It had not been in a military zone or an area where mines had been laid by the authorities.

Furthermore, an expert report of 29 May 2002 had indicated that he had mentioned a previous attempt to commit suicide and, three days before his death, a doctor’s report had found that he was suffering

that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the risk of his absconding.

Her mother had had the intention of leaving the country as well, but the applicant had no information on her whereabouts.

The courts, however, had failed to do so.

When Major B. had left Lieutenant Boychenko, the latter had been calm and had not exhibited any signs of nervousness.

After S.A. had written the statement as requested, the applicant had asked G.A. to sign the statement, but he had refused.

Firstly, the applicant was a minor who had had no legal representation while in detention.

As the Court had later accepted the Government’s request for the examination of the case by the Grand Chamber, the Government had had yet another opportunity to make comments.

The armed men who had guarded the school had appeared to be nervous; they had talked in Chechen between themselves and had ordered the locals away from the school. The applicant had returned home.

On 19 July 2003 he had been taken to the court and his friends had been there. He had worn his normal clothes under his prison outfit and he had not had any handcuffs as the guards trusted him.

Orthodox priests had made regular visits to the prison and had held mass. Short hair had been required of inmates, but they had not been shaved. 29.

The applicant, however, had attempted to demonstrate that he had had no contact with R.N. before 19 May 2001 and had had nothing to do with the crime.

On 7   August 2016 he had been placed in cell no. GR 2 on the ground floor, which had measured 24 sq. m and had held ten detainees.

The court considered that G. had proved that her son had moved into the flat   and had lived there for some time, but had not been able to move back because the applicant had not let him in.

The officers had run after him, the applicant had slipped and fallen and the police had caught up with him.

The authorities had located a place for A. but the applicant had refused to accept it. Neither had she accepted day-care for A.

that had been established therein.

It claimed that C.C., the owner of the bar, had encouraged antagonism by claiming the Deputy Mayor had won Roma votes by making promises which he had broken once elected.