Datasets:

LLM-PBE

/

echr-name

like 0

Follow

LLM Privacy Benchmark 14

Mehmet Akkum

51. The applicants’ lawyers submitted to the Court a report which was prepared on 7 July 1993 by Dr Peter Vanezis, a forensic expert at the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School in London. The findings of this report were based on a number of photographs of the bodies of

Dumitru CA.

20. By a letter dated 10 July 1997 Major P. forwarded the preliminary investigation file to the Military Prosecutor's Office in Constanţa. The case file contained the following documents: (i) an undated statement by the applicant according to which, after he had left Steluţa's flat in the evening of 4 July 1997, he had met her relatives, who had beaten him up; (ii) the report dated 4 July 1997, 8.15 p.m. drawn up by police officer

Magomed Ye.

56. On 15 December 1999 the applicant gave detailed submissions to an investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office relating the arrest and detention of his brother, as described above. In addition, he submitted that on 3 April 1999 his brother had told him in great detail what had happened on the night of 24 to 25 February 1999 and named other persons who had been detained with him and questioned by the relatives of Magomed K. He also allegedly told him that he had been taken to several detention centres in the Northern Caucasus prior to being admitted to the pre-trial detention centre no. 1 in Nalchik because he had suffered from the beatings and the officials had refused to accept him. The applicant named Mr

Islam Dombayev

47. On 9 March 2005 the head of the Urus-Martan District Office of the Interior (ROVD) replied that he had no information about either the institution of criminal or administrative proceedings against T.,

Magomed Kudayev

58. On 24 April 2004 the investigators granted victim status to Ms Z. Kh., the grandmother of Magomed Kudayev, and questioned her. She stated that the abductors, who had been armed and who had been dressed in camouflage and black uniforms, had arrived at the house in two UAZ vehicles, one of which had been a minivan. They had spoken unaccented Chechen and Russian. The abductors had said that they had been looking for Zelimkhan. When Magomed had told them that was him, they had not asked for identity documents and had simply taken him outside. The first and second applicants had asked the abductors not to take their relative away. But the men had ignored their pleading and the women had then started throwing rocks at them. In response the abductors had opened fire and had gone away, taking

Nikolayenko

153. It follows from the Government’s submissions that the investigation made several attempts to establish Mr Nikolenko’s whereabouts. However, in all queries the investigating authorities wrongly referred to him as Mr

Aynur Çelikbilek

14. At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned

Abdul-Yazit Askhabov

106. Between September 2009 and September 2010 the investigators asked various district investigations departments, the various police departments in Chechnya, detention centres and hospitals in the North Caucasus and the nearby regions of southern Russia whether they had discovered or stored the body of

Yakup Aktaş

109. Ercüment Erbil, a private in the gendarmerie, stated that he had been on guard duty for some of the time that Yakup Aktaş had been detained. While on duty, he would open the doors of the cells when detainees were served meals or water, when they needed to go to the lavatory or when they were sent to the interrogation centre. He had taken

Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu

20. The applicant was arrested at around noon on 27 September 2008. The relevant part of the official record of the applicant’s arrest (cinayət törətmiş şəxsin tutulması barədə protokol) of 27 September 2008 reads as follows: “... At around noon on 27 September 2008,

Kazbek Akiyev

9. The first applicant is the mother of Khalid Khatsiyev, born in 1969, and of the third and fourth applicants. The second applicant is the mother of Kazbek Akiyev, born in 1970, and of the fifth and sixth applicants. The seventh applicant was married to

Talat Türkoğlu

44. On 30 May 1996 the Edirne Security Directorate informed the Edirne public prosecutor that Talat Türkoğlu had been arrested in 1980 in Ankara for membership of the prohibited TKP/B party (Türkiye Komünist Partisi Birlik). He was released on bail after having been detained for 13 months and 17 days. He was arrested again for the same reasons in Istanbul in 1984. He was released on bail in 1989. Without giving any dates, the letter further states that

the Minister of the Interior

14. The applicant alleged that he had not been able to read the contents of the above documents, including his written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which he had admitted committing the alleged acts, since he did not have his reading glasses. Nor were the contents of those documents read out to him. The documents had allegedly been prepared by the police officers who asked him to sign them, which he did on the understanding that this would result in his immediate release from the police station. The applicant further alleged that the chief of police told him that he would be detained since there were instructions from

