Court HR, Engel   and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 26, para. 63).   73.

Office issued a note permitting the transportation of the bodies of Markha Gakayeva, born in 1962, Raisa Gakayeva, born in 1964 and Nura Luluyeva, born in 1960, from Grozny to the villages of Noyber and Engel-Yurt

Applying the criteria established by the case-law of the Court (see Engel and others v. the Netherlands , judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, §§ 82-83; Öztürk v.

witnesses; he must, in addition, support his request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth (see Engel

It has noted the criteria for the assessment of the applicability of the criminal aspect of Article 6 outlined in Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, §§ 82-83

Court reiterates first of all that, in proclaiming the “right to liberty”, Article 5 § 1 is contemplating individual liberty in its classic sense, that is to say the physical liberty of the person (see Engel

Court HR, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 34-35, § 82; Weber v.

Court H.R., Engel and Others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-39, paras. 80-91 and, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte judgment of 28 May 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29).

Engels "Freedom from national slavery is the basic condition for any healthy and free development" (3) On the same subject Trotsky wrote: "The dawning of national consciousness over an extremely suppressed

Moreover, the applicant’s close arrest amounted to detention in view of his confinement to a cell in the unit guardroom under the supervision of a guard (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment

situation of the individual concerned and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see, inter alia, the Engel

This classification, however, provides only a starting point (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the Engel and Others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, para. 82); it cannot be conclusive of

This classification, however, provides only a starting point (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the Engel and Others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, para. 82); it cannot be conclusive of

   The Court refers to its case-law on this question (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment previously cited and the Engel and Others v.

State concerned is certainly relevant, but it provides no more than a starting point in ascertaining whether at any time there was a "criminal charge" against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , the Engel

Series A no. 46, p. 17, par. 39; the Engel and others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 27, par. 68). 36.

subject, it is not in principle its function to compare different decisions of national courts, even if given in apparently similar proceedings; it must respect the independence of those courts (see Engel

it provides no more than a starting point in ascertaining whether at any time there was a "criminal charge" against the applicant or he was "charged with a criminal offence" (see, mutatis mutandis, Engel

everyone", including arrested or detained persons (Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no. 114), as well as "restrictions of freedom" or "imprisonment" must have a specific content (Engel