text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
103. The applicant argued that there had been sufficient evidence establishing that he had been tortured by the police in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. All the medical evidence indicated that he had had very serious injuries, a fact that had been corroborated by the Canadian Consul. The applicant subm... | 5 |
116. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the police station in March 2009 and in remand prison IZ-47/4 between March and August 2009, and the conditions in which he was transported to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court in March 2009. Under the same head... | 5 |
165. The applicants complained that at the moment of their abduction and after it Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev were subjected to ill-treatment. They further claimed that as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and the State's failure to investigat... | 5 |
104. The applicants submit that they suffered deliberate, premeditated and consistent abuse over a period of years which constituted torture and that the responsibility of the local authority was engaged as they had failed to protect them from this abuse. The local authority was under a positive obligation imposed by ... | 5 |
46. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by the police. He referred to the Court's case-law to the effect that if an individual is taken into the police custody in good health but is found injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide plausible explanations as to how the injur... | 5 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused her great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. She also complained under the same provision, taken together with ... | 5 |
39. The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of medical care in detention and about the conditions of his detenti... | 5 |
45. The Government argued that effective domestic remedies had been available to the applicants in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but that they had not availed themselves of those remedies. In particular, the first, third and fourth a... | 5 |
31. The Government referred to the findings of the domestic authorities and argued that the applicant had received his bodily injuries before the arrival of the police and had not been subjected to any treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention during the arrest or while in police custody. They furth... | 5 |
128. The applicants argued that their life sentences were neither de jure nor de facto reducible and were thus in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, Lithuanian law did not provide for release on parole for life prisoners; such a measure was applicable only to prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. A... | 5 |
52. The applicant observed that he had not disputed in principle that the Lingua analysis could be used as one part of the evidence pertinent to determining his origin and hence his asylum claim. However, according to domestic law, it was an expert opinion which did not bind the deciding authority. He claimed that “cl... | 5 |
52. The Government noted that pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, Hungary was the responsible EU member State to examine the applicant’s asylum application and had accepted responsibility pursuant to Article 16 § 1 (c) of the Dublin II Regulation. A transfer to the competent member State was inadmi... | 5 |
29. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because he had won several court cases against various State authorities. The domestic courts had acknowledged the violation of his rights and had also awarded him compensation. M... | 5 |
33. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Mariupol SIZO, the Sokiryanska prison no. 67 and the Dykanivska prison no. 12 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. In particular, the applicant complained of overcrowding in cells and a lack of proper nutrition, ventilation... | 5 |
152. The Government contested that argument and broadly reiterated the observations presented under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning communication between the applicant and the members of his family. They pointed out that the applicant could communicate with his relatives subject to the restrictions imposed... | 5 |
78. The Government argued that the first applicant's complaint was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted, firstly, that the first applicant could have brought a civil action for assault in respect of his complaint. In the context of such proceedings he could have complained that he had b... | 5 |
70. The Government also submitted that there was no evidence that the State authorities had openly disregarded the basic principles of humanity in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government drew the Court’s attention to the fact that from December 2000 to December 2001 the applicant h... | 5 |
90. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of transport between the remand centre and the courthouse had been inhuman and degrading. The vans had been cramped, unheated and inappropriate for the transport of detainees. He had been denied food, drink and access to a toilet f... | 5 |
17. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violation because by virtue of the domestic court’s judgment of 1 March 2013 he had been awarded compensation of PLN 7,000 (approximately EUR 1,750) plus interest. Additionally, the domestic courts had relied on Artic... | 5 |
35. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. In particular, he had not challenged the prosecutors’ decision of 20 July 2011 before the investigating judge (see paragraph 22 above). They referred to Levinţa v. Moldova (no. 17332/03, § 63, 16 December 2008), in which... | 5 |
60. The Government submitted that after the conviction of the three police officers the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also contended that the investigation into the applicants' ill-treatment had been thorough and prompt, and had resulted in the ... | 5 |
