of these statements.

On the same day the prosecutor decided to start a pre-trial investigation against P.K., who was suspected of arson.

The applicant informed police officers at Interview no. 27 that his solicitor had told him “not to make statements”.

They all allegedly witnessed the state he was in after the alleged beating. No statements or other corroborative evidence have been presented from said detainees.

The Disciplinary Board’s decision shall become final upon expiry of the time-limit for applying to the enforcements judge, which shall start to run on the date of delivery.

, not a State body.

If so, in what kinds of cases can this be relevant? And, if the purpose of the restriction is relevant, what conditions must it satisfy to avoid being proscribed by the article? 23.

While the domestic legislator and courts had a certain margin of appreciation, European supervision of such interferences with their Convention rights was strict.

While he had stopped his car at a red light, the car was blocked off by a white unmarked minivan.

The applicant states 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.

During questioning, the applicant confirmed his self-incriminating statements made earlier to the police.

    On 24 November 2006 the Stara Zagora Regional Court rejected the applicant's request, saying that it was unclear on what grounds she was seeking a fresh expert report. 17 .

When reminded of the previous statement, he explains that he had made those in a state of confusion ("Sinnverwirrung").

What do we have? A National Socialist regime with an ideology of hatred. A State that is prepared to build concentration camps for unsatisfied ethnic minorities.

Back in my office I told the lay assessors what had happened.

It made a provisional order withdrawing the applicants’ rights to make decisions as to where the children should live or what medical care they should receive, primarily on the ground that they did not

On 31 November 1996 the Ömerli public prosecutor’s office held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and forwarded the case file to the State Security Court for prosecution.

The respondent State should carefully examine all legal and financial implications before introducing further modifications.

In particular, application no. 14573/08 was introduced on 14 March 2008 while the last court decision in the applicant’s case was adopted on 27   June   2007.