text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
89. The Government stated that the prosecutor’s office had conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. In particular, the investigation was started immediately after the applicant’s lawyer’s complaints and a number of important witnesses were questioned, and a forensic medica... | 5 |
164. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody following his arrest, and that the medical assistance in IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don and the conditions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse had been inadequate. He complained unde... | 5 |
252. The applicant stated that there had been no effective investigation capable of establishing the facts of his detention and treatment, auxiliary to the investigative element of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, there had been no domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the forme... | 5 |
65. The Government claimed at the outset that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, the fact that the Court had indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that “the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further noti... | 5 |
143. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated in the decisions ordering and extending his detention. He further complained under Article 13 of ... | 5 |
86. The Government disagreed, arguing that the facts of the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police had not been proven in the domestic proceedings, which had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant’s injuries could have been caused by a third person i... | 5 |
92. The Government, in their written submissions of 20 May 2014, contended for the first time that the applicant had neither exhausted domestic remedies nor complied with the six-month time-limit as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, and hi... | 5 |
265. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ arrest by State agen... | 5 |
59. The applicant maintained that he had sufficiently established that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if he were expelled to Morocco, given that the Moroccan authorities must be considered to be aware of his conviction for terrorism-related crimes... | 5 |
19. The applicant stated that the authorities had established and acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They had convicted the police officer and sentenced him to a fair punishment. Furthermore, they had awarded the applicant compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. However, the amount of compens... | 5 |
21. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in the Sokalska Colony and about various aspects of the regime in it: the procedure followed whenever the cell was opened and when he had been escorted outside the cell, the organisation of washing, searches, the prohibition on using mattresses and bed... | 5 |
48. The Government did not comment on all of the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Instead, they commented only on a few issues she raised, concentrating mainly on the applicant's attitude towards her prison sentence and the prison environment (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In particula... | 5 |
110. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ abduction and killing and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also claimed that Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev ha... | 5 |
170. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The app... | 5 |
60. The applicant further complained that the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention unit at Tuymazinsky police station between 19 January and 13 March 2002 had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention... | 5 |
64. The applicant argued that since 14 March 2007 he had been deprived of his liberty and, therefore, the authorities of Ukraine had been obliged to provide him with the appropriate medical treatment and assistance. However, it was not until 6 April 2007 that he had been diagnosed with cancer; his treatment had commen... | 5 |
77. The applicant complained, relying in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison guards, in that he had been handcuffed to his hospital bed the entire time he was hospitalised for his open-heart surgery, and that in Rahova Prison he had been denied adequate medical care for... | 5 |
118. The applicants complained that as a result of their son’s abduction and killing and the State’s failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering. Furthermore, the first applicant complained that at the time of his son’s abduction he had been beaten and that no effective investigation was condu... | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the applicant had failed to put forward any concrete evidence in support of his allegations. They contended that the allegations were deceitful and were part of a scenario used by the terrorist organisation to dish... | 5 |
67. The Government maintained that the acts of the medical staff in the sobering-up centre, who were not state agents, could not be attributed to the State. In any event, according to them, the restraining of the applicant had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for application of Article <mask> of ... | 5 |
22. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he could have lodged a civil court action seeking compensation for the alleged violation, similar to those brought successfully by the app... | 5 |
32. The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected at the police station amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that no effective investigation had been carried out into his allegations at the national level under Article 6 of th... | 5 |
131. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance afforded to him in remand centre no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg. In his opinion the medical records showed that he had not received any regular treatment for his rheumatoid polyarthritis. The recommendatio... | 5 |
32. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated during her detention in police custody and that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. The Court recalls that on 3 April 2007 it delivered a decision... | 5 |
103. The Government argued that the use of physical force and special means against the applicant on 28 October 2007 and 14 February 2008 had been made necessary by the applicant’s own conduct and had been lawful in domestic terms. They further argued that the treatment of which the applicant complained had not attain... | 5 |
155. The applicant alleged in substance that his conditions of detention in Belgium had constituted treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained of the constant transfers from one prison to another, the conditions under which the transfers had taken place and the special security measures appl... | 5 |