Prince Rainier III of Monaco

24. The Federal Court of Justice noted that the impugned advertisement provided a satirical, derisive slant on the applicant’s scuffles outside his “Gut Calenberg” property and on Lamu Island. The media had reported on these events, mentioning the applicant’s name and publishing photographs of him, because there was a particular public interest in information about the incidents on account of the applicant’s relationship with the daughter of

Shcherbakov

38. The appeal decision referred to the applicant's detailed submissions concerning the conditions of his detention. The court reasoned as follows: “It follows from the materials of the case and was established by [this] court that claimant

Khamzat Merzhoyev's

64. On 30 January 2006 the department of military counter-intelligence of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) informed the first applicant that the examination of her complaint had failed to establish

Beslan Baysultanov

45. When re-interviewed on 24 January and 4 February 2008, the second applicant, Sh.D. and I.D. confirmed their earlier statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction of Beslan Baysultanov. In addition, the second applicant submitted that in May 2007 she had been assaulted by several people who had told her to stop searching for

Simon Brown

29. Ms Carson appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal on 17 June 2003 (R (Carson and Reynolds) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797). For similar reasons to the High Court, the Court of Appeal (

Sandro Girgvliani

85. On 10 March 2006 L.B.-dze was questioned again, with no lawyer present, the prosecutor simply explaining that he had the right to be represented, before proceeding with his questions. He was questioned, inter alia, about the contradiction between his statements to the authorities and those he had made on television concerning the moment when they left the café. On television he had stated that he and

Magomed‑Salekh

35. On 29 March 2004 the republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that her complaint about her sons’ abduction had been examined; the investigation in criminal case concerning the abduction of

Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu

9. On 7 August 2002 all the applicants except Mrs Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Mrs Ana-Maria Apetrei and Mrs Paraschiva Vintilescu, together with M.C.V. and E.P., brought court proceedings to have the sale declared null and void. The plaintiffs, as heirs of H.P., considered that the State had no title to that property and invoked the provisions of section 46 § 2 of Law no. 10/2001. The applicants

Yaroslav Belousov

23. The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back and the Government’s submissions in that regard were identical to those in the case of

Jean Mouisel

14. On 31 March 2000 International Prison Watch (IPW) issued the following press release: “No early release for prisoners with serious illnesses On 7 March 2000 the Minister of Justice refused applications for a pardon lodged on behalf of a prisoner suffering from a rapidly progressive disease. 52-year-old

Abdula Edilov’s

55. On 5 May 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the district prosecutor’s office instructed the investigators in case no. 25482 to carry out a crime scene inspection, identify and question the servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoint on the day of the applicant’s son’s abduction, verify information to the effect that Chechen TV and radio channels had disseminated information on

Alikhan Satuyev

111. On 2 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that on the night of 12-13 June 2003 police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD had apprehended him and taken him to the police station, where they had asked him about Mr

Ferhat Tepe

107. The witness, who signed the autopsy report, was at the time the Sivrice Public Prosecutor in Elazığ. Although it was not the usual practice, he had photographs taken of the body for identification purposes following the post-mortem examination. At the beginning of his testimony, the witness stated that he had not taken any steps to see whether the body he had found matched any person reported as missing. After consulting the doctor and having heard the witnesses, he decided that a systematic autopsy was unnecessary as there was nothing suspicious about the incident and that he had come across similar drowning incidents in the past. However, he had not encountered a case where the identity of the victim was unknown and the identity card missing. Later he said that he had instructed both the gendarmes and the police to investigate whether anyone had reported a relative missing. He had the body sent to the morgue of the Elazığ State Hospital as there was no suitable morgue in Sivrice. He was informed later that the body had been buried because of a technical problem in the morgue. However, he did not know when the body had been buried and who had ordered the burial. He did not know anything about

