name was being entered in the Sex Offenders Register on account of his conviction by the Meuse Assize Court, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the above‑mentioned Law of 9 March 2004. The official notification was worded as follows:
“I, the undersigned, Mr


Prompt: 20.  As regards the issue of necessity under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention Mr Justice Oftedal Broch had particular regard to the Court's judgments in Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001‑VI) and Murphy v. Ireland (no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003‑IX), concerning restrictions on political broadcasts relating respectively to animal protection and to the rearing of animals (on television) and to the promotion of religious gatherings (on the radio). Mr Justice


Prompt: 39.  In a letter of 26 October 1998 the applicant’s parents informed the Commission that “in establishment BI 304/199 in Ivano-Frankivsk there [had] been an attempt to execute the unjustly condemned M. Kuznetsov and


Prompt: 61.  By a decision of 30 November 2001 the district prosecutor’s office transferred criminal case no. 19173 to the military prosecutor’s office, finding that the latter authority was competent to pursue the investigation. The decision stated, among other things, that, after having examined the criminal case-file materials, the district prosecutor’s office had established that at about 8.40 p.m. on 23 October 2001 servicemen of the BTT-205 of the SMRB had fired at the VAZ-2109 vehicle with licence plate number “K069MC”. As a result, two people, including


Prompt:
11.  On 13 April 1995 the prosecution opened a new set of criminal proceedings under the then Article 274 § 3 of the Criminal Code concerning another episode of alleged large-scale fraud and Article 316 of the Criminal Code for deliberate failure to repay loans (skolininko nesąžiningumas ir apgaulė). 15.  On 31 August 1995 the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas submitted a civil claim against the applicant in the sum of nearly 3,000,000 LTL. On 30 March 1998 the Turto bankas took over the former creditor’s claim against the applicant. 17.  On 23 October 1996 the Kėdainiai District Court found that the pre-trial examination had been incomplete and returned the case to the prosecution. The court also decided to charge two Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas employees, M.B. and R.L., who were suspected of aiding and abetting the applicant. 18.  On 29 January 1997 a new set of criminal proceedings was opened. The applicant was accused of selling or hiding property that could have been used for the repayment of his loans (Article 316 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 20.  On 11 February 1998 the civil proceedings against the applicant were discontinued, since the civil claim was submitted in the criminal proceedings against him. 23.  On 26 October 1998 new charges on three counts of forgery of official documents (the then Article 207 § 2 of the Criminal Code) were brought against the applicant. 24.  On 7 January 1999 the prosecution approved the bill of indictment. During the pre-trial investigation it was established that the applicant, together with M.B. and R.L., had acted in an organised group and from 1991 to 1993 had embezzled and stolen (iššvaistė ir pasisavino) money from the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas in the sum of LTL 750,181 (approximately 217,254 euros (EUR)). They were also suspected of having forged nine credit and mortgage agreements (kredito sutartis ir turto įkeitimo sutartis), thereby having caused significant damage to the State. The charges against the applicant and the two co-accused amounted to 44 counts of fraud, forgery and unlawfully obtaining the property of another. 25.  On 28 March 2001 the Kėdainiai District Court, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, returned the case for additional pre-trial investigation. On 24 May 2001 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case for trial. 26.  On 29 April 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court convicted the applicant of forgery and unlawfully obtaining the property of another (Articles 207 § 2 and 275 § 3 of the Criminal Code as then in force). The same day the obligation on the applicant not to leave his place of residence was lifted. 27.  On 11 July 2002 the Panevėžys Regional Court heard the case on appeal. The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that it was partial and could not decide the case. As to the merits, it quashed the Kėdainiai District Court’s judgment, returning the case for a fresh examination because of various procedural irregularities. In particular, it was established that the first-instance court had breached its duty to respect the principle of the secrecy of deliberations. 28.  On 26 August 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court adjourned the examination of the case because one of the co-accused, R.L., had fallen ill with cancer. On 23 September 2002 that court held one more hearing. The applicant and the other co-accused, M.B., requested the court to adjourn the proceedings until R.L. had recovered. However, the Kėdainiai District Court dismissed their request, noting that given the serious nature of R.L.’s illness it was not possible to ascertain if and when the latter would be able to take part in the proceedings. The court disjoined the charges against R.L. in order to avoid a delay in the proceedings against the applicant and M.B. 29.  On 28 October 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a supplementary audit examination to be executed and for certain supplementary documents to be obtained. The court noted that the applicant’s requests had been addressed by earlier court rulings and that it was obvious that the applicant was merely attempting to prolong the criminal proceedings. 30.  On 8 January 2003 the Kėdainiai District Court convicted the applicant of forgery of an official document and of unlawfully obtaining the property of another. The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and the confiscation of half of his assets. M.B., the applicant’s co-accused, was also convicted but had her sentence lifted. The court also granted the Turto bankas’ civil claim in the sum of LTL 750,181.17, to be paid by the applicant and M.B. The court noted that the civil claim could be paid out of seized property. 31.  At a hearing of 13 May 2003 at the Panevėžys Regional Court, the applicant alleged that the chamber which was to decide his case was partial. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation as unfounded. The applicant further alleged the partiality of the whole Panevėžys Regional Court and requested that his case be heard by another regional court. The Panevėžys Regional Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal for the questions of partiality to be resolved. 32.  On 4 June 2003 the Court of Appeal found the applicant’s complaint of partiality to be unsubstantiated. The case was returned to the Panevėžys Regional Court for examination. 33.  On 14 October 2003 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the trial court’s judgment of 8 January 2003 and adopted a new decision. The applicant was acquitted of unlawfully obtaining the property of another; the charges of forgery were reclassified, and the proceedings in this respect discontinued on account of the fact that the criminal prosecution had become time-barred. The seizure of the applicant’s property was lifted. The Turto bankas’ civil claim was left unexamined. 35.  On 16 November 2001 the applicant was accused of faulty accounting practices (Article 322 of the Criminal Code as then in force). 39.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, alleging that the courts had erred in fact and law, that the first-instance judge had been biased, and that the court of appeal had failed to respond to his arguments. 40.  On 14 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, no procedural irregularities having been detected. 42.  On 4 July 2002 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order. On 10 September 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. 43.  On 13 September 2005 the Panevėžys Regional Court approved the claim of the Turto bankas in the sum of LTL 3,015,423.17 against the applicant’s personal venture “Nida”. 45.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant, invoking, inter alia, Articles 6.246 and 6.272 of the Civil Code, lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Court claiming redress in the total amount of LTL 6,015,423.17 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which he alleged to have sustained “due to the unlawful actions of the court when that court had been adjudicating the civil case”. In particular, the applicant noted that since 1990 he had been the owner of a personal venture “Nida”. From 1993 to 1996 the authorities brought a number of criminal charges against him. Moreover, a number of civil claims had been lodged against that company. On 30 March 1998 the Turto bankas took over the creditor’s claim. The applicant observed that, by a decision of 13 September 2005, the Panevėžys Regional Court granted the Turto bankas’ claim in the sum of LTL 3 015 423.17. In the applicant’s view, that decision had been unfounded. The applicant further noted that:
“from 1993 to 2003 I had been defending my rights in courts against unlawful claims of [the creditors]. Moreover, for 10 years corrupt law enforcement officials unlawfully continued to criminally prosecute me and attempted to break me down psychologically and morally. ... However, after 10 years, justice had been done and by the judgment of 14 October 2003 I had been acquitted in the criminal case and the unlawful civil claims had been left unexamined. ... Nonetheless, by a decision of 13 September 2005, the judge of the Panevėžys Regional Court openly mocked the above judgment, which had already entered into force, as well as my ten-year struggle to achieve justice in the Lithuanian courts, and by unlawfully granting the [Turto bankas’] creditor’s claim in the sum of LTL 3 015 423.17 performed an act of Judas ...” 46.  The applicant concluded that, in addition to pecuniary damage, the Panevėžys Regional Court’s decision of 13 September 2005 had caused him non-pecuniary damage, given that that decision had humiliated him and caused him psychological suffering. As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed LTL 3 000 000 from the State of Lithuania. 48.  By a decision of 21 June 2006, the Vilnius Regional Court suspended the civil proceedings until the creditors’ claims were resolved in the civil case against the personal venture of the applicant. The court noted, inter alia, that:
“The plaintiff


Prompt:
9.  The magazine's two-page colour photograph showed Mr Erignac's lifeless body lying on the ground, his face turned partly towards the camera. In the right hand corner of the picture, under the headline 'La République assassinée', the following commentary could be read:
“On this Ajaccio pavement, on Friday 6 February at 9.15 p.m.,


Prompt: 97.  The witness knew Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz. Serdar Tanış contacted him by telephone at the end of 2000 to ask him for help as his father had been taken into custody for providing assistance and support to a terrorist organisation.


