The prosecutor also noted that a trouser belt was considered as an element of clothing and as such was not listed among dangerous objects that detainees were prohibited from keeping in their

090 146 Ayant son siège social [Adresse 2] [Localité 8] Représentés par Me Frédéric INGOLD de la SELARL INGOLD & THOMAS - AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : B1055, Assistés de Me Clotilde

représentée par Me Marion CORDIER, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES Madame [I] [B], demeurant [Adresse 7] représentée par Me Mathieu LARGILLIERE, avocat postulant au barreau de VAL D’OISE et Me Clotilde

barreau de CHARTRES, vestiaire : 000016 SASU GESOP [Adresse 12] [Localité 17] Représentant : Me Cécile ROBERT, Postulant, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES, vestiaire : 569 Représentant : Me Clotilde

Article 18); – limits on visits by family members, with a maximum of one visit for one hour per month; – no sums of money above a fixed amount to be received or sent out; – only parcels containing clothing

He further noted that firearms residue had been found on Mr Ellis’ clothing.

Detainees belonging to that category, who do not possess the required clothing, shall wear the outfit provided by the prison administration... ...

The deceased’s clothing was removed and sent for laboratory analysis with a view to determining the distance from which the shot had been fired.

The merchandise consisted of clothing, which is highly perishable when stored for a long period of time.

This involved a removal of normal association for the prisoners, who were confined to their cells.

It normally also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements

includes the following: Article 529 Property exempted from seizure “The debtor’s property exempted from seizure shall include: 1. items for personal use of the debtor and his or her family such as: clothing

A good deal of latitude was normally afforded to the legislature in making distinctions that did not involve any intrinsic or essential characteristic. 38 .

xa0;       In his appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammar- rätten) of Gothenburg the first applicant criticised, inter alia, the second applicant's hygiene and clothing

While in isolation, the applicants had to give up their normal prison clothing and to wear overalls which covered them from feet to neck and were “sealed” by prison staff with plastic strips.

A loudspeaker informed him that the test was about to begin and to inhale normally.

In order to minimise embarrassment, prisoners who are searched should not normally be required to remove all their clothes at the same time, e.g. a person should be allowed to remove clothing above the

Detainees had been forbidden from washing any clothing, except socks or handkerchiefs, and from taking off their undershirts.

One of the items of clothing, namely the beige and navy tracksuit bottoms, had the applicant’s name tag ironed on to the back of the garment.