Adam Makharbiyev

41. On 16 July 2003 the first applicant complained to the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (the UGA). She provided a detailed description of her son’s abduction by federal servicemen, his subsequent detention in the military commander’s office and the VOVD and complained that the investigation had failed to examine the evidence proving the authorities’ involvement in her son’s abduction. She stated that on 5 June 2002 her son had been seen in a bus next to Chervlyenaya station in the Shelkovskoy district of Chechnya. According to the woman who had spoken with

Tyron Fenech

51. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the accused’s fair trial rights, in particular because he had not even been cautioned by the police. However, following a request for retrial which was upheld by a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 31 January 2014, no violation was found because the accused, who had given a statement in the absence of a lawyer, had not been forced to reply to the questions put to him by the police, nor was he particularly vulnerable to the extent that he would have required the assistance of a lawyer. The accused was fifty-five years old and therefore mature. While he had never been to prison or been questioned, he had already been found guilty of minor charges and therefore was acquainted with the law. Lastly, his statement had not been the only evidence, as some police officers had been eyewitnesses to his handling of the drugs in issue. The Police vs

Bekman Asadulayev

56. On 25 May 2006 the District Court dismissed the second applicant's claim. The court's reasoning, in its relevant parts, was as follows: “[The court] obtained copies of materials from criminal case file [no. 30012]. From the decision of 4 February 2004 to institute criminal proceedings it transpires that on 14 January 2004 four unidentified men in camouflage uniforms, armed with automatic weapons, arrived at the entrance to the [MVD] building in a dark blue VAZ-21099 vehicle without licence plates and took

Michael Tekin

30. At his first hearing on 8 August 2009, R. stated the following, as regards the prison officers’ intervention: “Michael Tekin arrived in prison yesterday in a state of high nervous tension. In fact the police officers accompanying him described him as very dangerous. On arrival

Shamkhan Tumayev

64. According to an interview record dated 21 June 2007, on that date investigator D. interviewed the fourth applicant as a witness. She confirmed her previous account of the events concerning the abduction of

John Bugeja

7. The applicant was one of the parties to civil proceedings instituted against, inter alia, him (as possessor), concerning the recission of a contract of perpetual emphyteusis of a hotel owing to a failure to effect the relevant payments, namely

Magomed Temurkayev

10. On 18 September 2000 Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev, Kharon Musayev and Khasan Batayev were at Khasan Batayev's home at 44 Vostochnaya Street, Grozny. Two cars, a VAZ-21099 used by

Christer Skoog

7. It appears that six of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “corridor”: Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, and Mr

L. Alaudinova

51. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mrs A.M. who stated that on the night of 8 November 2001 she had been at home. At about 4.30 a.m. she had been woken up by screams coming from outside. The witness had heard her neighbour, Mrs

Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson

31. During the period from February to April 2013, the applicants examined their tapped telephone conversations which were stored by the Special Prosecutor and discovered that among the phone calls were four calls between

Oberschlick

15. The applicants appealed. They submitted that the court had wrongly found that the contested articles had suggested that M.S. had accepted a bribe and that the prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation into the matter. They further argued that the first-instance judgment had breached Articles 54 and 61 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. They averred that the court had failed to take into consideration the standards set in the Court’s case-law. They referred to the judgments given in the cases of Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Prager and

Alan Brecknell

18. In or about January 1999 John Weir, who had been released from prison on licence in 1993, made a statement to a journalist alleging RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment (“UDR”) collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the Portadown area in the mid-1970s. This statement was published in the Sunday Times newspaper in March 1999. It was obtained by the Patrick Finucane Centre, a human rights non-governmental organisation in Derry (hereinafter “the Centre”). A copy was provided by the Centre to

Musa Temergeriyev’s

159. On 3 July and 14 October 2008 the district investigation unit requested a forensic assessment of the ninth applicant’s injuries sustained during her husband’s arrest. On 17 November 2008 a forensic expert concluded that there were no visible injuries to report. (f) Requests for information on

Svetlana Sisojeva

38. On 11 November 2003 the Head of the Directorate sent a letter to each of the applicants explaining the procedure to be followed in order to regularise their stay in Latvia. The relevant passages of the letter sent to the first applicant (

Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev

71. In May 2004 B. (see § 30 above) testified that he had known Yandiyev since their childhood in Grozny. In December 1999 and January 2000 he met him in Grozny on several occasions. At that time Yandiyev was wearing his hair long, had a beard and wore an army camouflage jacket, but he was not armed. At the end of January 2000 the witness left Grozny through a “safe corridor” towards Alkhan-Kala. En route the column was shelled and the witness was wounded in the right arm. In Alkhan-Kala he was admitted to hospital, where he again met

Ramazan Umarov

63. On 9 August 2007 the Dagestan MVD replied to the investigators’ request of 6 July 2007 (see paragraph 57 above) stating that on 28 April 2007 the police, working with the FSB and the Sovietskiy ROVD, had arrested Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. at 41 Salavatova Street, whereas ‘the arrest of

Galina Borisovna [Baskova

8. The article related the versions of the traffic accident by Judge Baskova (as described in her statement of claim), by traffic police officers, by Mr and Ms P. and by eyewitnesses. It concluded as follows: “So far the Zavolzhskiy District Court [of Yaroslavl] has held three hearings... The date of the next hearing is not fixed yet. Mr and Ms P. remember menacing words that

Pashaliysky

6. On the day of the incident a private security guard was called to the office premises where Mr Pashaliysky was later found dead in order to investigate a brawl reportedly happening there. The security guard knocked on the office entrance door and an individual, S.V., opened it. The security guard caught a brief glimpse of Mr

Ali Vadilov

36. On 29 April 2003 the third applicant in application no. 6382/09 complained about the abduction of her brother to the deputy head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, the head of the republican Security Council and a member of the State Duma. In her complaints she averred that her brother was disabled and could not have been involved in unlawful activities. She also stated that, according to some sources,

Abdullah Öcalan

15. The Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that during HADEP's annual general meeting in 1996 a non-HADEP member wearing a mask had taken down the Turkish flag and replaced it with a PKK flag and a poster of the then leader of the PKK,

Mohamad Najibullah

8. The applicant comes from the Afghan province of Baghlan and is a member of the Tajik ethnic group. His family were land-owning farmers. His father was a member of the communist party and was a party representative in Ghuri. After the fall of the communist regime of

Alikhan Shirvanovich Israilov

6. The applicants are: 1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova[1], born in 1953; 2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940; 3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924; 4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva[2], born in 1929; 5) Mr

Rizvan Khadzhialiyev

51. On 11 January 2003 the inter-district prosecutor’s office ordered the forensics bureau of the Chechen Republic to carry out an expert post-mortem examination of the remains identified as those of Ramzan and

Ruslan Kasumov

65. The investigation requested information on Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction from various law enforcement agencies. The branches of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutors’ offices of different districts and towns of the Chechen Republic replied that they had not arrested

Musa Ilyasov

57. On unspecified dates the district prosecutor's office requested the Shali department of the FSB, the ROVD and the military commander of the Shalinskiy District to provide information on whether those bodies had carried out any special operations in Mesker-Yurt, whether they had arrested

Mehmet Emin Ayhan

21. On 25 November 1994 the Ministry of Health wrote to the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting information about the preliminary investigations being conducted into the killings of

Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev

17. At about noon the same day S.T., A.B. and S.M., who were driving from Grozny to Shali, approached the above-mentioned checkpoint. The three men were residents of Shali and personally knew Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev. They also knew that he had a silver-grey Volga and had seen

Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov

24. On 9 December 2009 an investigator took a statement from Adnan I. The latter explained that he had come to Goyty on 21 October 2009 at the applicant’s request; that he had seen a large group of Ministry of the Interior soldiers and the body of a young man with long hair; that his paralysed mother had been taken to the neighbours; that he and the applicant had been taken to the Urus-Martan ROVD for questioning; that they had been released on the same day and had seen their houses in Goyty burned down; that he had been called late at night to return to the Urus-Martan ROVD and that from there he had been brought back to Grozny, to the “oil regiment” headquarters in Mayakovskaya Street. The witness then went on to describe in detail the interior of the building and the office where he had been questioned, and where he had last seen