Prompt: 57.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants' neighbour, Mr V.M., who stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 he had been sleeping at home, at 19 Orekhova Street in Achkhoy-Martan. At about 4 a.m. he had heard some noise and gone outside. He saw a convoy of seven APCs in Orekhova Street; soldiers were jumping out of the vehicles and taking up combat positions. Several minutes later he heard women screaming. When he saw the servicemen going into the Ismailov family house he thought they were looting and called the police. About five minutes later the convoy drove away towards the centre of Achkhoy‑Martan. There, driving along the central street, the vehicles continued in the direction of Katyr-Yurt in Achkhoy-Martan district. After the servicemen left, he found out that they had taken away his neighbours Aslambek and


Prompt:
66.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Zaurbek Vezirov, born in 1954,
(2)  Ms Aminat Vezirova, born in 1957,
(3)  Ms Raisa Bibulatova, born in 1979,
(4)  Ms Eliza Vezirova, born in 1990,
(5)  Ms Elina Vezirova, born in 1990,
(6)  Ms


Prompt: 29.  In 1992, Yusuf Ekinci had been involved in the case of Behçet Cantürk's nephew, Reşit Cantürk, who had been accused of carrying guns without a licence. Yusuf Ekinci had attended the funeral of Behçet Cantürk. Since the latter's funeral, there had been no further contacts between


Prompt: 52.  Between 2002 and 2010 the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application no. 24689/10) lodged a number of complaints and information requests with the authorities as well. For instance, from a copy of the decision of the Kizilyurt Town Court of 5 April 2010 declaring Mr


Prompt: 56.  On 23 September 2003, 19 and 29 January and 18, 20 and 24 June 2005 the investigating authorities also questioned ten other witnesses, who “gave no information relevant for establishing the circumstances of


Prompt:
43.  She enclosed copies of the following documents:
(i)  a decision, in Persian and French, of the Sari Islamic Revolutionary Court dated 31 December 1984 accusing her of being a member of the “organisation of hypocrites” (the organisation of the Mujahidin) and of engaging in activities as part of that organisation, as a result of which she had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 10 January 1983 to 11 September 1984;
(ii)  a decision dated 25 June 1987 of the person responsible for supervising the execution of that court’s judgments certifying that her husband was also a member of that organisation and had served a 22-month prison sentence on that account;
(iii)  an extract from the 29 June 1999 edition of the opposition newspaper Modjahed reporting the martyrdom of her sister


Prompt: 18.  By a letter of 13 August 2008, the applicant was summoned to a hearing on the urgent application for a stay of execution, scheduled for 10 September 2008. The applicant, who attended the hearing on that date, learnt of pleadings by


Prompt: 61.  On 26 April 2006 the Grozny Department of the Federal Security Service informed the district prosecutor’s office that operational and search measures carried out by the Chechen Department of the FSB had not enabled the abductors of


Prompt: 83.  On 12 October 2006 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that her son had been abducted on the night of 12 April 2002 by a group of armed men in camouflage uniform. They had arrived in an APC and a military URAL vehicle, which they had parked in Obyezdnaya Street. The applicant stated that the abductors had taken her son to the vehicles on foot. She also provided a detailed description of the clothing


Prompt:
7.  With a view to a deeper understanding of the background to the present applications, the Court considers it useful to outline the circumstances under which the parliamentary elections of 22 July 2007 took place. Accordingly it will refer to the relevant passages of Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey ([GC], no. 10226/03, §§ 22-26, ECHR 2008), which read as follows:
“22. In early May 2007 the Turkish Parliament decided to hold early parliamentary elections, choosing 22 July 2007 as the date. The decision followed a political crisis resulting from Parliament’s inability to elect a new President of the Republic to follow on from


Prompt: 8.  At the material time the applicant lived with his family in his own house at 148 Klyuchevaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, in the residential quarter referred to by the local residents as Ivanovo. The applicant has two sons and two daughters. The oldest son,


Prompt: 50.  Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government submitted that the investigation into the murder of Ali and Umar Musayev had commenced on 18 October 2000 and had then been suspended and resumed on several occasions, but had so far failed to identify those responsible. According to the Government, the applicants were duly informed about all decisions taken during the investigation. They further submitted that the first applicant had been questioned on 20 October and 12 December 2000, 4 April 2002, 19 and 23 October 2004 and 1 April 2005 and had been granted the status of victim and been declared a civil claimant on 20 October 2000 and 22 August 2002 respectively. The second applicant had been questioned as a witness on 23 October 2000, 5 April, 20 and 23 October 2002 and 12 April 2005. Apart from the first two applicants, the investigating authorities had also questioned at least 18 witnesses, including the applicants' relatives and acquaintances, residents of Gekhi, the head of the local administration and a number of servicemen of law-enforcement agencies who had been working in the Chechen Republic at the material time. The Government referred in particular to the statement of Mr M., an investigator of the


Prompt: 33.  In May 2003 the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office informed the SRJI that the applicant had to appear in person for questioning and that she should submit documents confirming her family ties with the deceased,


Prompt:
30.  On the same day, as well as on 1 and 2 October 1995, L'Unità also published the following extracts from some of the intercepted phone calls.
Conversation on 26 July 1995 with a certain Luca:
Craxi (speaking with Luca): “This Salamone [the Public Prosecutor of Brescia] is another one who wants to make a show of himself, I am going to see whether there are elements to introduce a criminal complaint against him.”
Conversation on 28 July with an unknown woman:
Woman: “I'm in a telephone box in Rome. I saw that friend of yours from the Senate.”
Craxi: “Why has this big friend of mine failed to say one single word?”
Woman: “He leaves the comments to you. He is lost and says that this person had been used by the Milan group as a killer. He says that he knew from Biondi that the one who spoke is in practice a servant of Caselli [a well-known Italian magistrate].”
Craxi: “Ah, yes?”
Woman: “Concerning the story of the brother.”
Conversation on 3 August 1995 with an unidentified friend:
Craxi: “They should go and see. It should be established whether a magistrate can buy a Mercedes at a very favorable price. May he borrow money from a friend in order to pay his gambling debts? So all this is legitimate, it can be done. Let's put it in the law: magistrates may borrow money without paying legal interests.”
Conversation on 14 August 1995 with an unknown man:
man: “Next week I will provide you with all the things you asked me on kronos [a press agency], the most important thing [is] that, at least until one month and a half ago, I do not know if now he has been revoked, Prodi was a counsellor of its biggest company.”
Craxi: “Ah, ah, ah, very well, give me all the data, please.”
man: “Counsellor of its biggest company, one of the five members of the directing body was Prodi, so ...”
Craxi: “Super, then I would like to have the material concerning that other thing ...”
Conversation on 25 August 1995 with Mr


Prompt: 20.  Mr Muhsettin Yöyler, the mayor (muhtar) of the village of Dirimpinar, stated to the public prosecutor that on the night of the incident, he had seen some persons setting fire to the applicant's house but as they had their faces covered, he had not been able to recognise them. He did, however, recognise one of them,


Prompt: 52.  On 13 July 2012 the Šiauliai City District Court rejected I.N.’s civil claim for termination of the applicant’s parental rights (see paragraph 20 above) and partly granted the applicant’s civil claim for a contact order. The court noted that there was no basis for I.N.’s claims that the applicant had harmed the twins or had not taken care of them at all until autumn 2008. On the contrary, the evidence showed that he had been seeking contact with the children. The boy wanted to have contact with the applicant, and the girl would agree to have contact with him if he ceased his dispute with I.N. However, the twins’ contact with the applicant could not be forced. Whilst observing that the child’s best interests were paramount, the first-instance court also relied on the Court’s case-law, noting that in matters of child custody, for example, the reason for considering the “child’s best interests” may be twofold: firstly, to guarantee that the child develops in a sound environment and that a parent cannot take measures that would harm its health and development; secondly, to maintain its ties with its family, except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit, since severing those ties means cutting a child off from its roots (the court referred to


Prompt: 45.  On 29 January 2003 and 25 September 2003 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office informed the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office that the investigation into the disappearance of


Prompt:
31.  On 23 July 2015 the Government submitted their response and attached a document issued by the Office of International Affairs of the US Department of Justice called “supplemental information to Spain on Sentencing Issues in Relation to Andres Lopez Elorza, a/k/a ‘Andres Lopez Flores’ (hereinafter, “the US report”). The report stated the following:
“By way of introduction,


Prompt: 10.  On 15 May 2003 the Bucharest Court of First Instance, in the operative part of its judgment, dismissed as groundless the action introduced by the applicants Florica-Maria Petroiu, Constantin Petroiu,


Prompt: 10.  On 10 September 2009 the Tyumen courts informed the Justice of the Peace that it had been impossible to reach the applicant. On the same day the Justice of the Peace decided to hold a hearing in the applicant’s absence, noting that although the applicant had his registered residence at the address mentioned by the plaintiff, he had not appeared for an interview before


Prompt: 20.  On 25 May 2000 Lieutenant-General Manilov, first deputy to the Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, announced at a press conference that a number of commanders of illegal armed groups had been detained or killed. Listing the names, he said that on 20 May 2000


Prompt:
91.  Specifically referring to the situation of torture in Uzbekistan and returns to torture effected in reliance upon diplomatic assurances from the Uzbek authorities, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated to the 2nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council on 20 September 2006:
“The practice of torture in Uzbekistan is systematic, as indicated in the report of my predecessor


Prompt: 23.  On 26 January 2012 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court granted the request. It found that the first test purchase had been carried out on the basis of operational information that two persons, Ivan and


Prompt: 19.  John Weir’s statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, including the allegation that he had been told by McClure, a former reserve constable in the RUC, that Mitchell’s farmhouse owned by another RUC officer was used as a base from which to carry out loyalist attacks, including the attack on Donnelly’s Bar in Silverbridge. Weir also alleged that


Prompt: 20.  On the same day, the applicants underwent medical examinations at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report issued by the doctors stated that Maşallah Yesilmen had an ecchymosis on her palm and


Prompt: 24.  On 12 February 2004 the district prosecutor’s office sent the first applicant a progress report on the investigation in case no. 40086. According to the report, the investigative authorities had sent requests concerning the fate of


