He had told her that she had been arrested and that her fingerprints would be taken. She had left her jacket and bag in that room.

He had complied with that request and presented the photo to the applicant, but as she had not been able to provide any information, he had left.

  The court read out his statements of 19 and 20 May 1993 in which he had described in detail the circumstances which had preceded the theft, and had admitted that he had instructed the applicant

had been taken to mitigate it.

could live with this uncertainty and his attitude had had no negative consequences for the child.

In the case of Saran , the first-instance court had dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that he had declared at the time of his admission to prison that he was an Orthodox Christian and had

In the case of Saran , the first-instance court had dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that he had declared at the time of his admission to prison that he was an Orthodox Christian and had

applications and had returned them to Belarus.

The disciplinary and criminal proceedings had been initiated simultaneously against the applicants and the disciplinary decisions to dismiss them had been taken while the criminal proceedings had still

Secondly, to the extent the applicant had argued that the amendment to the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction had been in force for a short period of time when he had lodged the present application, the

Sound problems had occurred twice during the hearing and had been easily and quickly resolved.

There were more detainees than bunks so inmates, including the applicant, had had to sleep in shifts.

Furthermore, it was established that the applicant had not reported the abuse immediately after it had occurred. Once he had reported the incident, the prison staff had taken swift action.

In the darkness, the police had not noticed that the first applicant had in fact had his documents in his hand in order to show them to the police, and they had thought that he intended to hit them.

Mr R.A. and Mr I.N. were convicted in absentia because they had escaped from the car park and had not been found since. The applicants had had no prior criminal records in the respondent State.

had not been available at the time.

In November 1998 the indictment was served on the applicant, who maintained that he had not had access to the full version of the document in good time.

had informed the authorities.

municipality and had not been privatised.