They had found the trial distressing and frightening and had not been able to concentrate during it.

    According to the Government, Ahmet Çakıcı was not taken into custody by the gendarmes during the operation on 8 November 1993.

    The applicant was confined in a metal cage when the custodial measure was applied to him, when it was subsequently extended and during the trial. II.

Five of these officers maintained that they had not seen the applicants or the other arrestees throwing stones or Molotov cocktails during the clashes.

During the latter hearing the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended. 16.

During that period there were several incidents of confrontation between law enforcement authorities and protesters. 4.

three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during

He explained further that during his studies the applicant had demonstrated a “positive attitude” towards Orthodox Christianity, to an extent that had even “disturbed the teachers”. 6.

In particular, in finding him guilty they relied as evidence on the witness statements made during the investigation, despite the fact that during the trial those witnesses, namely witnesses E.K., Y.M.

During the cassation proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer, K.

    The applicant alleged that his defence rights had been violated as he had been denied access to a lawyer during his police custody.

    The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been ill-treated during their arrest.

During the questioning, the applicant confessed that he and his father had killed Y. and then A. He provided a number of details concerning their murder.

    The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 9.

The applicant’s complaint was rather one of objective impartiality on the grounds of the functions he had exercised during the Girgvliani murder case.

The rape victim, Ms T., was interviewed by an investigator during the preliminary investigation.

The applicant was allowed to take his child into his home mainly every other weekend and for two weeks during the summer holidays. 6 .

    The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them.

Secondly, it should be noted that the services performed during emergency services are remunerated.