88. The Government challenged the applicants’ arguments, claiming that the facts that they had submitted to the Court were “highly exaggerated.” According to the Government, the applicants failed to prove that the treatment to which they had been subjected had attained the minimum level of severity. In their opinion, ... | 5 |
57. The applicant’s allegations of overcrowding, lack of outdoor exercise, problems with ventilation and lack of daylight in the cells, which are not disapproved by the Government, are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention between 8 and 15 July 2002 in the Debal... | 5 |
130. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to fourteen of the applicants, namely Ana Maria-Paula Bidi, Denes Biga, Erika Biga, Iosif Biga Snr, Iosif Biga Jr, Ladislau Biga, Rozalia Bucunea... | 5 |
73. The applicant stated that his extradition to Kazakhstan would breach Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed that the Kazakhstan authorities had deprived him of his property, which, in his view, proved that the rule of law was not respected in the requesting country. The Russian authorities had refused to exa... | 5 |
166. The applicant claimed an amount of EUR 15,000 or such amount as the Court deemed equitable in respect of non‑pecuniary damage He submitted that the Government's failure to recognise that his expulsion would constitute a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had led to tremendous anxiety and suffering on t... | 5 |
140. The applicant further argued that there was no social assistance for disabled prisoners. The applicant had to rely on the voluntary assistance of his cellmate, which could not be considered adequate. He further submitted that being placed in a position of dependence upon the goodwill of other detainees, to whom h... | 5 |
41. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, owing to belated payment of unemployment emoluments, she had been left without the means of existence and her very survival had been in danger. She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the belated payment of unemployment all... | 5 |
33. The applicant stood by his description of the events of 5 December 1999. He noted that the results of the medical examination conducted on 3 December 1999 and his interview to the TV station on 5 December 1999 could serve as evidence that he had been in good health before his unfortunate encounter with the police.... | 5 |
23. The applicant submitted that as result of the police officers’ actions he had sustained a number of injuries which were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The police had used excessive force against him and their use of the truncheon had been contr... | 5 |
65. The Government submitted that, contrary to the applicant’s allegations, his conviction had not been based on the incriminating statements extracted from him in police custody in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant’s conviction had been based mainly on the statements that his brother and P.M. ... | 5 |
71. The Government also referred to the argument in paragraph 68 above that it would be unreasonable to impose on a Contracting State, which provides more extended protection than suggested by Article <mask> of the Convention, an obligation under Article 8 to refrain from removing family members who do not have the ri... | 5 |
74. The applicant complained that following his arrest on 16 January 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the Stat... | 5 |
25. The Government contended that applicants who had already been released when they had lodged their application with the Court or who had been released following their application but prior to its examination had had at their disposal the remedy under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, in conjunc... | 5 |
65. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage that he had suffered as a result of the breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention. He asked the Court to have regard to the intensity of his suffering and the various ways in which he had been... | 5 |
71. The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his pre-trial detention. In particular, he complained about the conditions of his detention in the remand prisons. Next, he alleged that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in det... | 5 |
93. The applicant reiterated his complaints and contended that the conditions of detention in which he was held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied, inter alia, on the findings of the Court in other similar cases against Bulgaria (such as, f... | 5 |
106. The applicant simply reiterated his complaints and contended that the conditions of detention in which he was held at the Velingrad Investigation detention facility and the Pazardzhik Prison were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied, inter al... | 5 |
215. The Government submitted, with particular regard to the psychological and educational damage, that it related to the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken individually, which had been declared inadmissible by the Court in its decision of 1 March 2005. In their sub... | 5 |
139. The applicant complained that on 23 October and 7 November 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13. The Court will exa... | 5 |
35. The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention as it had not attained a minimum level of severity. They further stated that in any event the reports drawn up following the applicant’s medical examinations had not established beyond reasonable ... | 5 |
70. The applicant argued that he had proved that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he was force-fed and that the conditions of his detention, particularly between 28 October 1998 and 23 February 2000 (the date of his release from custody), were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He r... | 5 |
