confessed to the crimes imputed to them during the pre-trial investigation in the presence of their lawyers and that their later retraction of those confessions was to be regarded as a mere attempt to escape

The articles were entitled “Employee of the Prosecutor General’s Office tries to escape [consequences of] crime”, “What is Shamil Guliyev’s purpose in surrounding me with fake witnesses?”

application (no. 15853/08) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Valentyn

Republic of Moldova   and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Valentina

    Ms   Gracheva was represented initially by Ms   Mari Davtyan and later also by Ms   Valentina Frolova, lawyers practising in Moscow and St   Petersburg. 39.

the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape

The applicant further contends that A.P. had been given drugs with the purpose of controlling his behaviour and that he had been made to walk barefoot so that he would not attempt to escape.

the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape

During the night of 30-31 March 2007 the applicant, who had been driving a car without a licence plate, had disobeyed a traffic policeman’s order to stop and had tried to escape, thereby violating the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Croatian nationals, Ms Draginja Treskavica (“the first applicant”), Ms Nataša Treskavica (“the second applicant”) and Ms Valentina