Prompt: 100.  From the documents submitted by the Government and from their observations, it follows that in 2006, within the same set of criminal proceedings, the investigators questioned and granted victim status to other persons whose property had been damaged on 23 October 2002. On 10 January 2006 the Grozny District Prosecutor's Office granted victim status and the status of civil claimant to


Prompt:
20.  The medical experts submitted their report on 19 June 2007, in which they noted:
“... we still consider that the accused’s appearance at the hearing would be a risk factor which could (although it might not) lead to a heart attack, and how that will further develop it is hard to predict, which makes


Prompt:
104.  Ramazan Ayçiçek had been imprisoned by Lice Public Order Criminal Court on 10 June 1994 for aiding and abetting the PKK and he was transferred to Diyarbakır E Type secure prison on 25 July 1994.
(q)  Report dated 22 June 1999 on


Prompt: 92.  Supplementing his earlier statement, Mr Van den Heuvel described what he had seen from the fifth-floor walkway of the high-rise building. He had seen a uniformed police officer running towards the doorway. He had seen a coloured male go to meet the policeman from the doorway. This man had been walking very slowly, at a snail’s pace. The police officer had wanted to grab hold of the man, by his left arm, as it appeared to Mr


Prompt: 90.  Ms Avaliani testified that on 8 August 2000 her friend Ms Margvelashvili had called her, explained the situation and asked her to find Mr Kervalishvili. Ms Avaliani met Mr Kervalishvili and relayed the information. During their conversation Mr


Prompt: 24.  Another complaint together with a civil-party application was lodged on 18 November 1988 and 3 February 1989 by the association “Sons and daughters of France's Jewish deportees”. It was lodged not only against the applicant and


Prompt: 45.  Apart from the applicants, the authorities also questioned the applicants’ relatives and a number of the second applicant’s neighbours. As can be ascertained from the Government’s submissions, two of the neighbours were questioned in September 2003, and the others in April and December 2005. Most of them stated that they had not witnessed


Prompt: 11.  In July 1999 the applicant wrote to the SAB, seeking a review of the decision concerning his clearance. On 8 September 1999 the SAB responded, refusing to change the “findings of the Security Police of the Ministry of the Interior, in accordance with which it is impossible to issue


Prompt: 10.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Cherepovets, an important steel-producing centre approximately 300 kilometres north-east of Moscow. In 1982 her family moved to a flat situated at 1 Zhukov Street, approximately 450 metres from the site of the Severstal steel plant (“the plant”). This flat was provided by the plant to the applicant's husband, Mr


Prompt: 29.  Although the court was unable to establish beyond doubt who had applied the headlock on the applicant’s son, it considered that all the accused had failed in their duty of care for Hubert Mojsiejew by having exposed him to an immediate danger of loss of life. In particular, the employees of the centre had been obliged to carry out constant supervision of the rooms in which intoxicated persons were detained. Under domestic law, patients immobilised by belts should be examined and checked every 15 minutes. If patients stayed calm and there were no other indications for the use of belts, they should be released; it should also be ensured that the patient did not need to use the toilet. However,


Prompt: 14.  According to the police officers, when Alexei Vlasi ran up the stairs, they thought he was the suspect they had been after. They claimed to have been convinced that the victim was the suspect they were looking for and that they only realised their mistake after he had been shot. However, during a confrontation which took place later, police officer B. admitted he had known


Prompt:
19.  Upon returning home the first applicant did not immediately seek medical help; that came at a later stage. The first applicant obtained the following medical statements and submitted them to the Court:
1) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the 3rd Grozny town hospital, dated 8 December 2003. The document stated that, as a result of a splinter wound to the head,


Prompt: 49.  On 28 May 2007 the investigator of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office in charge of the case stated that the investigation had established that on 17 April 2004 Sharip Khaysumov, Ramzan Alaudinov and


Prompt:
35.  On 15 July 2000 the file was forwarded for investigation to the district prosecutor’s office and assigned number 24037. The decision contained the following passage:
“On 7 February 2000 in Gekhi-Chu... servicemen of the federal forces carried out a special operation with the aim of identifying members of illegal armed groups. At that time [the following] residents of the village, brothers Adlan, Aslambek and


Prompt: 65.  In another interlocutory judgment delivered on the same day (not produced), however, it refused to allow an application by some of the civil parties for a formal note to be made in the record that those questions were directly connected with the facts mentioned in the indictment in relation to the applicant's powers. It noted that it was not its task, “if it wished to avoid prejudging the merits of the case and thereby infringing the provisions of Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to rule on any direct relationship that might exist between these facts and those referred to in the indictment with regard to


Prompt:
10.  She was born in the fourteenth administrative district of Paris on 23 March 1965. Her mother requested that the birth be kept secret and completed a form at the Health and Social Security Department abandoning her after signing the following letter:
“I abandon my child


Prompt: 24.  The Prosecutor’s Office appealed. In a judgment given on 12 February 2008, the Bucharest Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor needed to establish and clarify the circumstances in which the victim had died, as there was evidence of a homicide having been committed. To that end, the prosecutor was ordered to produce and assess certain pieces of evidence, namely, to identify and watch all video recordings from the hallways of the penitentiary and from the victim’s cell; to identify and question as a witness V.L. and a certain N.N. (mentioned in the Amnesty International report on


Prompt:
67.  On 24 July 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and the proceedings were resumed. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“... the investigation failed to verify the allegations of


Prompt: 14.  On 5 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court accepted that the applicants, who “were considered owners”, had locus standi. It declared their appeal inadmissible on the ground that the prefect’s decision was not an operative act since it simply confirmed the decision issued by the


Prompt:
24.  The Versailles Court of Appeal also set aside the judgment appealed against in so far as it had admitted the first applicant’s defence of good faith, finding as follows:
“As to the defence of good faith
... The parties agree that the newspaper Libération was pursuing a legitimate aim in informing its readers about a press conference on a subject that had taken on a national dimension on account of its developments; furthermore, [the investigating judges] have never claimed that the article’s author showed any personal animosity towards them.
In addition, it should be observed, first of all, that Article 10 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides, with regard to the freedom to hold opinions and the freedom to impart information, that the exercise of those freedoms may be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties.
In the present case, the relative ‘inexperience’ alleged by the journalist, claiming that reporting on court cases was not her strong point, cannot seriously be argued since she had already dealt with this subject.
The author clearly preferred not to report on the subject in the form of an interview and opted for a compromise solution involving the use of inverted commas, which considerably facilitated her task.
She had a duty to assess the full impact of the most suggestive terms used, such as ‘bias’ and ‘farcical’, and of their visual prominence in the article.
She was not unaware of the fact that the criminal case about which the press conference was held had entered into a phase of acute conflict, involving a particularly serious attack on the investigating judges; in choosing a certain manner of informing her readers, albeit indirectly, about the status of an ongoing judicial investigation of a particularly sensitive nature, the journalist had a duty to take certain precautions and to carry out a particularly serious investigation, since she could not have been unaware of the aim pursued by the civil parties.
In particular, by distorting


Prompt: 21.  Several weeks after their sons had been detained, the first and third applicants wrote to the Prosecutor General, the head of the FSB and the Minister of the Interior. In the letters they recounted the details of their sons’ detention and stated that Mr Sukharev, the deputy mayor of Grozny in charge of the release of illegally detained persons, had unofficially told them that


Prompt: 44.  On 14 March 2005 Mr Khasayn Minkailov’s cousin, Mr A. M., was granted the status of victim in the criminal proceedings and questioned. He submitted that in October 2000 he came from Gudermes to visit his parents in Akhkinchu-Barzoy. On his arrival he had learned that his cousin


Prompt:
52.  Under the special compensation schemes described under paragraphs 16 to 18 above Mr Lindahl received various sums totalling NOK 3,066,739 (approximately EUR 403,000) in compensation (including NOK 200,000 in Immediate Aid from Rogaland County Social Security Office; NOK 315,619 in support from Statoil; NOK 2,351,120 from the Special Compensation Board, which amount included NOK 200,000 in ex gratia compensation for non-pecuniary damage).
(d)  Mr


Prompt: 27.  On 24 December 2004 the investigating authorities questioned Mr Sh., an officer of the Grozny Department of the Interior (ROVD). He submitted that on 11 April 2004 he had been informed that a body with shotgun wounds had been found on the edge of the Grozny – Shatoy road which had been identified by relatives as Mr


Prompt: 9.  O.V. gathered friends of his, who took several cars and started searching the streets for the people who had beaten him up. They found Angel Georgiev’s group, walking home. O.V. and his friend B.G. were among the first to get out of the cars. O.V. went first for


Prompt: 35.  At 2 a.m. on 6 June 2003 about thirty men of Slavic appearance driving four military UAZ vehicles broke into the applicants’ courtyard. They were armed, using portable radios and wearing green camouflage uniforms. They spoke unaccented Russian. Ten masked men entered into the house. They bound the hands of the first, second and eighth applicants and ordered them to lie down on the floor. After searching the house, the intruders beat up Isa and


Prompt: 87.  The investigating judge noted that the evidence in the file showed that the first bullet fired by M.P. had killed Carlo Giuliani. In exiting through the occipital bone in the skull the bullet had lost a fragment of its casing, as shown by the scan performed before the autopsy. This fact, combined with the characteristics of the entry and exit wounds, had led the prosecuting authorities' experts to formulate the theory that the bullet had collided with an object before hitting