85. The applicant complained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected was such as to fall under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that for the treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment... | 5 |
45. The applicant complained that he had been tortured by the police between 23 and 25 November 1999. He also complained, in general terms, that in the Donetsk SIZO he had not received adequate medical aid; that the food there had been of a poor quality; and that there had been a person with mental health problems det... | 5 |
50. The applicant alleged that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in either of the detention facilities, including the prison hospital. He further complained of the inadequacy of the material conditions of his detention in Tbilisi Prison no. 5 and Rustavi Prison no. 6 and in the prison hospital. The a... | 5 |
73. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about being ill-treated by the police on 20 May 2005 and suffering a head trauma and a prolonged state of stupor as a result. He also complained about lack of proper medical assistance while in detention and about the failure to investigate properly h... | 5 |
4. The applicant, in his first application (Jeronovičs v. Latvia, no. 547/02, 1 December 2009), complained, inter alia, (a) that while he was being questioned in custody the police had subjected him to ill-treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, for the purpose of extracting a confession from him; an... | 5 |
46. 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 of the Convention. As to the applicant’s claim concerning the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the condition... | 5 |
37. The Government also noted that in the civil proceedings against the State the domestic courts had found for the applicant, establishing that the police officers of the Sovetskiy district police had inflicted injuries on him, and partially allowing his claim for compensation. The Government argued that the authorit... | 5 |
257. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They stated, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly on account of the young age of some of the applicants, and that there was no e... | 5 |
60. The Government reiterated that in their opinion the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he had not lodged a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division against either the judgment of 25 January 2007 or the judgment of 10 February 2... | 5 |
72. The Government argued that the State authorities had taken all steps for a comprehensive investigation into the case. They repeatedly underlined that the applicant's behaviour – failure to appear before the investigator on seventeen occasions and failure to submit medical documents – had caused significant delays ... | 5 |
71. The Government argued that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 17 March 2009, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violations alleged under Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention because the Constitutional Court had found a violation of those provisions. Furthermore, ... | 5 |
81. The applicant alleged that the treatment he had been subjected to during his detention in police custody had amounted to torture and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He stated that the police officers had stripped him naked, had forced him to kneel down and had rubbed an ... | 5 |
48. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that the prison authorities had failed to protect his personal security, his physical and moral integrity, despite the fact that they had been alerted about the aggressiveness of the bull, and that he had no effective right of compensation for the i... | 5 |
93. The Government also maintained that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had not extended to the obligation of the State to provide an alleged victim of ill-treatment with free legal representation to support his allegations before the domestic authorities. Nevertheless, they stated that for the pu... | 5 |
23. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not complained about the conditions of his detention to a prosecutor or court. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant's detention, but only in facility no. IZ-77/2. I... | 5 |
75. The applicant further complained that the circumstances of the case amounted to a breach of the prohibition of degrading treatment and had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, th... | 5 |
118. The applicants claimed that SIAC’s power to grant bail did not effectively function during the period when they were detained: firstly, because the scope of the remedy was jurisdictionally unclear; secondly, because the procedure was subject to delay; thirdly, because the threshold for granting bail was too high.... | 5 |
128. The Government stated that “the investigation of the criminal case had established that Rasul Tsakoyev had been subjected to ill-treatment and that he had died as a result of it”. They further stated that the perpetrators of the ill-treatment had not been established and that the alleged involvement of State agen... | 5 |
27. The Government contested that argument. Relying on the certificates prepared by the remand prison administration and the statements made by the remand prison officers in 2009, they asserted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the standards required by Article <mask> of the ... | 5 |
48. The applicants further complained that they had not received adequate medical care while in detention. However, the Court notes that none of the applicants adduced any evidence that they had been in need of any urgent medical care during their detention. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complain... | 5 |
122. The applicants submitted that the situation they had experienced had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above (§ 263). The state of extreme poverty and material and psychological want in which the authorities had placed them, in ful... | 5 |
