SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by the national courts of a claim for damages for defamation arising from statements made at a press conference by a police officer during

On 22 December 1989 the applicant was injured by gunshots in Brașov, during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime.

During the court hearings the applicants were held in that cabin all together.

The application further concerns the domestic court’s refusal to hear witnesses on behalf of the applicant during the course of the proceedings against him. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.

The applications mainly concern their allegation, in reliance on Article 3 of the Convention, that they were subjected to ill-treatment during a general search on the night of 7   January to 8  

He had made allegations of ill-treatment during his trial.

The telephone conversation had been a very brief exchange, during which the applicant had only said four short words.

to during his time in police custody on 2 June 2010.

On 12 May 2008 the applicant requested the trial court to authorise the removal of his handcuffs during the hearing and during breaks.

During the investigation, the applicant was examined as a witness by the investigating judge.

It noted, inter alia , that strong presumptions of fact arose where a person was injured during police custody while entirely under the supervision of police officers during that period.

It determined that the applicant and his daughter should have weekly contact and contact during holidays.

    The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him.

    The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment during his police custody between 25 and 30 April 1999; the alleged unfairness of the ensuing criminal proceedings against him

The applicant asked for a lawyer several times during those investigative actions, but his request was denied.

March 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer during

against Turkey lodged on 10 May 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants as a result of the absence of a lawyer during

The applicant subsequently denied this statement but the domestic courts re ‑ introduced it at trial through the interview of the police officers and the attesting witnesses who testified that during

In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v.