Prompt:
121.  On 9 September 2006 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA ordered another forensic molecular-genetic expert examination. The order read, in particular:
“During the period from 6 to 13 March 2002 servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi... aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members of illegal armed groups. During the operation unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted


Prompt:
13.  On 3 November 2004 the Commission dismissed the application (се одбива барањето за пријавување) for the following reasons:
(a)  the application was not submitted by an authorised person. The Commission held that it had been submitted by a certain J.N. (Bishop D.) and not by Mr


Prompt: 11.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 around ten armed men in masks burst into the courtyard at 10 Partizanskaya Street. There were two houses in the courtyard; the armed men entered and examined each of them. They grabbed


Prompt:
50.  In response to the Court’s request, the Government submitted a complete copy of the criminal investigation file no. 66102 (five volumes, over 1,100 pages). The investigation was adjourned on one occasion and reopened. In the latest documents the investigator summarised the findings as follows (the passage quoted below is taken from the decision of 6 September 2010 to extend the term for investigation):
“On 21 October 2009 a special operation aimed at discovering members of illegal armed groups was carried out at 117 Gonchayeva Street. The operation was carried out jointly by servicemen from [five different units of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya, including the external guards regiment], [the Argun Town Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB)] and servicemen of the Urus-Martan ROVD. In the course of the operation unidentified servicemen of the Urus-Martan ROVD detained [the applicant] and [Adnan I.]. At about midnight on 21 October 2009


Prompt:
27.  On 27 May 2011 the registration court again refused to register the applicant association as its intended name contained the term “Bektashi”, which had already been used by another religious entity, namely the “Ehlibeyt Bektashi Religious Group of Macedonia” registered in the court register on 10 September 2010. The court stated that “the existing Act [did] not allow for the registration of a new religious entity under a name that [had] already been recorded in the register for another registered religious entity”. Furthermore, its doctrinal sources were no different from the doctrinal sources of the Islamic Religious Community, which had existed for centuries and which had been registered in the court register on 14 November 2008. As to the doctrinal sources as described by the applicant association, the court stated as follows:
“... [they consist of] the Islamic religion and the teaching of the Holy Koran, which is supplemented and interpreted by the knowledge and practices of prophet Mohamed and Imam Ali, the Holy Ehlibeyt (the prophet’s family) and the Holy Journey of


Prompt: 63.  In July 2003 investigators questioned several officers who, at the material time, were serving in the Leninskiy VOVD, Grozny, on mission from other regions of the Russian Federation. They recalled having opened a search file in respect of


Prompt: 13.  The first applicant was thrown on the ground inside a tent, and he could hear his son and another man screaming in a tent near by. He understood that they were being beaten and tortured. While he was lying on the floor, the soldiers who came into the tent kicked him several times, calling him a “Wahhabi” and a “bandit”. The first applicant said that he was just a construction worker. A while later the soldiers permitted the first applicant to move into a less uncomfortable position and handcuffed his hands in front of him. They told him that he would be permitted to exchange last words with his son, who was a “bandit” and would be shot. The two men were allowed to speak briefly in Russian, in the presence of the soldiers, who threatened to shoot them both if they spoke in Chechen. The first applicant remained blindfolded during the meeting and could only hear his son’s voice; he said he had done nothing wrong and said farewell. Then Mr


Prompt:
17.  On 22 September 2006 the Sisak County Court found both M.G. and the applicant guilty of three counts of murder motivated by personal gain and sentenced each of them to forty years’ imprisonment. The judgment also held that they had taken no less than 960,000 Croatian kuna from the house of the victims. The applicant was convicted solely on the basis of the evidence given by S.Š. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“The first accused M.G. ...
and
The second accused


Prompt:
48.  According to the Prosecutor General's Office, at 2 a.m. on 9 July 2002 unidentified armed persons entered the house at 24 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Martan-Chu, kidnapped Apti Elmurzayev and took him away in an unknown direction.
(b)  Investigation into


Prompt: 40.  On an unspecified date in January 2002 the applicants’ relative Mr A.A. (Isa Aygumov’s uncle) complained to the Shali district military commander and the Shali district military prosecutor about


Prompt: 71.  On 16 January 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office informed the seventh applicant that on 15 December 2002 the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office had opened criminal investigation file no. 56192 into the disappearance of


Prompt: 19.  The applicant and her children were in the village on the evening of 12 May 1994. They heard gun fire throughout the night. On 13 May, at 6 a.m., soldiers arrived in the village and told the villagers to gather around the mosque. The applicant and her children accordingly went to the mosque. The commander then ordered the soldiers to start burning the houses. The applicant’s house was burned down along with others. Subsequently, all men who were under 60 years old were ordered to leave the village together with a soldier. The applicant saw


Prompt: 44.  On 20 July 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.S., an officer of the Gudermes ROVD. Only the last page of his statement was furnished to the Court. According to the information available, the reason for


Prompt: 34.  The Minister further noted, basing herself on a person-specific official report (individueel ambtsbericht) issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the first applicant on 19 September 2005, that in 1999 he had obtained an Afghan passport through Afghanistan’s diplomatic representation in the United Kingdom. Since the United Kingdom had not recognised the Taliban as Afghanistan’s lawful government, the Afghan embassy in the United Kingdom still represented the Government of President


Prompt: 23.  On 5 March 2003 the head of the local administration of Starye Atagi described the circumstances of the Nasukhanov brothers' arrest and the discovery of their dead bodies to the district prosecutor's office. He stated that on 14 February 2002 the servicemen of the United Group Alignment had carried out a special operation to arrest insurgents, that the latter had opened fire and then had been killed and that Movsar and


Prompt: 32.  On 29 April 2004 the Shali District Hospital issued three medical certificates of death in respect of Lechi Shaipov, Sharip Elmurzayev and Isa Khadzhimuradov. According to those certificates, each of the three men was murdered on 9 April 2004.


Prompt:
8.  Specifically, the article read as follows (translated from Azerbaijani):
“[President] Heydar Aliyev’s famous conference in Sumgait was rich in memorable moments. Naturally, in the essence of this richness, it is impossible not to notice the scale of arbitrariness and corruption and how the entire nation is held up to ridicule. But we are not talking about the dismissal ... of [certain government officials] for reasons which remain obscure to many.
We are also not talking about how it was far from logical to accuse of stinginess a businessman named Isgandarov who has spent more than 30,000 dollars on charity in one year, while not a single member of the clan which has misappropriated billions of dollars of the country’s wealth is willing to expend a penny on development of our motherland. What is interesting is that the Head of State accused the people, whom he had turned into an object of reproach, of nepotism ... and monopolisation of the private sector in Sumgait. Aliyev says that he has refused to appoint his relatives to any [official] positions despite [having received] insistent requests in this regard. But what he does not say is that there is no person in this country other than the son Aliyev who simultaneously occupies four “armchairs”. Speaking of seizing control over [well-to-do sectors of economy], today even a baby who is just learning to speak knows which people control such a huge sphere of the Azerbaijani economy as the agricultural sector. Thousands of hectares of fertile land in Azerbaijan have been turned into an experimental zone for “valuable sorts” of grains. For almost ten years the agricultural sector has been plundered as if it were in the private ownership of the certain known person.
During the Soviet period agriculture was the main contributor to the gross domestic product and the main area of the population’s employment. However, in the Aliyev era of independence, the agrarian sector, like all other sectors of the economy, has been monopolised to serve the interests of peri-governmental circles. With the exception of grain and livestock farming, other leading branches of agriculture have slumped. The productivity level of poultry farming has decreased from 143,000 tonnes in 1995 to 35,000 tonnes in 2002. Viticulture can be said to have been completely ruined, while cotton growing is in such an acute state of decline that within the last 10 years its share in the total agricultural product has decreased from 12-13% to 2%. As a result of appropriation of the cotton-processing industry by a group of monopolists, cotton planters are being seriously exploited. At the moment fourteen of the twenty-one cotton-ginning plants existing in the country are controlled by a company named MKT. This company’s share of all the cotton processed in the country last year was 85%. [A description is given of various specific monopolistic policies pursued by this company.]
The development of the grain-growing industry is under the special care of a group [of persons] who have monopolised this sphere. For two years the people in the provinces either cannot sell the grain they have grown under considerable hardship or, in the best-case scenario, are forced to sell it for 350-400 manats per kilogramme. For example, during the last harvest season in such big grain-growing regions as Saatli, Beylagan and Agjabedi, the local executive authorities either prevented the major grain buyers from Baku from entering these regions or forced them to buy grain from specified fields. [This was done] for a simple reason – in order to sell, in a timely manner, all the grain from the thousands of hectares of [J.A.’s] ‘experimental’ fields in these regions. It is clear that, as simple peasants do not possess necessary facilities (such as special buildings) for storage of grain, they are forced to sell their crop at low prices.
The land reform is often spoken about. But at the same time several important issues are forgotten. Firstly, as many as half of those who are given a share of land do not possess even the minimum facilities to cultivate it. Secondly, thousands of hectares of fertile land, labelled as ‘state land fund’ during the land reform, are held hostage by the ‘agrarian mafia’, and not a single penny goes to the state budget from its lease.
Nowadays this mafia ... bends over backwards to obtain from the State about 250 million dollars in yearly subsidies for the development of agriculture. But no one is asking


Prompt: 7.  The Court has already examined cases in which other residents of Mesker-Yurt were abducted by federal servicemen in 2002 in the following judgments: Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia, no. 27001/06, 1 October 2009, concerning the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Mr


