Finally, they submitted that, by contrast with the case of Mykhaylenky and Others v.

There is no doubt that an appeal court is empowered to quash a decision subject to its review and remit the case for fresh examination.

They also submitted that the victim was not telling the truth. 12.

The number of inmates kept there at the same time as the applicant varied from six to ten. 54 .

They based their reasoning on the way revolvers function: “... There is a slight time delay of 1 to 1.5 seconds between the moment the trigger is pulled and the moment the gun fires.

They had spoken Russian with a strong accent. They had requested the second applicant to produce identity papers. They had then taken Magomed Dudarov, who had been barely dressed, outside.

The soldiers told her that they were there just to check. Then they left the room and closed the door from the outside. 12.

As to allegations of the physical assault on the applicant they found that there were insufficient evidence in that respect. 16.

When questioned about their activities, the above officers explained to the investigator that they had been assigned the task of verifying whether there might be a link between the applicant and the disappearances

They were to receive fresh linen after taking their shower. 62.

They further contended that the investigation of the incident was pending, that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable

    When the neighbours arrived, they and the first applicant started searching for other victims. They carefully examined the courtyard using torches.

However, they refused to give witness statements as they feared for their safety. 12.

    There is no special legislation governing the issue of State immunity in Lithuania.

The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent

They submitted that the cell-space factor was an insufficient basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards Tomsk Remand Centre.

In so far as relevant, they provide as follows: Regulation 114 “1.

They further contended that the investigation of the incident was pending, that there was no evidence that the men were State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable

The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State