importance, given that the essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey

In the Court’s opinion there is no need for it to resolve these disputed matters, for the following reason: the Government has never contested that the incident of 7 December 2002 as such was more than

A complaint is characterised by the matters alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see, mutatis mutandis, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21  

    The Court first notes that it was a matter of disagreement between the parties whether or not the applicant had complained of ill-treatment in the course of the rape case.

    The Court observes, however, that the Government’s preliminary objection concerns only the matter of compensation for the death of the applicant’s son and is not related to other aspects

dealing with a petition, public prosecutors are obliged by section 35(1) and (2) to examine all circumstances decisive for the assessment of whether there was a violation of the law and whether the matter

that where the lack of progress or ineffectiveness of an investigation was readily apparent, the requirements of expedition might require an applicant to bring such a case before the Court within a matter

    On 26   June 2000 the decision of 9   June 2000 was quashed and the matter was remitted for further investigation. 33.

Nor can Article 35 § 1 be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court of his complaint before his position in connection with the matter has been finally settled at the

Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 147, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, § 97, ECHR 2002 ‑ II; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95

appropriate to take the start of the six-month period as the date on which he or she first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances rendering the remedy ineffective (see Paul and Audrey

time that the administrative authority, whose act was being appealed, had an obligation to forward the appeal filed with it to the competent court within three days together with its full file on the matter

On this matter, the Court considers it desirable that, with their consent, detainees undergo, free screening tests for hepatitis and HIV/Aids within a reasonable time after their admission to prison (see

declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER

Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 58.

Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention. II.

Thus, it considers that this matter falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention (see paragraphs 77-78 below). II.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated by the police on his arrest and that the domestic authorities had failed to investigate the matter.

State authorities subsequent to the publication of the article of 11   October 2007 and, if so, whether those protective measures were adequate, given that these issues were neither the subject matter