The Court noted, further, that only one of the witnesses questioned had stated that verbal warnings had been given, while another had indicated that no warning had been given and a third witness had said

Many of the protests had been broadcast on television, had likely been seen by the Roma who had fled, and the neighbourhood had remained empty in the following weeks.

In this connection, it was evident that the acts mentioned above had not enjoyed a presumption of legality at the time when they had been committed and had not pertained to the applicant’s exercise of

Also, the three police officers who had stated that they had fired at the suspects had stressed the suddenness of the incident.

He had told her that she had been apprehended and that her fingerprints would be taken. She had left her jacket and her bag in that room.

After he had been discovered (after he had run away) and brought back to the military unit, Lieutenant Colonel H.S. had had a conversation with him during which he had become very agitated and had lost

drugs; and that the applicant had not been in the room when he (M.B.) had arrived but had been in a car.

It held that different actions taken by it had been investigated, and had had different starting dates.

Well over four years had elapsed between the date on which the opinion had been delivered and the date on which the applicants had lodged their constitutional appeal.

    It had been her birthday on 22 September and she had been celebrating it during the day with her partner, C. They had eaten, drunk some alcohol and had had unprotected intercourse.

of the correctional facility had submitted that it had accommodated eleven inmates.

V.O. had asked A.K. to push V.M. and A.K. had done so. V.O. had managed to free himself and had pushed V.M. as well, and V.M. had fallen on the ground. Then A.K. and V.O. had run away.

under his command had given verbal warnings to the men after they had crossed the border at 4.50 a.m. and had asked them to stop.

In view of the above, the impugned statements had had a sufficiently relevant bearing on the applicant’s defence and thus had deserved a heightened level of protection under the Convention.

judicial body that had had full jurisdiction and ensured respect for the guarantees laid down in that provision.

had become final.

(ii) Proportionality – Although the CoL had considered the confiscation to be obligatory, it had been for the judge to make an assessment of what property had to be confiscated.

This lack of conclusive evidence had been the main reason why the judge had rejected the application.

The restriction had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of disorder or crime.