On 20 December 2016, at the anniversary of the Soviet security service - All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) – the applicants, political activists, made an installation “A new Chekist

The Court therefore considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the awards made by the domestic court (see paragraph 23 above). 35.

    The Court notes that the Supreme Court's ruling was made after the Town Court's judgment of 12   April 2000.

The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

The Court made no award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mihaescu v.

    The respondent Government did not make submissions. 19.

    These time-limits begin to run: (a)     on the date when the written notification is made in administrative disputes ...” Section 20/A 1.

It held that the allegations made by the Ministry in its letters had a factual and legal basis. 10.

: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made

Court further considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made

examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine this complaint separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

Ukraine (no. 15816/04) The applicant, Valentin Murukin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine).

THE LAW After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints

convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him or her personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

  58689/17, the applicant also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see paragraphs 7-9 above). 11.

Russia (no. 77018/01) The applicant, Valentin Polyakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a prison sentence in the Tver Region (Russia).