Salih Kaygusuz

48. The information recorded on the sketch map of the scene of the killings appeared to be incomplete. In contrast to a remark in the post mortem body examination report and the testimony of Dr. Sedat İşçi, the sketch map did not indicate a large blood stain on the spot where the body of Orhan Önen had been found. Furthermore, although both

Talat Türkoğlu

40. On the same day, Zeyneti Türkoğlu gave a statement at the Ayşekadın police station in Edirne. She declared that her son had left her home on 1 April 1996 in order to return to Istanbul and that he had since disappeared. She confirmed that on 15 April 1996 she had filed a petition with the Edirne public prosecutor. The family unsuccessfully searched for her son and she feared for his life. She described

M.I. Melnychenko

25. On 8 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the appeal for the following reasons: “... the information about M.I. Melnychenko’s habitual place of residence for the past five years in Ukraine, referred to in the said documents, is contested by the Central Electoral Commission and the Court. This information is substantially lacking in truth in respect of a candidate for election as a member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and therefore paragraph 2 of the Central Electoral Commission’s Resolution no. 94 of 26 January 2002 complies with the requirements of subsection (2) of section 8 and sections 41 and 47 of the Law on the election of the people’s members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. On the basis of the foregoing, ... the Court Holds: that the complaint of the Socialist Party of Ukraine concerning paragraph 2 of the Central Electoral Commission’s Resolution no. 94 of 26 January 2002 on the refusal to register

Vasilevskiy

6. Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because the sentencing courts did not count the time he had spent in pre-trial detention towards the overall duration of his sentence, in breach of the applicable domestic provisions. In response to Mr

T. Khambulatov

18. On 20 March 2004 the Naurskiy district department of the FSB (“the Naurskiy FSB”) wrote to the head of the Naurskiy OVD informing him of a special operation carried out in respect of Timur Khambulatov by FSB officers with representatives of the Naurskiy OVD and the military servicemen. The letter read as follows: “FSB special unit servicemen arrested

Mehmet Gündoğan

68. The Trabzon Assize Court further held 21 hearings until 3 March 2000 and heard testimonies from six more witnesses, mainly journalists who had reported the incidents. The defendant police officers

Mehmet Akkum

70. On 14 May 1993 Mr Turan took another decision declining jurisdiction and sent the file to the Kayseri State Security Court. The offence in question was referred to in this decision as “the killing of

Stelios Kalli Panayi

20. The Government produced a number of documents, including: (a) a map and some photographs of the area where the incident had taken place; (b) a list of the “incidents that took place at the Greek-Cypriot Guard Post”, giving details of 69 episodes, including firing into the air, provocation by throwing stones and use of abusive language; (c) several articles published by Turkish and/or Turkish-Cypriot newspapers concerning the circumstances of the killing of

Sandro Girgvliani’s

50. According to the criminal case file submitted to the Court, the memo in question was a classified internal document sent by D.A.-aia to the Minister of the Interior. It revealed, inter alia, that D.A.-aia was the person responsible in the Ministry of the Interior for elucidating the important aspects of the case. In the first part of the note D.A.-aia reported the same facts to the Minister as those described by L.B.-dze in his statements concerning the kidnapping and the assault that caused

İdris Tanış

140. On 27 January 2001 statements were taken from Eyüp and İdris Tanış at the Silopi Security Directorate. Eyüp Tanış described the men who had attempted to force him and Serdar Tanış to get into their car.

Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev

55. On 20 July 2003 the head of the Avtury municipal administration informed the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”) about the abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr

Ismayilov Novruz Binnat oglu

22. On 23 December 2004 the judge at the Khatai District Court, relying on the prosecutor’s request, extended the length of the applicant’s remand in custody by a period of two months, until 28 February 2005. The court decision, which is almost identical in wording to the prosecutor’s request, reasoned the necessity for the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows: “The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained, certain witnesses, depending on the conclusions of the audit, must be questioned, confrontations must be conducted, if necessary, accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out, relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused,

