They stayed in the cellar throughout the day, while the shelling of the village continued. 11.

What is more, it had been the first applicant’s wife who had initiated contact with the witness in an attempt to convince him to alter his initial statement.

She claimed that at the time she had made the initial statement she had been in a state of shock, having been traumatised by the prosecutor and forced to confess to deeds that she had not committed.

It will also specify what other measure has to be taken so as to restore lawfulness. 22.

If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.”   The applicant did not reply to the caution.

In laying down such regulation, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation.

The Court has frequently found that States have legitimate reasons to combat the distribution of drugs firmly ( A.W.

Any disagreements that might have arisen between the applicant and the legal ‑ aid lawyer could not incur the liability of the State.

regard to the source of that information, draw inferences as to what a reasonable man, in the position of the independent observer would make of it.

What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Micallef , cited above, §   96). 27.

It did not rely on the statements made by the witnesses before the company's management denying that they had been informed about the remaining items on the agenda.

The trial court established these facts on the basis, inter alia, of the statements of the second and third applicants given in the pre-trial proceedings.

    Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 3 June 1997 by Stuart

The trial was listed to start on 15 June 1998.

Have you not seen what the press published? Maybe it would have been better not to coincide his dismissal with the start of the criminal investigation by the police and the Prosecutor’s Office.

  The Court has consistently held that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference is necessary, but this margin goes hand

On 16 October 1995 the first applicant received a letter from William Hague MP, Secretary of State for Wales.

Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court starts on the assumption that the present case raises an issue as to the applicant’s right to life. 30.

    On the same day the applicant repeated his previous statements before the investigating judge and claimed once again that he had been subjected to electric shocks while in police custody.