Prompt: 12.  On 13 August 2001 the applicants applied to the administrative authorities for restitution of Apartment 215 under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. By a letter of 12 April 2006 the Town Council informed


Prompt: 36.  It was suspected that a group of at least twelve individuals had unlawfully entered houses nos. 61, 67 and 69, and that they had damaged these houses, as well as house no. 69. It was also suspected that while at his house the attackers had tried to hit applicant Mr Ján Koky with baseball bats and that while making their escape from the scene of crime, they had assaulted applicants Mr


Prompt:
9.  On 4 January 2000 a Member of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) distributed a public announcement, stating that the texts published in “Lithuanian calendar 2000” insulted persons of Polish, Russian and Jewish origin. The relevant parts of “Lithuanian calendar” read as follows:
[First page of the calendar]: “Lietuva – the land of the Lithuanians, as each footprint here bears traces of our Nation's blood”
15 February: “In 1998, on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the restoration of the independence of Lithuania, a Pole insidiously killed nine Lithuanians living in Širvintų district's Draučių village – all the inhabitants of the village were shot. (...) The Nation was informed about the tragedy after thirty six hours – during this time Lithuanian [high society] were celebrating and enjoying themselves, hugged the Polish president, put flowers [on the monuments] to Pilsudski's army, drank and danced their ghastly dance on the freshly spilled blood of Lithuanians whose whole village had been murdered.”
17 March: “The new Lithuanian government (...) puts on trial the Lithuanian nation for the extermination of the Jews (...) but is not interested in the genocide of the Lithuanians and dances Jewish foxtrots to the music of the


Prompt: 78.  On 9 July 2004 the criminal investigation into the applicant's husband's abduction was closed under Article 24 part 1.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code because no criminal offence had been committed. On 10 July 2004 the Main Military Prosecutor's office communicated this to the applicant and stated that her husband had been detained by military servicemen in accordance with the Federal Laws on the Suppression of Terrorism and on the Federal Security Service. After a check he was handed over by the head of the Shali district bureau of the FSB to the head of the Shali administration, Mr Dakayev[3]. Since


Prompt: 42.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant was informed in a letter from the Government of the Chechen Republic that following her complaint the Chechen Department of the Interior had been instructed to take all measures necessary to establish Mr


Prompt: 41.  On 5 August 2004 the first applicant asked the Malgobek prosecutor’s office to inform her of the progress of the investigation. In reply, on 17 August 2004 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office stated that Mr K. and the servicemen of his unit had been questioned and that there were no grounds to consider them implicated in the kidnapping of Isa and


Prompt: 78.  On 6 February 2007 the investigator questioned S.M., who submitted that from 10 July 2000 to 18 March 2004 he had served as the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD. He did not know either Mr Ali Khadayev or the second applicant. He had never received any written statements on the matter, nor had he made an order to obtain one. He had no information about Mr


Prompt: 95.  According to the Government, on 23 October 2002 the investigators questioned a son of M.Zh., who stated that on that night his father had been taken away by unknown armed men, who had first checked their documents. M.Zh.'s wife gave similar statements on 23 October 2002. They also specified that they saw Ural trucks and UAZ cars in the street. The same men had taken the family's VAZ-2107 car and an audio player. On 17 September 2003 M.Zh.'s wife was granted victim status. On an unspecified date M.Zh. was also questioned and granted victim status. He stated that on that date a group of about 30 armed men had entered their courtyard, checked their documents and ordered them to lie on the ground in the courtyard. Then he had been blindfolded and placed in a car, together with some other fellow villagers, including his neighbour


Prompt: 16.  The applicant refused to participate in the privatisation of Flat 1 in favour of one of her two grandsons, Mr A.A. Stetsenko. On 23 March 2006 title to the flat was transferred, by way of privatisation, to him. On 30 June 2009 he signed an agreement gifting Flat 1 to his father, the applicant’s son, Mr


Prompt: 73.  In summer 2001 ten medical records of the wounded on 29 October 1999 were sent from the Urus-Martan hospital for forensic reports. The reports concluded that the injuries –shrapnel wounds, traumatic amputations of limbs, concussion, head traumas – could have been received in the circumstances described by the victims, i.e. during an air strike. Two of the wounded died later and their relatives were granted victim status in the proceedings. One was


Prompt: 5.  The applicants, Mr Slobodan Rakić (“the first applicant”), Mr Živorad Ivković (“the second applicant”), Mr Damjan Šapić (“the third applicant”), Mr Dragan Jevtić (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Darko Glišović (“the fifth applicant”), Mr


Prompt: 43.  On 8 August 2005 the investigators questioned Ms P.M. who stated that at the material time she had been working in a kiosk located on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets. However, she had not witnessed the abduction, but from her customers she had learnt that on 14 June 2004 a Chechen man,


Prompt: 10.  On 25 November 2004 the military prosecutor's office terminated the proceedings in the criminal case. The decision stated that the investigation had established that on 26 December 2002 military unit no. 23132 had participated in a special operation against illegal armed groups. At about 8 p.m. an illuminating shell launched by a cannon 2C3 No. 221 from the position of the military unit, due to a technical malfunction, had hit the house at 41 Kirova Street in Belgatoy, Chechnya. The death of


Prompt: 15.  Immediately after the incident the residents of Komsomolskoye made a video recording of the car. The “Niva” vehicle had been blown up, its windows were missing and there were numerous bullet holes in its frame. There were blood traces on the car doors.


Prompt:
12.  On 21 January 2012 the applicants and their relatives complained about the abduction to a number of local law-enforcement agencies, including the Dagestan Public Prosecutor and the investigations department of the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala. In their complaints they stated, amongst other things, the following:
“Today, that is to say 21 January [2012], at about lunch time,


Prompt:
23.  The sixth applicant asked a soldier with Asian features on the hull of the APC where they were going, and he responded that they were going to the military commander's office. The APC drove along and stopped by a house further down the street to detain another person who was not at home. The sixth applicant followed the vehicle to the cemetery at the end of the village and then returned home.
(d) Detention of


Prompt: 23.  Mr Burhaan Abdullahi Elmi claims to have been held in very difficult conditions of detention with adult men of various nationalities. In Warehouse 2 and Block B, of Safi Detention Centre, physical conditions were basic and he often lacked the most basic necessities, including clothing, particularly shoes, which were only replaced every four months. Recreational activity was limited, and the yard was taken over by adult males, making it difficult for a young person like him to play with them. Educational activities were virtually non-existent. There was a lack of information, difficulties communicating with the outside world, and obstacles in obtaining the most basic services. Moreover, the centre was overcrowded and lacked protection from abuse and victimisation. Fights often broke out between men of different origins, nationalities or tribes, and he also referred to an episode where he had been beaten up by a fellow detainee. Noting there was no privacy or security, Mr


Prompt: 15.  Thereafter the commanding officer ordered his group to leave, having stated that they “had been mistaken” and would not “take anyone or anything”. The officer also ordered Ayndi Bersunkayev to stay inside the house for 10 minutes after the servicemen’s departure, having warned that otherwise a sniper would shoot him. Nevertheless, the applicant’s brother-in-law attempted to follow the military, but they threatened him with their firearms. He returned home and found out that the applicant’s son had disappeared.


Prompt: 8.  At approximately 8.10 p.m. a second group of police officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters arrived at the scene of the incident to make a preliminary investigation on behalf of the public prosecutor, who had been notified of the incident by telephone. A sketch was made of the scene of incident and seven sets of photographs were taken. The police noted a 10 x 10 cm stone on the floor approximately 1.80 metres from the blood trail. They considered that the stone might have caused his death by falling on his head from one of the surrounding buildings. They collected the stone and blood samples for the criminal laboratory. In the report drafted by the police the weapon is stated as unidentified. The police left the scene at 9.40 p.m. The officers in charge of the preliminary investigations issued an incident report. It was noted in this report that a hole of 5 cm x 5 cm was found on the upper left side of


Prompt: 46.  On 28 September 2006 the investigator issued a new decision bringing formal criminal charges against the applicant. Under this decision, the applicant was now charged with criminal offences under Articles 206.4, 206.3.1, 28/220.1 (preparation to organise public disorder), 278 (actions aimed at usurping State power) and 313 of the Criminal Code. In addition to the criminal offences with which he had already been charged, the applicant was also accused of organising, together with a number of other persons including his brother


Prompt: 30.  The first applicant submitted that at the end of 2004 Ibragim B., deputy military commander of the district, had brought them 10,500 roubles (RUB) and explained that this was Khasan Yusupov’s salary for three months. In spring 2005 the second applicant received RUB 43,000 at the district military commander’s office, for which she had signed a pay cheque. The servicemen of the military commander’s office told her that it was


Prompt: 8.  In 1998, like many other persons, the applicant and his family were displaced from Ethiopia to Eritrea. In Eritrea, the applicant worked as a reporter and photographer, chiefly for the independent newspaper Keste Debena, whose editor-in-chief at the time was Mr


Prompt: 15.  On an appeal by the applicant company, Dr Gubler and Mr Orban, the Paris Court of Appeal gave judgment on 27 May 1997. It cleared Mr Orban on the ground that the production and sale of Le Grand Secret did not constitute a separate tort from the one attributable to the applicant company. It also declared inadmissible the action brought by the Mitterrand family in so far as it concerned the protection of President Mitterrand's private life, pointing out in that connection that “the possibility for anyone to prohibit any form of disclosure about [their private life] is only open to the living”. As to the alleged invasion of the privacy of the


