During that time, he saw the victims on several occasions in the company of A.G.

    The applicant complained about lengthy review of pre-trial detention, conditions of detention during transport, detention in a metal cage at court hearings and lack of an effective remedy

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - the applicant complains about poor and inhuman conditions during his transport from SIZO-1 Simferopol to IK-5 Kirov: (1) van, Simferopol –

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

Orthodox Easter and during the summer and winter holidays.

On 4 November 2008 the Minister of Justice informed the first applicant that during his interrogation with the prosecutor her son had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment of 10 April 2008. 3.

    During this period, the police intercepted text messages between the applicant and Ž.B. and recorded their phone conversations.

    Lack of legal assistance during police custody 20.

In the Regional Court’s opinion, the applicant received the necessary medical care during his detention.

    In the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is

During his examination, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated whilst in custody.

    The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them.

The Segregation Unit had three exercise pens and during this period he was provided with his full exercise entitlement during which he could talk to prisoners adjacent.

Both after the arrest and during the first-instance court hearing the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present during the later interviews.

    During the first-instance proceedings, the applicant and I.G. were represented by the same defence lawyer.

If I remember correctly, the records of my statements reflected what I had in fact said during the interview.

It ruled that it would not be in the child’s interests to change his residence temporarily during the divorce proceedings.

During these proceedings SP and 8 other witnesses were heard, including 3 witnesses henceforth called MWK, KAT and IK.