Where a person concerned by amnesty under paragraph 1 of this section has been detained, he or she shall be released.”

She also stressed that the abductors had been in the federal forces. 130.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

to her duties that she had in her possession. 9 .

She is aware of that and agrees that the children should live with their father.

She also noted that the applicant had no signs of other traumatic injuries to his body. She wrote a note to the prison administration, detailing her findings.

She put forward a number of grounds of appeal. 22.

It appears that she obtained a judicial order against Mr Borisov but he did not pay.

He pointed out that although his counsel had asked both the first-instance and the appellate court to examine M.M.K., she had not appeared in court despite having been called to give evidence.

She allegedly promised to register his complaint and to bring the matter to the prosecutor’s attention.

They referred, in particular, to statements of a certain witness P., who had alleged that she had been threatened by police officers if she testified against the applicant, and who at the trial had repudiated

She did not indicate that the applicant wished to participate in the appeal hearing. 10.

However, next-of-kin may be entitled to continue proceedings before the Court concerning complaints lodged by a person before he or she died (see, among other cases, Lukanov v.

; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36647/22 Sascha Alexander

Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   March   2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Linos-Alexandre

Where a person concerned by the amnesty ... has been detained, he or she shall be released.”

They had told her that they were looking for “Ramzan”, but she had replied that nobody with that name lived at her house. Later, she had learnt that the servicemen had abducted Mr Ramzan Shaipov. 72.

has been in violation of an earlier preventive measure; he or she has absconded. ...

have access to the treatment she was receiving in Norway.