A.Ch. had asked them why they had broken into Z.Ch.'s house. In response the armed men had forced A.Ch. to the ground.

authority in respect of V. she had mentioned that the girl had a biological father.

On their evidence, the apartment where the psychotropic substances had been seized had belonged to A.I. but the applicant had also lived there. 16.

One neighbour claimed that several of the policemen had been shooting and that at one stage G. had pointed his gun at him in a brutal manner and had insulted him saying “You damn Gypsies”.

The criminal court had not summonsed them to attend and they had not been permitted to see the evidence in the file.

The only remedy the applicants had had at their disposal had been a recusal request in respect of Judge L.M., which they had availed themselves of.

The authorities therefore had had good reasons to consider him a repeat offender. Nevertheless, his driving licence had temporarily been confiscated twice for only short periods of time.

pushed him in the chest (where he had recently had a pacemaker installed).

But while the applicant’s allegations had been serious, they had had a factual basis.

At all events, although the applicants had previously, on a temporary basis, taken in children who had then been adopted by other families, in this case they had lodged a request to adopt the child, which

which in itself had been evidence that they could not have been made by him and that they had been made by someone who had not been on his campaign staff.

It was true that he had the status of defendant and had exercised his rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Although the Constitutional Court had referred to a “feeling of intolerance” transmitted by the applicant, it had not examined whether there had been sufficient grounds to find that his statements had

It had not been disputed in the domestic proceedings or before the Court that the applicants’ situation had amounted to segregation and that desegregation measures had been called for.

However, it had not been disputed that judge M.S. had been the acting president of the Supreme Court at the time when the appeal on points of law had been lodged on behalf of B.S. and had been assigned

that the applicant had not had any basis to continue spreading rumours about L.V. which he had known were untrue. 13 .

M.B. maintained that the applicant and his brother had had lit torches in their hands when they had arrived at his house.

had been documented.