While not insuperable, these problems should not be ignored, since neither the defendant nor the public will be fully aware of what is being done.

The   applicants allege that no interpreter or lawyer was present and that she is unaware of what was recorded.

  Due to the situation he accepted to repeat what was said in the headphones.   He heard a slightly husky voice and repeated the statements.

authorities had failed to start a criminal investigation into the matter. 66.

    Policy statements and directions by the Secretary of State On 7 December 1994 the Secretary of State stated: “In recent years, successive Secretaries of State have recognised that, for the

state with the trial judge.

The applicant repeated what he had said to the investigating judge on 14 August 2003. On the same day, L.J., Z.K. and three other police officers from their unit made written statements.

The applicant’s statements made there on 10 and 17 February 2001 were thus declared inadmissible.

The subsequent commentary of the journalist, in which full names of those involved were again mentioned, went as follows: “And let us start to clarify things for a while.

He also states that he was only allowed outside the cell twice, once to shower and once for some outdoor time. 11.

He had made his statement in 2002 while he had been in detention since 1994. He had had experience with questioning and was not vulnerable.

What are you doing here? What are you eavesdropping on?” The police officers had answered that they had been sightseeing and that the town was very beautiful.

, which must determine at what speed and to what extent to meet intersex people’s civil-status demands, given their difficult situation   STRASBOURG 31   January 2023   FINAL   26/06

    The Court notes that the applicant died on 22 December 2015, after having lodged her application, while the case was pending before the Court.

Remuneration shall be subject to any increases and variations as established in favour of State employees. (...)” 21 .

    To start with, the Court has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of disciplinary actions against individual judges, albeit in relation to other member States, and found that

The email starts with the following statement: “Everything in the principal file plays a role. The situation in that file IS NOT IDENTICAL to the situation in your file.”

At the start of the hearing the parties were provided the opportunity to state if there was any obstacle to holding the main hearing. Neither party contended that there was any such obstacle.

    The applicant claims that she was awake when the symphysiotomy was performed but was not told what was happening and was not asked to give her consent to the procedure.