Prompt: 122.  On 10 August 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who confirmed the account of the events described above, and who also stated that an acquaintance of hers had seen footage of Mr


Prompt: 140.  The next day, the second applicant, together with other relatives, went to a military unit stationed in the village of Dachu‑Barzoy. One of the officers, who introduced himself as Valeriy, informed them that Mr


Prompt: 54.  Having been unable to hear the applicants extradited to Russia (see paragraph 49 above), the Court has used the surnames provided by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili for four of them. The name of Mr


Prompt: 15.  In support of her statements, the applicant submitted her own statement dated 22 February 2010; a statement by Ms G.P. dated 29 January 2004; a statement by Mr S.Kh. dated 1 March 2010; a statement by Ms Z.T. dated 1 February 2004, a copy of the witness statement by the applicant’s mother


Prompt: 104.  He knew Serdar Tanış, who had already been to the gendarmerie station in the past. The witness was on duty on 25 January 2001. Serdar Tanış arrived with Ebubekir Deniz. They appeared relatively calm and he spoke with them briefly. They told him that they had come to see the commanding officer


Prompt: 57.  On the same date the investigators questioned Ms R.G., who stated that at about 10 a.m. on 2 April 2003 she had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms; the men had been of Slavic appearance and had been in APCs. They cordoned off her street along the perimeter of the former medical storehouse. Then she had seen the men beating and forcing her neighbour


Prompt: 33.  On 28 December 1994 the State Security Court tried the case in the absence of the defendants as well as of the applicant and her sister. The prosecution submitted that the applicant and her sister had only heard their father state the names of the accused but that there was no other evidence supporting their account. The prosecution argued that, in these circumstances, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. By judgment of 28 December 1994 the State Security Court unanimously acquitted Ali and


Prompt: 16.  In August 1998 and January 1999, Meryem Çelik, Zübeyda Uysal, Misrihan Sevli, Emine Çelik, Fatma Şengül, Besna Sevli, Hanife İzci, Hamayil İnan, Kimet Şengül and Hazima Çelik made statements before the Şemdinli public prosecutor, through interpreters, as they did not speak Turkish. They all maintained that, following the security forces’ arrival at the hamlet, they had been forced to gather in the main square, whereupon the men of the village had been beaten. They stated that they did not know the reason why the security forces had come to the hamlet. They alleged that the security forces had illegally confiscated their belongings, such as money and jewellery, and had destroyed their houses. They further contended that a gendarmerie officer named Fatih had killed Kerem İnan and that seven men had been taken away by soldiers.


Prompt: 26.  Chief Sergeant P., who had been on board the helicopter, was questioned on 29 May 1998. He explained that he had seen Mr G.'s head pass about 20 centimetres from the helicopter's left rear tyre and then Mr


Prompt: 12.  The applicants challenged the decisions of the Estonian social security authorities to suspend the payment of the Estonian old-age pension (in the case of Mr V. Gladõšev – invalidity pension). Arguing that they had been discriminated against and that their property rights had been violated, they lodged complaints with the competent administrative courts against the individual decisions of the Estonian social security authorities. They requested that the courts order the social security authorities to resume payment of the pension. Their complaints were dismissed in separate administrative court proceedings by the administrative courts and courts of appeal. In the case of all of the applicants, with the exception of Mr


Prompt: 13.  The servicemen searched the house and found Ayndi Bersunkayev’s old hunting rifle, which was damaged and unfit for shooting. They seized it without furnishing the applicant’s brother-in-law with any relevant document. Thereafter the officer in command of the group told


Prompt: 113.  The Government produced copies of another twenty accounts given by the applicants' neighbours between December 2003 and May 2004. Sixteen neighbours gave a similar account of the events to that given by Mr S.-A.I., Mr B.G. and Mr A.Ya. Two neighbours questioned on 17 December 2003 added that the intruders had battered


Prompt:
11.  It appears from the evidence before the Court that the programme started late in the evening of 12 June and lasted about four hours. Relevant excerpts from the programme are set out below.
Hulki Cevizoğlu (presenter – “H.C.”): “Good evening ... There is a group that is grabbing public attention because of the black robes [cüppe] worn by its members, the sticks they carry and their habit of chanting [zikir]. How can this group be described – it is called a sect [tarikat], but is it really a community or group? We will be discussing the various characteristics of this group – the Aczmendis – with their leader, Mr


Prompt: 55.  At the hearing of 13 June 2000 the public prosecutor requested the conviction of the accused as charged. The lawyer of some of the accused requested additional time to submit his defence on the merits. In order not to delay the proceedings any longer, the court decided to annul the interim order to remove the bullet from


Prompt: 16.  On 26 March 2012 the iBryansk.ru news portal published an article on its website about a meeting between Mr Timoshkov and representatives of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Bryansk prosecutor, the head of the Bryansk Administration and


Prompt: 151.  On 20 May 2003 Şuayip Tanış asked the President of the Siirt Assize Court to review that decision and again alleged that death threats had been made. His application was dismissed on 19 January 2004 on the ground that there was no evidence in the file to show that the accused had threatened


Prompt: 12.  On 9 January 1996 Pohjalainen published a second article by the applicant entitled: “A position of responsibility never goes with alcohol” (Vastuullinen työ ja alkoholi eivät koskaan sovi yhteen). It contained interviews with the Chief Physician of the Helsinki University Hospital and a Chief Controller of Finnair and discussed the need for surgeons and pilots to be sober and also otherwise in an appropriate condition in order to perform their tasks. The article made no reference to the previous article, nor did it mention Mr or Mrs


Prompt: 9.  According to the applicant, Cell 243 was constantly overcrowded. It was designed for two inmates but actually housed four persons. He referred to the Court’s findings in respect of the same cell in the case of


Prompt: 91.  On an unspecified date the investigators charged Mr M.Sh. with inflicting bodily harm of moderate severity on the first applicant as a result of the stabbing at what they termed the concert hall on 14 November 2004. During the trial the actions of Mr M.Sh. were redefined by the court as inflicting minor bodily harm, which fell within the scope of private prosecution. The applicant, Mr


Prompt: 10.  On 21 March 1995 the applicants were examined by a medical expert from the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department, who reported that there were no signs of injury on the applicants’ bodies. The doctor noted that


Prompt: 22.  Ms Yasemin Aydın, a relative of the applicant’s husband who, as president of the Patriotic Women’s Association, was politically active on behalf of Kurdish women, was also detained and was tortured during her detention. This torture included hanging, beatings, electric shocks, insults and threats of rape. During her detention she was asked questions about the activities of


Prompt:
11.  The supporters signed a declaration. The declarations were then collected and handed over in large numbers to parliaments, administrative bodies and courts. The content of the largely identical declarations was as follows:
“Self declaration (Selbsterklärung)
“I also am a follower of the PKK” (“Auch ich bin ein PKK'ler”)
As the Kurdish people has been denied its basic right to life, it has had no choice but to take up arms. After twenty years of war, our national leader,


Prompt: 26.  Decisions under the above provisions were subject to judicial review (section 79). In its almost constant case‑law under section 76(2) between 2000 and 2010, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the courts did not have jurisdiction to review the manner in which the authorities had exercised their discretionary power to assess the need for such measures, and could verify only whether the prerequisites under section 76(2) – conviction and lack of rehabilitation – were in place (реш. № 7074 от 22 ноември 2000 г. по адм. д. № 1067/2000 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш. № 4244 от 29 юни 2000 г. по адм. д. № 2634/2000 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш. № 4987 от 20 юли 2000 г. по адм. д. № 2922/2000 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш. № 7727 от 17 октомври 2001 г. по адм. д. № 1760/2001 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 5030 от 29 юни 2001 г. по адм. д. № 3512/2001 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 7172 от 28 септември 2001 г. по адм. д. № 7968/2000 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш. № 9375 от 7 декември 2001 г. по адм. д. № 6604/2001 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 9663 от 31 октомври 2002 г. по адм. д. № 4315/2002 г., ВАС, петчленен състав; реш. № 10819 от 2 декември 2002 г. по адм. д. № 6100/2002 г., ВАС V о.; реш. № 4086 от 24 април 2003 г. по адм. д. № 1587/2003 г., ВАС, петчленен състав; реш. № 8729 от 2 октомври 2003 г. по адм. д. № 4354/2003 г., ВАС, петчленен състав; реш. № 6360 от 6 юли 2004 г. по адм. д. № 10646/2003 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 3167 от 11 април 2005 г. по адм. д. № 8361/2004 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 9883 от 11 ноември 2005 г. по адм. д. № 3562/2005 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 1203 от 1 февруари 2006 г. по адм. д. № 7226/2005 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 7840 от 12 юли 2006 г. по адм. д. № 1722/2006 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 5721 от 6 юни 2007 г. по адм. д. № 2389/2007 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 11504 от 21 ноември 2007 г. по адм. д. № 8005/2007 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 435 от 14 януари 2008 г. по адм. д. № 9455/2007 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 11568 от 3 ноември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 8430/2008 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 7099 от 1 юни 2009 г. по адм. д. № 14157/2008 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 15106 от 10 декември 2009 г. по адм. д. № 7052/2009 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 16059 от 28 декември 2009 г. по адм. д. № 7840/2009 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 16147 от 29 декември 2009 г. по адм. д. № 7284/2009 г., ВАС, V о.; реш. № 5535 от 28 април 2010 г. по адм. д. № 16321/2009 г., ВАС, VІІ о.; реш. № 8688 от 25 юни 2010 г. по адм. д. № 939/2010 г., ВАС, VІІ о.). In two judgments in 2000 and 2001 the Supreme Administrative held that, while having discretion in the matter, the authorities could not just rely on the fact of the conviction, but had to in addition give specific reasons for their decision to prohibit the persons concerned from leaving the country (реш. № 4488 от 7 юли 2000 г. по адм. д. № 2613/2000 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш. № 8727 от 20 ноември 2001 г. по адм. д. № 6533/2001 г., ВАС, петчленен състав). Very recently, in August 2010, in a case in which the majority of the panel examining a case maintained the view that the authorities' discretion to impose such measures was unreviewable, a judge dissented, saying that in view of the requirements of Directive 2004/38/EC (see paragraph 28 below), such measures should be subjected to a strict proportionality assessment, in line with the principles developed by the European Court of Justice. She also expressed the opinion that section 76(2) ran counter to Article 27 of that Directive (реш. № 10449 от 13 август 2010 г. по адм. д. № 1609/2010 г., ВАС, VІІ о., особено мнение на съдия