44. The applicant restated his complaints and relied on the findings of the CPT to corroborate his contentions. In respect of the conditions at the Pazardzhik Prison he also referred to the findings of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in its annual reports of 2001, 2004 and 2005, where they had allegedly deemed the co... | 5 |
39. The Government have admitted that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate measures to protect the second, third and fourth applicants from ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government have further admitted that the authorities failed to meet the positive obligation to ... | 5 |
63. The applicant complained of two distinct violations of Article <mask> of the Convention by prison staff while he was in Jelgava prison. First of all, he claimed to have been subjected to various unlawful disciplinary penalties; he particularly emphasised the illegal and unjust character of the last of these, impos... | 5 |
109. The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for asylum immediately after his arrival in Russia does not necessarily refute his allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Artic... | 5 |
74. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention had been submitted too late, as they had not been included in the original application form. They also maintained that the submissions of 13 April 2011 should in any case be dismissed as they failed to comply with the r... | 5 |
101. The Government submitted that the first applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment at the hands of the police on 13 May 2004 at Tbilisi police headquarters had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt owing to the absence of relevant medical certificates or other evidence that confirmed with certainty the existence... | 5 |
91. The Government stated that the Romanian authorities had introduced a series of important measures aimed at ensuring full observance of Article <mask> of the Convention. Indicating that they were aware of the Court’s findings concerning detention conditions and the case-law it had developed following the Iacov Stan... | 5 |
60. The applicant complained about a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention in prison no. 3 in Chişinău between 23 February and 15 November 2005 (see paragraphs 26-28 above). He also relied on the findings of the CPT and of the domestic auth... | 5 |
65. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers on three separate occasions: 4-5 May, 28-29 June and 4 August 2005. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a proper investigation in this connection. The Court finds it appropriate to examine those grievances under Ar... | 5 |
129. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to torture at the Artashat Police Department on 23 April 2004 and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective instigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He invoked Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applica... | 5 |
58. The Government asked the Court to take into account the fact that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies as regards the complaint raised under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. As to the applicant’s claim concerning the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of th... | 5 |
46. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional facility no. IK-13 had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed that the Government’s description of the conditions of his detention was not correct. He submitte... | 5 |
35. The applicant alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the State had failed to secure adequate living conditions for him throughout his detention. He maintained that during the whole period of his detention the cells allocated to him were desig... | 5 |
53. The applicants disagreed with the Government. They claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence that their injuries had been inflicted by the prison officers and that the Government had failed to provide a credible alternative explanation as to how they had sustained them. They further argued that the ... | 5 |
38. The applicant's situation was also comparable with that of an applicant in the aforementioned Kalashnikov case, who had been confined to a space measuring between 0.9 and 1.9 m² for a period of slightly more than two years, if counting from the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Russia. ... | 5 |
68. The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their son's killing. However, since the involvement of State agents in his abduction or killing had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for their suffering. They also stated that the investigation had not establ... | 5 |
89. The Government further argued that the injuries sustained by the applicant did not suggest that the alleged treatment reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the investigative authorities had not found that the injuries had been inflicted by the officers. The Go... | 5 |
44. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of ill-treatment by the police and investigators on 11 May 2001 in the Centru District Police Station and of the prosecution's refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into their alleged ill-treatment on that date. They also complained, under the... | 5 |
155. The Government refuted the applicants' arguments and claimed that the evidence given in the fact-finding hearing in the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal had shown that the applicants' allegations were ill-founded and that there had been no violation of any provision of the Convention. In particular, the Gover... | 5 |
40. The applicant complained that after his arrest he had been subjected to beatings by the police in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation into that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the Stat... | 5 |
13. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as... | 5 |
250. The Government suggested the following remedies: complaints to the prison or prosecution authorities and complaints to the domestic courts, according to the procedures provided by the national law. The Court, taking into account its case-law as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies described above (see paragraph... | 5 |
64. The applicants also alleged that the Belgian authorities had engaged in treatment proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention in that they had deported the second applicant without awaiting the Canadian authorities’ decision on their application for family reunification and had failed to ensure that she would b... | 5 |
34. The Government argued that the applicant had provided the Court with incomplete and misleading information, as he had failed to disclose the fact that he had been released from prison three years ago on 15 July 2010 and had been a fugitive from justice ever since. Consequently, the Government argued that the appli... | 5 |
