The second applicant had stayed, but about 7.30 p.m. she had contacted V.G., who had advised her that unless she had been detained she had a right to leave.

D.P. had once told him that during his stay in Sisak “some ugly things had happened”, but had not mentioned any details. B.A. had heard rumours that some people had been taken from their homes. 24.

V.G. noted that, while the applicant had had a camera in her hand, he had not tried to wrest it from her, but had grabbed and pulled at her hands in order to remove her from the carriageway and to put

B.G. had also said that during another military operation he had had a fight with his commander: the latter had slapped him and then B.G. had slapped the commander, and thereafter they had been having

and civil) had not been per se incompatible with the requirements of the Convention, as long as it had not unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and had not precluded the applicants’ main arguments

G.N. had also compiled a written note for A.I. and had returned the women’s passports to him. G.N. had gone to the VOVD but the missing women had not been there.

Their allegations had been reviewed at two levels of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of Russia, the highest judicial body in electoral matters, which had had full jurisdiction over the case and had been

had not been present when the contravention had happened and it had failed to prove the statements made in the report.

The trial court had explained that there had been no indication that V.Ç. and M.K. had been subjected to duress; its finding on that point had been in keeping with the right to remain silent and the privilege

A few days after he had left the hospital he had stabbed V.J, without any reason.

That application had been equally dismissed by the appeal court, which had simply concluded that the first instance court had already dealt with it.

  As he and his colleague had already had the feeling that the first applicant had this intention his colleague W. had managed to open the door again in time.

soldiers had information about the case and had been involved in his death had been examined, but no evidence had been found to support this.

In his decision to take no further action, the public prosecutor had merely observed that the applicant had been injured during a demonstration in which he had been actively involved.

Firstly, the applicant had had an opportunity to dispute the conclusions of the incriminating report and had availed himself of that opportunity, in particular by submitting three reports prepared by his

The applicant had therefore had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.

the applicant’s right of property and had ordered the State to return the building to him, the State had sold the flat.

Throughout the proceedings, the applicant had maintained that he had been incited to commit the offence.