During the hearing the applicant explained that he was precluded from leaving Russia by his family situation, that he had two daughters and a sick wife who were Russian nationals and were dependent on

prosecutors in the meantime and the measure against him had been extended automatically, without taking into consideration his specific situation namely that he was not a Romanian citizen and that his wife

    On 5 March 2009 the applicant asked the investigator to allow his wife to visit him in the remand prison. 19.

The applicant requested that his asylum case be examined in Sweden where his wife, who is disabled, and their child were resident. 8.

In August and September 2007 the investigator interviewed his wife and mother as potential witnesses but they refused to testify, invoking the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination.

  His wife and the second applicant accompanied him to Pakistan, but returned after 1 month.

The applicant submitted that his wife had been persistently hindering his access to children and that she had made it unfeasible.

The first applicant, accompanied by his wife, then went to the Sunzhenskiy ROVD.

        After quarrels with his wife and a period of detention on remand, the applicant returned to Yugoslavia in 1990.

They are the wife and children of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967, who has not been seen since September 2002. He was declared dead by the national courts in May 2006.

As from 1986 he was employed at a factory in Smed Palanka, Serbia, where also his wife was employed.

He is represented before the Court by his wife Ms K. Kolakovic, who is unemployed and lives in Kent, the United Kingdom. A.

They are respectively the wife and daughter of C.M., who died in 1998. C.M. was President of the Civil and Criminal Division of the Cantabria Higher Court of Justice.

Russia (application no. 20147/07)   The applicants are four Russian nationals who are the parents, sister and wife of Artur   Akhmatkhanov.

The applicant’s wife was not questioned during the proceedings.

On 30 March 2006 the applicant’s wife lodged an action for divorce.

As to whether the removal amounted to an interference with the applicant’s family life with his wife and children, the court stated that: “... the applicant’s argument that he has wife and children in

Mariya Andreyevna ZARIPOVA 1936 Nadezhda Sergeyevna ZARIPOVA 1990 Veronika Sergeyevna ZARIPOVA 2001   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region the first applicant is an inmate, the second applicant is his wife

        According to the indictment the applicant's wife had left him and for this reason he intended having her killed.