71. The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police both during his transport to the Zagreb Police Department and during the police questioning and that during that questioning from 6 a.m. on 1 June 2004 until about 1 a.m. on 4 June 2004 he had been deprived of sleep and food and forced to sit on a chai... | 5 |
68. The applicants complained, in respect of each incident described above, that they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.... | 5 |
36. The Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof. The assessment of whether the force used by the police officers had been indispensable and not excessive was not part of the superficial domestic inquiry, which fell short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Accordingly, given the ... | 5 |
29. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his removal to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of torture and other forms of ill‑treatment on account of his affiliation with Ennahda. He further submitted, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that he had not been interviewe... | 5 |
139. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment during his time in police custody from his arrest on 13 April 1996 until his admission to hospital on 16 April 1996. He further complained that he had been subjected t... | 5 |
77. The Government submitted that the pre-trial investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been prompt, thorough and independent. They noted that the investigation had been started on the same day that the applicant had complained about ill-treatment, that numerous investigative actions had be... | 5 |
397. The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Conve... | 5 |
54. The Government considered that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that by challenging the prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings concerning his allegations of ill-treatment during the trial aga... | 5 |
53. The Government submitted that the applicant's request for temporary asylum had been examined and rejected by the competent authorities. They noted in this connection that the applicant had entered Turkey illegally and had omitted to request asylum for several years. Moreover, he was accused of being a member of th... | 5 |
48. The applicant submitted that on 13 February 1999 she was arrested in a manner contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. She further alleged that she had been beaten up upon arrival at the police station by the officers who questioned her and then again on the same day by the police officers when she refused to... | 5 |
80. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations... | 5 |
27. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb and that the authorities had complied with their procedural obligations under this head. They argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers had n... | 5 |
126. The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stated that the police officers had tried to improve the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the administrative-detention cell. They had allowed his relatives to bring him fo... | 5 |
222. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, as certain applicants had been minors at the time of the abductions of their pare... | 5 |
94. The applicant was detained in a sobering-up centre, a health care facility that was part of a psychiatric hospital, the purpose of which is to treat persons under the influence of drugs. The fact that the applicant was a person suffering from a mental illness was or should have been known to the staff of the centr... | 5 |
31. The Government submitted that as of 26 November 2009 the applicant had been detained in a cell in which the statutory minimum space of 3 square metres per person had been respected. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the... | 5 |
73. The Government, having submitted the applicant’s medical file in its entirety, accounted in detail for many factual circumstances, unknown to the Court prior to the communication of the application, concerning the treatment provided to the applicant in prison. Referring to those numerous circumstances (see paragra... | 5 |
23. The Government commented on the conditions of the applicant’s detention. In particular, they submitted that, in violation of the domestic requirements, the applicant had usually been detained in poorly lit cells with no ventilation, lavatory pan or furniture, apart from bunk beds. The cells had not been disinfecte... | 5 |
31. The Government contested that argument. They claimed that the strict life imprisonment being served by the applicant was based on a court decision and was prescribed by law. It was, moreover, not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s imprisonment amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.... | 5 |
60. The Government maintained that the applicant had received entirely appropriate treatment for his injury, including treatment in specialised clinics, an operation on his foot, regular check-ups and physiotherapy, which had led to a full recovery. Admittedly, there had been a delay in the treatment, but it had been... | 5 |
47. The applicant submitted that such a prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for subjecting him to the regime. All decisions imposing and extending the regime had lacked justification and had... | 5 |
42. The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained some minor bodily injuries. They stressed, however, that he underwent a medical examination four days later, after his release from the police station. Accordingly, the injuries could have been inflicted on him somewhere else. The Government still acc... | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any suffering they might have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the CFECC remand centre were appropriate. A d... | 5 |
247. The applicants further submitted that the domestic investigation of their alleged ill-treatment had been ongoing for years without any meaningful attempt to establish the truth and to punish those responsible. Referring to their complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of that investigation, they argued that they... | 5 |
29. The applicants argued that the State had failed to discharge its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect them from domestic violence and to prevent the recurrence of such violence. The authorities had been informed of M. M.’s actions, but had only fined him, which had had no effect o... | 5 |
47. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison no. 52/1 (between 8 July 2003 and 12 January 2005 and between 6 December 2005 and 14 February 2006) and in Moscow remand prison no. 77/3 (between 13 January and 5 December 2005) had been in breach of Article <mask> of t... | 5 |
