The Constitutional Court dismissed their subsequent appeal based on their complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on 13 October 2011. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 2.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 14.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 17.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 18.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 4.

    ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 9.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 19.

They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article   5   §   3 “3.

   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 6.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 14.

It raises issues under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 2 .     The applicant was an accused in a criminal case.

THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 30.

and applying Article 5 in the applicant’s case.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 14.

6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1-c - Conduire devant l'autorité judiciaire compétente);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 11.