In order to address that issue, the CSM had had to exercise its discretionary powers.

Such a decision, which had clarified the issues while remaining within the limits laid down by the Court of Cassation on 22 April 1992, had been favourable to the applicants, since it had had the effect

D. had been related to S.

that no full autopsy had been performed.

However, that reference had been cursory and had not had any influence on the resolution of the applicants’ cases.

As to the applicant’s argument that the manner in which the evidence had been obtained and the use that had been made of it had undermined his right not to incriminate himself, what was at issue was the

he had had no “active” role in its management.

That vulnerability had been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities since they had finally granted them refugee status.

had a reasonable chance of success.

The domestic authorities had not been clear as to the legal basis on which the recording had been made.

Furthermore, the applicants had acquired the land free of charge and had owned it for only three years, without making any investments or paying any related taxes.

The courts had not substantiated the reasons given.

He complained that the finding of intent to defraud had not been sufficiently reasoned and that the courts below had not taken into account the fact that no criminal proceedings had been brought against

The behaviour for which the applicants had been removed had not, by its nature, amounted to a criminal offence and had not been treated as such under domestic law.

The questions had been asked in such a way that the applicant could legitimately complain that he did not know why affirmative answers had been given each question when he had denied all personal involvement

The leaflet the applicants had left in place of the portrait had explained that “the empty space left on the wall symbolises the government’s inaction on social and climate issues”.

The proceedings had thus resulted in the absurd outcome that the applicant had been ordered to pay in costs to the defendant double the amount which he had been awarded in damages as a result of the attack

He denied his participation in the offence, as he had done throughout the criminal proceedings against him, and stated that he could thus not say anything about those who had taken part in the assault.

However, he had not done so and had not claimed before the domestic courts that he had been prevented from doing so.