The proceedings before this Court On 12 October 2000 the applicants in application no. 63151/00 lodged their application with the Court.

with the same wording – and that their submissions converged more and more during the proceedings strongly suggested that they had colluded in relation to their testimonies as to the alleged ill-treatment

The Government contended, on the contrary, that the proceedings in this case had been open to the public. 31.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 24.

Contributions to this fund were paid from the federal budget, and the fund then paid pensions to military pensioners, irrespective of the location of their military service or where they lived once retired

This factual finding was made in respect of the deceased alone and did not concern the applicants or other members of their families.

  The Court observed that a penalty of this kind entailed the prohibition of all visits and all contact with other prisoners.

Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the first applicant, Ms Tsvetana Petkova Dzhagarova, who was a party to the impugned proceedings from their beginning, EUR 4,000 under this head, plus any taxes

    The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

This being so, paragraph 3 serves as an aid to the interpretation of paragraph 2.

However, beside this international instrument the national protection mechanisms still exist. Both the international and the national mechanisms provide their own system of judicial protection.

of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court), did not avail themselves of this right, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.

    The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.

    The Government, in their observations, undertook to repay to the applicant any sum paid in excess of the above amount of EUR 6,257.18, in compliance with the decision of the Court of Appeal

to the applicants’ convictions under Article   209 of the Criminal Code from their criminal records, the Court found that this complaint came within the scope of Article   8 of the Convention

    The Government contested this allegation. 16.

This was proved by the fact that even the professional judges had confounded the different defendants and the assessment of the evidence in the two sets of proceedings in their judgment against the applicant

As this was not the case, the applicants were of the view that the refusal to grant a simple adoption amounted to interference with their right to family life.

At the time of the events, she and her husband, Sultan Isayev, lived in Alkhan-Kala (Chechnya). The applicant currently lives in Grozny (Chechnya).