The trial court held about 23 hearings.

The hearings held in connection with his requests for release were held in camera and neither the applicant, nor his lawyer could take part.

The District Court held that the failure of the marriage had been predominantly the fault of the applicant’s husband.

Mrs D. had ducked her head under water and Mr D. had hit them on the head with his fist or a wooden spoon. Their bedroom door was locked at night.

(namely, punching him in the head which caused him to fall) of the same date, time and place.

(art. 6-1), had been violated;        -     held by sixteen votes to two that Belgium was to pay the applicant the sum of 250 000 Belgian francs in respect of non-pecuniary

  Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage

  The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Musa Gaytayev; a violation of Article 2 concerning

Rights on 9 November 1992 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Areski Aït-Mouhoub, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that the large amount of the sums

  Article 5 (liberty and security of person) The Court further found in both cases that the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained

  The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment); and that there had been a violation of Article

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant CHF 2,000 for pecuniary damage and CHF 10,409 for costs and expenses.

During the hearings, which had normally been held between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., the applicant had been held in a metal cage guarded by three armed officers, and nobody – including his defence counsel – had

  However, in accordance with a constant practice it did not award any interests on this sum.

to freedom of religion;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 28 October 1996;   Whereas in its judgment of 24 February 1998 the Court:   -   held

Admittedly, the maximum fine that could be imposed was PTE 20,000,000, a sum that is certainly substantial.

On 25 August 1994 and 25 January 1995 hearings were held.

  The applicants were refused legal aid and so represented themselves throughout the trial and appeal, with only some help from volunteer lawyers.