of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling

that given the subsequent, continued influx of new findings of violations the Committee resumed its examination of these proceedings;   Recalling that the Committee decided to keep these cases on

further that, in the McCaughey and Others judgment, the Court found that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to excessive delay in the inquest proceedings; recalling

regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Colman case delivered on 28 June 1993 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling

Mr Lars Erik Nyberg, respectively German and Swedish nationals, who complained inter alia of a prohibition of removal imposed on them concerning their son after termination of public care;   Recalling

of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling

further that the European Court found a violation of Article 38;   Recalling also that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the Court held that the respondent State is to pay

of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mlynek against Austria delivered on 27 October 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling

of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling

,   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Oliveira Neves case, delivered on 25 May 1989 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling

regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Y. case delivered on 29 October 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling

and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Recalling

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chichlian and Ekindjian case, delivered on 29 November 1989 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling

that, in that judgment, the Court held that Turkey was to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction specific sums for damages and for costs and expenses;   Recalling its three earlier Interim Resolutions

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”); Recalling

that the Russian Federation has ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16   March 2022 ( CM/Res(2022)2 ), recalling also that the Committee of Ministers will continue to supervise

Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling

the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 28 July 1998 in the case of Loizidou against Turkey; Recalling

the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis delivered on 9 December 1994 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;     Recalling