Prompt: 47.  On 7 March 2000 the Itogi magazine published an article about “filtration points” where individuals whom the federal authorities suspected of being linked to illegal armed groups were taken. It was accompanied by a picture of four men detained in a pit guarded by two armed servicemen. The applicants identified them as


Prompt:
36.  On the other hand, under Article 253 of the Penal Code, which required only a simple majority, the High Court declared the following two statements, published respectively on the front page and on page 3 of the 8 June 2000 issue (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above), null and void:
“Permanent residence requirements: In the worst–case scenario [H.K.] may be forced to sell her property at Hvasser [an island next to Tjøme]. The same applies to Orkla director


Prompt: 37.  On 24 May 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Ma.Ma. who stated, amongst other things, that on 28 April 2007 he had received a phone call from his cousin Mr S.S., who had told him that he was about to be arrested by police, who were surrounding the building he was in, and that he was in the flat with Mr M.R. and Labaz (


Prompt: 172.  Approximately 15-20 days after Gümüşsuyu had been burned, soldiers arrived on foot with the Orhans. Practically all of the village saw them. The party stopped to rest near the village cemetery. They gave water and cigarettes to the Orhans and to the soldiers. The Orhans were free to move around and were not handcuffed. The witness,


Prompt: 18.  After that, early in the same morning, the sixth applicant and the first applicant's son went to the head of the village administration. He told them that he would go to Urus-Martan and would find out who had taken


Prompt: 164.  On 27 or 28 December 1993 he was interrogated and accused of assisting a certain Rıza Altun to make contact with the PKK, which organisation the latter then joined. The applicant denied the allegation. He was told that


Prompt: 71.  In June 2004 the investigator questioned several witnesses. In particular, the applicants’ neighbour, Ms L. A., stated that on 8 May 2004 at about 11 p.m. servicemen had broken into her house and searched it. They had told her that they were looking for “Ramzan”, but she had replied that nobody with that name lived at her house. Later, she had learnt that the servicemen had abducted Mr


Prompt:
17.  Statement of Garda Pauroic O’Reilly, from UNFICYP:
“... A large crowd of people had gathered at this stage and the crowd was hostile. ... At this stage the crowd of people were making efforts to break through the barrier. The crowd were also throwing stones and other missiles at the UN personnel. They were advised on several occasions not to enter the buffer zone. A number of people then broke through the barrier and stated they wanted to lay a wreath where


Prompt:
82.  The youth had become angry again at 9 p.m., when Ms Boujedaine had terminated the conversation. Ms Boujedaine had then locked up Nancy’s cash register and secured the tray. She had seen him and Nancy leave at around 9.30 p.m., on the scooter on which he had arrived earlier.
(j)  Mr


Prompt: 25.  The Coroner was advised by the Crown Solicitor’s Office that all documentation in relation to Private G was destroyed in August 2009. The Coroner ordered the PSNI to prepare a paginated and indexed bundle of all material held by them in relation to the death of


Prompt: 42.  On 21 July 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the findings of the District Court. It further added that the investigation had been flawed and based on only one premise, that of


Prompt:
22. The petitioners noted that all the Association’s documents bore the flag of Vančo Mihajlov. They continued:
“The Association promotes Vančo’s (meaning Ivan Mihajlov’s) ideology for a change in the national conscience of the Macedonian people in favour of another one, which destroys the Macedonian national texture and leads to the encouragement of and incitement to national hatred and intolerance. The Association rehabilitates and legalises terrorism and fascism as crucial characteristics of the work of Hitler’s collaborator


Prompt: 48.  Abdullah Aşan complained that a truncheon had been inserted in his anus and, in the course of his medical examination, tenderness had been identified on his calf and thigh. However, this point was not clarified by physical and psychological examinations. The finding that he had difficulty in moving his arms and shoulders could have resulted from the “hanging by his arms”, mentioned in the petition. Having regard to the medical findings and the allegations, and in the absence of an adequate examination, it was considered that


Prompt: 29.  On 19 January 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He complained, in particular, that the judgment of the Regional Court, confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice, had breached his right to a fair trial under the Basic Law. He had been unduly incited by the prosecution authorities to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of. Therefore, the evidence obtained by police incitement should have been excluded at his trial (he referred to the European Court of Human Right’s judgment in the case of


Prompt: 13.  As regards Mehmet Kışanak, the doctor observed swellings and erythemas on the upper part of the back, underneath the chin and around the nose and mouth as a result of blows. He further noted an erythema on the applicant's right leg. The doctor concluded that the injuries rendered


Prompt: 16.  The applicant and her family lived in the hamlet of Beğendik in the Yolçatı village. On the night of 12 May 1994 the applicant was at home with her family. At about 11 p.m. they heard gun fire near their house. It continued until 5 a.m. In the morning of 13 May, the applicant’s brother in-law,


Prompt:
31.  After that a Ural lorry without a registration number arrived at the house. The servicemen told the Abubakarovs that they were taking Lom-Ali for an identity check and that in about three hours he would return home. They put him in the lorry and drove away.
(g)  Apprehension of


Prompt: 8.  At the material time several members of the Elmurzayev family lived at 23 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in Martan-Chu. Their household consisted of three separate buildings with a common courtyard. Musa Elmurzayev's and the first applicant's families each occupied one building.


Prompt: 10.  On the same day the applicant was present at the hearing held in the Yasamal District Court as part of the criminal proceedings instituted against Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. Following the hearing, the Yasamal District Court convicted


Prompt: 9.  The first and second applicants are the mother and father of Said-Magomed (also spelled Said-Magomet) Abazovich Debizov, born in 1967. Both applicants retired and lived at 40 Arsanova Street. The first applicant suffers from epilepsy and diabetes and the second applicant had advanced tuberculosis (he died in April 2004). Their son


Prompt:
18.  On 5 March 1940 the Politburo of the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party considered the proposal and decided as follows:
“I.  Instructs the NKVD USSR as follows:
(1)  the cases of the 14,700 persons remaining in the prisoner-of-war camps (former Polish army officers, government officials, landowners, policemen, intelligence agents, military policemen, settlers and prison guards),
(2)  and the cases of the persons arrested and remaining in prisons in the western districts of Ukraine and Belorussia, numbering 11,000 (members of various counter-revolutionary espionage and sabotage organisations, former landowners, factory owners, former Polish army officers, government officials and fugitives), are to be considered in a special procedure, with the sentence of capital punishment – [execution by] shooting – being imposed.
II.  The cases are to be considered without the detainees being summoned or the charges being disclosed, and without any statements concerning the conclusion of the investigation or the bills of indictment being issued to them, in the following manner:
(a)  the persons remaining in the prisoner-of-war camps: on the basis of information provided by the Directorate of Prisoner-of-War Affairs, NKVD USSR,
(b)  the persons arrested: on the basis of information provided by the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR and the NKVD of the Belorussian SSR.”
The decision was signed by


Prompt: 48.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant's lawyer made another request for a medical examination. This request was repeated on 27 February 2003. By a letter of 6 March 2003, the Head of the Medical Department of CDECJ, Mr


Prompt: 23.  On 25 February 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”) instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and


Prompt:
27.  At the same hearing the court heard the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç. Mr Kılıç had been on duty at the Gendarmerie Command in Kutlubey on the day of the incident. He stated as follows:
“I have been serving at the Kutlubey Gendarmerie Command for one and a half years. Kutlubey is a big village. I know the accused village guards. They are from Kutlubey and they support the State. We perform our duties together. I remember the day [of the incident]. I was keeping guard at night because we were expecting an attack. ... I was with three other soldiers and three village guards. The names of the village guards were


Prompt: 57.  On 8 May 2004 at about 11 p.m. a convoy of vehicles, including two APCs (one of which had the registration number 233), a UAZ “tabletka” minivan, two NIVA cars, four VAZ cars and a GAZEL minivan, arrived in the neighbourhood. Several groups of up to fifteen armed, masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and stormed into the applicants’ and Mr


Prompt:
31.  The first applicant and his representatives were served with the Secretary of State’s “open” material, including a police report which showed that large sums of money had moved through the four bank accounts in his name. SIAC and the special advocate instructed on behalf of the first applicant were in addition presented with “closed” evidence. Assisted by an interpreter, the first applicant gave oral evidence to SIAC and called one witness to testify to his good character. He also filed four medical reports concerning his mental health. SIAC observed in its judgment of 29 October 2003:
“We are acutely aware that the open material relied on against the Applicant is very general and that the case depends in the main upon assertions which are largely unsupported. The central allegation is that he has been involved in fund-raising and distribution of those funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda. It is also said that he has procured false documents and helped facilitate the movement of jihad volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan. He is said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of


