After their conviction they were detained in correctional colonies and remand prisons, where they were routinely handcuffed every time they left their cells on the grounds that they had been sentenced

    The applicant’s lawyer also maintained that the documents found at the house had not belonged to the applicant; according to his client, they had been planted there by the police.

When they asked, several times, whether they were free to go, they were told that they were not. Owing to the immobilisation of the applicant’s car, other cars could not cross the bridge.

There are in addition other considerations which must be taken into account.

They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners.

They relied in particular on Article   8 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. THE FACTS 2.     The first, second and third applicants live in Mantes-la-Jolie.

In order to verify this information, a group of officers had hid there in ambush. At about 9.30 p.m. they had noticed four suspicious-looking young men, one of whom had a sports bag.

He also confirmed that they had a relative named Muslim who was a serviceman. 101.

They searched the relevant area and interviewed villagers.

They also submitted that, in their view, there were no tangible differences between the old and the new statements of the three witnesses and expressed the opinion that the applicant’s allegations in that

Referring to the duty of confidentiality, they provided no further information on the services. The subsequent domestic proceedings 17 .

There is no justification to systematically segregate life ‑ sentenced prisoners from the rest of prisoner population.

They were recently restated in Berlizev (cited above, §§ 51 and 52). 68.

The only remedies to be exhausted are those which are effective and were available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, they must have been accessible and capable of providing

The third applicant 21 .

In the June 2019 update (see DH-DD(2019)392), they explained that there is no strict interpretation of what constitutes a “ prior complaint ”. 35.

was no judge there whom the applicant company had appointed.

Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT 12.

The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other