On 30 August 2014 H.H. made the following written statement to the Health Authority: “While [the applicant] was in the psychiatric ward, restraint [measures were] used three times. ...

of what had occurred. 10.

While their statements played an important role in the applicant's conviction, it did not appear that he had contested their content and he had not expressly asked for any questions to be put to the witnesses

As to the statement he made to the police on 21 March 1998, the applicant said that he had signed the statement without reading it.

what periods?

While the Garda had doubts as to their credibility, no further evidence was forthcoming to implicate them in the incidents, beyond any statements already made in other proceedings.

While such a length may, in principle, raise issues under the Convention, also in view of what was at stake for the applicant, the Court cannot ignore that there were no major periods of inactivity attributable

    The applicant had told his father and his uncle, his nephew’s father, what he had seen.

In the affirmative, what is the ground of the said “jurisdiction”? 2.

Article   9: Before the start of the public health crisis the prison authorities had given the applicant permission to attend church under the regulations in force.

A statement of claim was delivered on 19 February 2004. The High Court hearing took place over nine days in 2014 and a written judgment was delivered on 11 July 2014.

At the start of 2003 there were 29,410 applications pending before the Court’s decision bodies.

You would not then be treating the evidence of [the three prison witnesses] as evidence against Lee Firkins; what you would be doing - and it is a matter for you whether, and to what extent, you do - what

6] [Localité 11] Tous trois représentés par Me Benjamin MOISAN de la SELARL BAECHLIN MOISAN Associés, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : L34, ayant pour avocat plaidant Me Félix THILLAYE du LLP WHITE

      Specific actions by member states i.

What was more, the doctors had only written down that they had not observed any sign of physical violence on the applicants’ bodies; none had noted down the detainees’ statements or conclusions.

What was important was the fact that the 1983 Law had been applied to his detriment since he and his family have been living with the threat of eviction since the start of the eviction proceedings.

Buttigieg, then State Advocate, and later by their Agents, Dr C. Soler, State Advocate and Dr J. Vella, Advocate at the Office of the State Advocate. 4.

The jurors had the benefit of hearing all the witness statements and viewing all the evidence submitted.

The prosecutor requested that the statement of witness V.Z. be read out in court, while both the applicant and his lawyer submitted that the statement of witness V.Z. lacked credibility and requested that