S.-E. Sambiyev

43. On 9 October 2003 the investigators granted Mr V.M. victim status in the criminal case and questioned him. He stated that from May 2003 he had worked as an officer (an intelligence agent) in the Security Service of the Chechen President. On 13 August 2003 he and

Seyran Ayvazyan

44. On the other hand, a number of factors suggested that the proceedings instituted had also been based on the fact that he had been killed, and an investigation had been carried out in that connection. Thus, the descriptive part of the wording of the decision to institute proceedings had mentioned the fact that

John Constantinides

23. The hearing, which had been set down for 1 April 2011, was postponed until 18 November 2011 at the applicant’s request. In a judgment of 5 April 2012 (finalised on 7 May 2012 and certified as authentic on 4 July 2012) the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law. In response to the ground of appeal alleging a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d), it held: “... However, these requests [by the defendants], as formulated, were wholly vague and the court ... was not obliged to reply to them in detail. Nevertheless, the court rejected the requests in the following terms, on sufficient and substantiated grounds: ‘The defendants’ request to call the graphologist [M.M.K.] and the witness [D.P.] cannot be accepted as it is not deemed necessary in view of the evidence gathered so far. The graphologist [M.M.K.] has produced a detailed analytical report, which has been read out in court ... The defendants who are asking for the above-mentioned witnesses to be called to testify in court have, moreover, not stated the reason for their request ...’ Accordingly, the ground of appeal submitted to that end by

Peter Aurelius Bruck

10. On 28 May 1999 the applicant company published another article headlined “Techno-Z: Scandal concerning media professor - bank disclosed trick- ... The business dealings of Mr Bruck.” (Techno-Z: Skandal um „Medienprofessor” – Bank deckte Trick auf – [...] – Die Geschäfte des Herrn Bruck). The relevant parts read as follows: (German original) „Die Geschäfte des Herrn Bruck Der Skandal rund um den sogenannten “Medienprofessor”

Sprawiedliwości

18. On 15 December 1999 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Prosecutor complaining about the slow progress of the proceedings. On 20 March 2000 she sent another letter to the Minister of Justice (Minister

Elmas Güzelyurtlu’s

79. On 25 January 2005 “TNRC” Nicosia police headquarters were informed by the Turkish Ministry of Internal Affairs that a Red Notice had been published by Interpol in relation to the first four suspects. The above-mentioned Ministry requested confirmation of

Artur Bersunkayev

43. On 23 May 2003 the republican prosecutor’ office, in reply to the applicant’s query, informed her that on 14 February 2002 criminal case no. 25082 instituted in connection with the abduction of her son had been joined with two other criminal cases and given the number 24071. On the same date the criminal proceedings were suspended, as it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators. On 22 May 2003 the criminal proceedings were resumed and at present the investigation and search for

Tagir Shamsudinov

247. The applicants, Ms Khadisht (also spelt Khadishat) Saltuyeva, born in 1955, and Mr Abdul-Khalim Saltuyev, born in 1946, live in Urus‑Martan, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr

Mokhmad Mudayev

49. On 29 September 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to a copy of his witness statement submitted to the Court, the applicant stated that at about 8.15 a.m. on 29 January 2003 a group of fifteen masked men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons had broken into his house. The men had put everyone up against the wall, and then ordered everyone to lie on the floor face down. After that they had demanded everyone's passports and checked them. The men had returned all the documents, expect for the passports of his sons Aslan and

Liviu Rebreanu

7. On 30 June 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration at the junction of Banulescu-Bodoni and Stefan cel Mare streets, not far from the Government building, between 1 and 31 August 2006, to protest against the refusal of the Ministry of Culture to install a monument dedicated to the poet

Trabelsi Nizar

19. Having examined an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on 19 February 2009 upholding the aforementioned order and declared the warrant enforceable. Having noted that the extradition concerned acts (committed outside Belgium) other than those for which the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted in Belgium, the Court of Appeal argued that: “There are no serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was submitted for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing

Khamzat Umarov

6. At the material time Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of federal military forces. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. Military units of the 58th Russian army were stationed in the fields next to Achkhoy-Martan. At the time,