Prompt: 77.  The Government submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the perpetrators of the murder of Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva, the proceedings were still in progress. The information gathered by the investigators demonstrated that the applicant’s sisters had been killed by unidentified persons and that “it cannot be seen from the case file that Shema and


Prompt: 27.  In June 2006 the applicant Larisa Barshova submitted to the investigators a handwritten note, allegedly given to her by a man who had been released from prison and who had identified her son, Anzor Barshov, from a photograph. The investigation had not located the man. The note said that


Prompt: 61.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr Z., who had held at the time of the incident the post of military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district. He submitted that on 4 December 2000 he had learnt from the residents of house no. 269 at Ugolnaya Street that unidentified persons had taken


Prompt: 54.  At about 7.30 a.m. on 20 July 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, some of whom were in balaclavas, arrived in VAZ‑21099 and UAZ vehicles at the tenth applicant’s house in Avtury, Chechnya, searched the premises and took Mr


Prompt:
14.  The applicant and his lawyer sought a supervisory review of the conviction. Following a round of unsuccessful complaints, their request was accepted. On 14 August 2009 the Registry of the Orenburg Regional Court sent letters to the applicant and his lawyer informing them that a hearing had been scheduled before the Presidium of the Regional Court on 31 August 2009. The letters indicated that the parties were free to attend the hearing, but that their absence did not preclude the examination of the matter. The Registry also forwarded to the applicant’s correctional colony a copy of a printed statement which was to be signed by him and returned to the court as soon as possible. The statement, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“I,


Prompt: 31.  On 1 September 2006 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal modified that judgment. It found that the final medical expert assessment should take precedence and that there was no direct causal link between A.Y.'s actions and


Prompt: 98.  This Report contained statements made by Doğu Perinçek, the leader of the Workers' Party (İşçi Partisi), who alleged that Tansu Çiller has set up an organisation comprising MİT members, police officers and members of the “Grey Wolves” (Ülkücüler)[3]. This organisation, known to its about 700 members – amongst whom


Prompt: 39.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg about the refusal of the investigative authorities to carry out face-to-face confrontation with Mr


Prompt:
13.  The first photo shows her canoeing with her daughter Charlotte, the second shows her son Andrea with a bunch of flowers in his arms.
The third photo shows her doing her shopping with a bag slung over her shoulder, the fourth with


Prompt:
5.  On 13 November 2001 the Vukovar State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted the applicant in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) of the criminal offence of abuse of position and authority (zlouporaba položaja i ovlasti). On 11 December 2001 a representative of the State Attorney's Office withdrew the charges against the applicant, stating that the facts of the case did not show that the applicant had committed any criminal offence liable to public prosecution. Hence, the Municipal Court dismissed the charges against him on 11 December 2001. The relevant part of this judgment reads as follows:
“In respect of the defendant


Prompt:
7.  On 25 November 2006 he was charged with large-scale drug trafficking committed in conspiracy with other drug dealers. On the same date Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:
“Mr


Prompt: 35.  On 4 February 2004 the military prosecutor's officer of the UGA informed the first applicant that her complaint had not disclosed any information demonstrating the involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of


Prompt: 36.  On 11 June 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative, Mr A.T., who reiterated his previous statement. He added that at some point in 2004 he and the applicants had obtained information that Mr


Prompt: 79.  On 25 November 2009 the Chechnya MVD informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations on 9 January 2002 in Avtury and that they did not have any information as to whether


Prompt: 31.  Between February and May 2010 the investigators also questioned construction workers Mr A.Yu.Zh., Mr A.A.D., Mr A.V.L., Mr B.I.B and Mr A.Yu.A., all of whom confirmed that since the end of 2009 they had been doing repair work on the applicant’s house where Ms


Prompt: 23.  On 27 December 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor's office (the town prosecutor's office) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 12368. The decision stated that, having examined the materials of the inquiry opened following the third applicant's complaint, the town prosecutor's office had established that on 4 December 2000 at about 6.10 a.m. unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms had abducted


Prompt: 11.  The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 May 2005. The courts allowed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the contract whereby the applicant's grandparents had acquired the apartment had been null and void since the sale had not been approved by


Prompt: 17.  On 11 April 2006 An.A., one of Seyran Ayvazyan’s four sisters, was granted victim status in the instituted criminal proceedings. This decision indicated that, as a result of a crime, physical damage, namely death, had been inflicted on


Prompt: 30.  By a letter of 13 March 2002 the Department of the Federal Security Service in the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen Department of the FSB”) informed the first applicant that the Department’s officials had not arrested


Prompt: 21.  On the same day an on-site examination was conducted by the Bismil public prosecutor together with a doctor. According to an onsite body examination, it was established that both legs were severed as a result of the explosion. No other signs of injury were observed on the dismembered body. The doctor decided that it was unnecessary to conduct a full autopsy on the body. Cavit's corpse was then given to Mr


Prompt:
13.  On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a further joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It stated that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013 and they had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty-two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “actions causing a serious breach of public order”; some of them had been convicted of “administrative offences” and sentenced to a few days’ “administrative detention” or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that “lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of these events which were the result of hooliganism”, including information about the large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, highlighting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia, the following:
“Following the carrying out of enquiries, it has been established that on 24 January 2013 the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party,


Prompt: 17.  Thirty-two high-ranking police officers, including eight major-generals, two military commanders and one emergency-relief official, were appointed to the operational headquarters. The Deputy Police Chief of the Moscow Department of the Interior, Police Major-General V. Kozlov, was appointed as head of the operational headquarters; the Chief of the Special‑Purpose Operational Centre of the Moscow Department of the Interior, Police Major-General


Prompt: 19.  Mr Ateş was the chairman of the youth commission of HADEP. On 24 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court found him guilty on two counts of spreading separatist propaganda, in breach of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in two speeches he had given earlier that year. In his speeches the applicant had advocated recognition of the Kurdish identity, and argued that the Kurds in Turkey were being suppressed by those ruling the country. He had also stated that the ceasefire declared by


Prompt: 25.  On 6 March 2002, at around 1.30 p.m., the same servicemen who had detained Mr Amir Pokayev entered the Chagayev family house. They requested all the men to go outside. Then the military took Mr Islam Chagayev’s documents and escorted him into the street. The fourth applicant’s sister attempted to obstruct the detention of Mr


Prompt: 7.  The applicants represent four related families. The first applicant is the mother of Inver Ilayev, who was born in 1982. The second and third applicants are his sisters and the fourth applicant is his brother. The fifth applicant is the mother of


Prompt: 60.  On 23 November 1993 when leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court around midday, Mr Erten was apprehended by gendarmes, who refused to draw up a report on this in the presence of witnesses. An “apprehension and search report” was drafted later, which he alleged was unlawful. He gave all his belongings and documents to a trainee lawyer. The gendarmes took him to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command where he was questioned about his reasons for taking political cases. The applicant replied that as a lawyer it was his duty to do so, and that not all his cases were political. He claimed that he was made to strip naked, abused, insulted, kicked and slapped. His colleagues - MM. Elçi and Çem and


Prompt: 88.  On 11 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr A.Sh., Lema Dikayev's neighbour, who stated that on the night of the abduction at about 2 a.m. he had heard a car engine. He had gone to his gate when an armed masked man in camouflage uniform had appeared in front of him. The man had pointed his machine gun at him and ordered to get inside. According to the witness, at that moment he had seen a group of five to six armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms walk by his house in the direction of Pochtovaya Street. The witness had got scared and gone inside where he stayed until the morning. Early in the morning he had found out from Mrs S.D.,


Prompt: 42.  The Government in their first set of observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that at about 4 a.m. on 22 December 2001 unidentified armed men wearing masks had taken


Prompt: 37.  From the documents disclosed by the Government it can be seen that on 1 August 2005 the applicant complained about the abduction of her husband to the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation and that on an unspecified date in August 2005 her further complaint about his abduction was received by the President of the Chechen Republic. In both applications the applicant submitted that she had previously complained about the kidnapping of


Prompt: 58.  On 8 November 2005 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that they had received for investigation from another prosecutor’s office the criminal case file concerning the discovery of six unidentified male bodies in the forest two kilometres to the east of the village of Zamay-Yurt. The case file contained no information on the identification of the bodies, which had been buried as unidentified. There was no information regarding whether the body of


Prompt: 8.  Sibel Sartık, who was 24, and her cousin Nergiz Özer, who was 15, were living in İzmir and working as a singer and a textile worker respectively. On 17 December 2004 they left their homes in İzmir.


Prompt:
81.  On 5 December 2003 the Prosecutor General sent a letter to the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority in connection with the alleged unlawfulness of the use of Juma Mosque by the applicant’s religious congregation, a matter which was not directly related to the criminal proceedings in the present case. However, among other things, the letter also contained the following statements:
“The Prosecutor General’s Office is conducting a criminal investigation under Articles 220.1, 233 and 315.2 in connection with the mass disorder in the city of Baku on 15 and 16 October 2003 ...
It has been determined that


Prompt: 38.  The applicant was committed to stand trial in the Ajarian High Court, where he denied all guilt. He maintained that this second prosecution was the result of a conspiracy to frame him. He denied ever having had any links with Mr