The applicant had been summoned as a witness in the proceedings, but had refused to testify because she was engaged to G.S. at the time 6.

no greed for money – I pee into [L.’s] ear and then I also shit onto his head. :)” 19.

She declared that after the incident “she had heard” that the applicant had had oral sex with the victim.

When she discovered the camera, it was in recording mode, making a buzzing sound and flashing. She did not touch any of the buttons.

She raised the issue of the child’s sexual abuse by R.

    On 3 July 2009 Memorial staff member Mr G. had gone to Achkhoy-Martan together with Mr Apti Sh.’s uncle, Mr   I. Sh.

in the proceedings that she brought seeking damages.

She signed a   declaration agreeing that the applicants would adopt her child. She stated that she did not know who the child’s father was. The applicants left the hospital with the child. 2.

She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Trninić, a lawyer practising in Slavonski Brod. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š.

She reiterated her previous statement, adding that she had made an official complaint about the abduction on the following day. 57.

She was married at the time to the child’s father, M.K., and lived in Poland. She already had a son from a previous relationship, B, born in 1993. 7.

She further stated that she had been living in her flat for 41 years and had never been warned that the flat was located in a flood zone.

(E.’s ten-year-old friend) told what she had heard from E. M.K. (the teacher) had heard of the events from V.S.; she had also seen a male sexual organ made of play-dough by E.

she would have inherited the whole estate. 4.

She could no longer interfere with the proceedings, since she and her co-defendants had already started familiarising themselves with the materials of the case.

had acted illegally, noting that the news report itself stated that she was not given defendant status in the proceedings (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above).

By letter of 16 June 2008 the applicant’s widow submitted that she maintained the application in so far as the complaints under Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about

Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 February 2021 by a Portuguese national, Mr Rui Alexandre

She allegedly asked for the help of “MRT authorities” to “restore order” in the school.