Amirkhan Alikhanov

56. Between 7 and 29 September 2005 an expert evaluation of the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt was conducted. According to the report of that examination, dated 29 September 2005, the clothes belonged to

Farouk Sabeh El Leil

12. In a judgment of 29 November 2000, the Employment Tribunal began by refusing to allow the objection to admissibility raised by the State of Kuwait, finding as follows: “A plea of inadmissibility has been raised on grounds of jurisdictional immunity. Whilst Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provides that diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State, and also from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, the latter immunity does not cover actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions. Mr

Yaşar Kemal's

6. In 1995, a general civil disobedience movement, called the “Initiative for freedom of expression” (IFE) commenced following the trial of the famous writer, Yaşar Kemal, who was prosecuted for his article published in the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. One thousand and eighty intellectuals protested against

Abdul-Yazit Askhabov

39. On 28 or 31 August 2009 the investigators again questioned Abdul‑Yazit’s wife, Ms El.Yu., who stated that her husband had been abducted by three men armed with Stechkin pistols, who had arrived in a VAZ-Priora car. She also stated that on 5 August 2009 the applicant had complained about the abduction to the ROVD and that her relatives had been told by the ROVD officers that

Momčilo Milenković

7. By a decision of 6 November 2007 the misdemeanour court judge in Leskovac (sudija Opštinskog organa za prekršaje u Leskovcu) found that at about 5.30 p.m. on 12 October 2006 in Leskovac R.C. had verbally insulted the applicant’s children, and the applicant had then punched him several times on the head and injured him. The judge concluded that these actions had been in breach of public order and peace and had thus been contrary to Article 6(3) of the Public Order Act 1992 (see paragraph 21 below under Relevant domestic law and practice). The relevant part of the decision reads: “Defendant[s] R.C. ... and

Ümit Şenocak

51. Reference was made to the applicant's complaint about the Orhans' apprehension on 24 May 1994 and their subsequent disappearance. It had been reported that the Orhans were, at the time, detained by the military units billeted in Lice Boarding School. The addressee was requested to investigate whether the Orhans were detained by/in the company of the units billeted at the school and whether the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office had any current proceedings against the Orhans. (e) Letter dated 22 July 1994 from Kulp Deputy District Gendarme Commander (

Adnan Akhmadov

37. On 6 August 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the town court”) examined the first applicant’s complaint concerning the suspension of the investigation into her son’s kidnapping. It noted that the investigators had taken certain measures to resolve the crime. In particular, they had questioned witnesses and sent requests to law-enforcement agencies. The department of the Federal Security Service of the Urus-Martan District, the military commander’s office, the department of the interior and some other law-enforcement agencies had replied that their officers had not detained

Van Riessen

119. After the other police officers had arrived, Officers Brons and Bultstra had been taken back to Flierbosdreef police station where they stayed for some time, estimated by Officer Bultstra as three hours. Officer Brons had been required to hand in his service weapon. They had had talks with a number of fellow police officers, including Police Commissioner

David Mitchell

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

Rıfat Demir

8. The details are indicated in the table below: APPLICATION NO. NAME OF THE APPLICANT DATE OF REMAND IN CUSTODY DATE OF TRANSFER TO THE SECURITY DIRECTORATE DATE OF RETURN TO PRISON 33412/01 Ekrem Zerey 26/07/2002 26/07/2002 09/08/2002 30229/02

G. Biriuk’s

8. On 19 July 2001 the court ruled in his favour. The court found that the defendant had not proved the truthfulness of the published allegations as to the husband’s relationship with G. Biriuk, or that the information about the husband’s state of health, indicating his full name and residence, had been made public with his consent, or met a legitimate public interest in drawing society’s attention to the rising number of HIV cases in Lithuania. Having assessed all the relevant evidence, the court decided that there was no proof that the husband was the father of

Maskhud Makhloyev

35. On the same day the prosecutor’s office ordered the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 68799 to examine the vehicle registration logs kept at the FSS’s checkpoints in order to check whether UAZ vehicles and a Gazel vehicle had left or entered the FSS on the night of 28 to 29 October 2009. If so, the military prosecutor’s office was to ask the FSS servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoints at the relevant time and the servicemen who had travelled in those vehicles where they had been driving to and whether they had detained Mr