26. The Government submitted that the complaint was belated. The applicant had been transferred out of the detention facility on 7 July 2010; however, he did not mention the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in his application form of 28 July 2010. Although he stated his intention to lodge such a compla... | 5 |
47. The Government contended that they had received sufficient assurances from the Kazakh authorities that the applicants’ rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would not be violated if they were extradited to Kazakhstan. The Government also stated that they had never received complaints about ill-treatment by... | 5 |
73. The Government referred to their description of the conditions of the applicants’ detention and maintained that even if they had not been ideal, they had not been such as to breach Article <mask> of the Convention. They drew the Court’s attention mainly to the improvements that had taken place in 2015 and 2016, in... | 5 |
212. The applicant’s representatives argued that the highly suspicious events surrounding the applicant’s disappearance in Russia, his crossing of the Russian State border, and his ensuing return to Uzbekistan demonstrated that Russian State officials had been passively or actively involved in that operation. They con... | 5 |
34. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment when he had been detained in police custody both in 1996 and in 2002. He further argued that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, despite the... | 5 |
39. The applicant next complained about the fact that he was strip searched. The Court notes that it has already had occasion to apply the principles of Article <mask> of the Convention set out above in the context of strip and intimate body searches. A search carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for ... | 5 |
34. The applicants complained that the treatment to which they were subjected by the prison authorities and gendarmes on 20 July 1995 in Buca Prison amounted to torture and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their observations dated 11 May 2006 the applicants further complained, wi... | 5 |
39. The Government contested that argument. They submitted, in view of the judicial award in the applicant’s favour, that he had lost his victim status, even though such an award did not signify that his rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed. The amount of the award had been commensurat... | 5 |
87. The applicants finally submitted that the refusal by the Appeals Board of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice, in its decision of 22 November 2000, to examine their complaint of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 22 above) meant that they did not have an effec... | 5 |
22. The Government invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. With regard to the fifth, seventh and ninth applicants, the Government contended that they had been released or transferred to other prisons, and should therefore have instituted civil proceedings unde... | 5 |
26. The Government opened their line of arguments by attracting the Court's attention to the circumstances of the applicant's husband's arrest and her extreme reaction to the police officers' lawful actions. The Government stressed that the applicant had unlawfully sought her husband's release, which had been effected... | 5 |
42. The Government maintained that while in detention the applicant had been provided with the necessary medical assistance. The Government noted that there was no evidence that “before August 2013” the applicant had informed the detention facilities’ administration about his HIV status. However, the applicant has bee... | 5 |
113. The applicant submitted that they had reason to believe that their relatives had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. They also complained that as a result of their close relatives' disappearance and the lack o... | 5 |
43. The Government concluded that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been slight and that therefore the treatment complained of did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. Alternatively, even assuming that the treatment complained of could be regarded as falling within the scope of that... | 5 |
40. The Government argued that the applicant’s claim should be rejected owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant had failed to raise his complaint before “prosecution bodies” or a court. Secondly, they questioned the existence of a link between the allegedly inadequate medical treatment and the de... | 5 |
49. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s objections. She claimed that the remedy indicated by the Government had not been available to her, as copies of the decisions refusing to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment had not been given to her. She further claimed that she had raised the issue of ill-tr... | 5 |
29. The applicant insisted that he had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained his version of events and argued that on 26 August 2003 he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers who were taking revenge on him because he had shot their colleag... | 5 |
29. The applicant argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that following the Iraqi authorities' refusal to admit him through the official Habur border post, he was locked up overnight inside a bus while handcuffed to a seat and was kept in various police and gendarmerie stations until he was deported to Iraq by ... | 5 |
88. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the investigative authorities during the pre‑trial investigation; under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in SIZO no. 3 pending his trial had been unlawful; and under Article 6 § 3 (d) that the trial c... | 5 |
32. The applicant complained that his arrest had been carried out by six police officers who entered his house with firearms pulled out. The police officers had been masked so that the individual police officer could not be identified as author of a particular action. Furthermore, a police officer had threatened him t... | 5 |
86. The Government reiterated that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ukraine prohibited torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution contained directly applicable provisions and could be relied on by a claimant as a legal basis for his or her claim. Moreover, in accordance with the Consti... | 5 |
25. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police officers during his questioning on 20 April 2002, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into his ill-treatm... | 5 |
37. The applicant complained that the prison officers had not taken enough measures to protect his life, particularly in connection with the failure to provide medical assistance after he had been injured by another inmate. He complained further that he had been put in solitary confinement after that incident had take... | 5 |
99. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained under this heading that Isa and Shamil Khalid... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.