Zelimkhan Dutayev

177. On 22 February 2012 the NGO Materi Chechni contacted the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons on the applicant’s behalf, seeking assistance in the search for Mr

Renáta Kokyová

65. Ms Ružena Kokyová, HB, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Milan Baláž, Ms Renáta Kokyová and Ms Renáta Čonková completed their respective depositions of 13 and 20 March 2002 and declared that they had no compensation claim to join to the proceedings, as they themselves had not sustained any material damage. Ms

Toğay Gültekin

13. On 28 September 2004 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the Military Administrative Court”). They argued, in particular, that

Bashir Mutsolgov

9. At about 3.20 p.m. on 18 December 2003 Bashir Mutsolgov, who was heading from the grocery store to his home, met a neighbour, Kh. Kh. The men were talking next to Bashir Mutsolgov's house when a white VAZ-2121 (“Niva”) vehicle with blacked-out windows and a dark blue VAZ-2106 car pulled over. Although the vehicles' registration plates were covered with mud, the Niva had part of its number, “26”, visible. Five to eight masked men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the cars. They were armed with AK assault rifles and spoke unaccented Russian. The men ran up to

Artur Bersunkayev

35. According to the applicant, early in October 2002 she accessed the file in case no. 25082 and found a letter dated 15 June 2001. In this letter an investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB requested the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD to order an expert examination of a pistol and cartridges that had been seized from

the Deputy Chancellor of Justice

18. On 21 September 1998, the applicant complained to the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekansler) about the delay in the proceedings, amongst other things. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice found, in his decision of 30 October 2000, that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as excessive, taking into account the fact that the criminal investigation lasted about two years and a half, the prosecutor’s decision whether to prosecute or not took about a year, the District Court’s first judgment was issued in about one year, the Court of Appeal’s decision to refer the case back to the District Court was made in a few months, the District Court’s second judgment was issued in less than ten months, the Court of Appeal re-examined the District Court’s judgment in about a year and three months, and the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal in about two months. Thus, the court proceedings, including five different court decisions, lasted less than four years all together. Even though the proceedings were lengthy, it had to be noted that the case was complex and that it had proceeded at all times without any unnecessary delay at any stage. He emphasised that it was in the interests of the applicant that the criminal investigation was also carried out in a profound and appropriate manner. As the applicant’s application was still pending before the Strasbourg Court,

Victor Stepaniuc

6. The summary reads as follows: “The other day I was editing a news item concerning the two luxury cars used by the Speaker of Parliament, E. O., and I became more and more convinced that the term 'parvenu' had Moldovan origins. Our political scene is full of examples. For example, the first thing done by E .O. after becoming Speaker of Parliament, was to solve her housing problem. By abusing her position she was able to lay her hands on a huge apartment in downtown Chişinău, paid for by public money. Who was E. O. before becoming Speaker? A modest baker with a modest work history. Who is she now? A big boss! She cannot fit into a BMW and so she also needs a Mercedes Benz. Let's take another example. Who was

Islam Dombayev

34. On 1 June 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic replied to the second applicant. The letter stated that following her request, which had been forwarded by the Security Council, criminal case no. 12113 had been re-examined. The investigation in that case had been twice suspended under Article 195 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for failure to identify the culprits. Each time these decisions had been quashed by a supervising prosecutor. In November 2000 the investigation had concluded that the kidnapping of

the Minister of Justice

15. On 25 August 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice, maintaining that the court was particularly slow in dealing with the case. In a letter to the applicant of 29 September 2000

Rustam Kagirov

14. The Government did not contest the basis of the applicant’s account concerning the circumstances of the abduction. At the same time they pointed out that the abduction of Mr Rustam Kagirov had taken place during “peacetime” in the absence of curfew and that unidentified armed culprits driving a civilian vehicle had been responsible for the incident. They stressed that in his initial complaints of the abduction lodged with the authorities between 18 and 21 May 2009 the applicant was not consistent in the description of its circumstances by submitting that the abduction had taken place from home, then that it had taken place from the street and then that Mr