92. The applicant complained that in view of his disability and his special needs, his protracted detention in the conditions of Szczytno and Olsztyn Remand Centres had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. More precisely, the applicant asserted that, despite his disability, the remand centre staff had n... | 5 |
29. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention at Kumkapı Removal Centre had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their submissions, the Government submitted photographs of some of the sleeping and communal areas, taken at an unspecified date,... | 5 |
31. The applicant complained that his detention from 22 May 2000 to 6 September 2002 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy to obtain an improvement in the con... | 5 |
60. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not require a judicial remedy and that the possibility to challenge a decision to discontinue an investigation before the general public prosecutor under Article 172 § 1 of the CCP had fulfilled the requirements stemming from the Convention. Even t... | 5 |
24. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and that the State authorities had failed to effectively investigate his allegations of ill-treatment. In his view, the above had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and to a breach of the State’s obligatio... | 5 |
72. The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any suffering he may have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the remand centre were appropriate, as was clear f... | 5 |
157. The applicants argued that their relatives’ naked bodies had been displayed at the military base without showing any respect for their privacy or memory and in front of a large number of military personnel who had nothing to do with the investigation. As a result of the bodies of their relatives being displayed i... | 5 |
166. The applicant’s representatives submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Russian authorities were implicated in the applicant’s disappearance, which in their opinion had resulted in his abduction and illegal transfer to Uzbekistan. They contended that the domestic authorities had failed to take t... | 5 |
48. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. On the merits, the Government submitted that the applicant had been provid... | 5 |
56. The applicant contended that the violence to which he had been subjected by prison guard S.N. amounted to ill-treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that he had been examined by a doctor only a few days after the incident. He further contested the number of days indicated by the f... | 5 |
87. The Government did not dispute that the applicant had been kept in prison together with adults. Referring to the medical report of 25 April 2001 (see paragraph 43 above), they maintained that the applicant had not suffered any mental problems which would have exempted him from being criminally liable for his actio... | 5 |
34. The applicant claimed that after his arrest police officers had ill‑treated him in order to make him confess to the alleged crimes and pay them money. His complaints to the prosecutor and the courts in that connection had been left without proper examination. Article <mask> of the Convention, referred to by the ap... | 5 |
45. The applicant complained that the domestic court decisions allowing his extradition to Uzbekistan had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention as extradition would have given rise to a real risk of ill‑treatment. When notifying the application to the respondent Government, the Court decided, of i... | 5 |
33. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any nonpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained that his detention in the conditions of Łowicz Prison, in which he had been held from 18 November 2004 until 24 July 2008, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant complained about the prison’s overcrowding a... | 5 |
223. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and torture while in detention, referring to the methods of ill-treatment inflicted on him by the police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. He also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into his relevant ... | 5 |
141. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Lema Dikayev had been subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of State agents. They also alleged that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in bre... | 5 |
55. The Government disagreed and relied on evidence to the contrary (see paragraph 13 above). They argued that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied, in particular, on the case of Drugalev v. The Ministry of Internal... | 5 |
124. The Government, relying on Çakıcı v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999‑IV), argued that the applicant could not be considered a victim under Article <mask> of the Convention since neither she nor her husband had ever objected to the removal of tissue. They also argued that, since the applicant had never... | 5 |
27. The applicant raises complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention. She alleges that she was unable to recover all the real estate she claimed, that she had no effective domestic remedy to restore her property rights, and that she is discrimi... | 5 |
216. The applicants further complained that the circumstances created by the judicial authorities, the CTU and the children services amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly as a result of the period of isolation in San Marino. Indeed, as a result, the second applicant suffered psychological distress.... | 5 |
90. The Government submitted that the applicant’s fears were groundless in view of the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the expulsion of aliens to a country where their health or life would be in jeopardy. The order to expel him had been intended to protect the national security of Bulgaria. Howeve... | 5 |
136. The Government did not dispute that the applicants’ injuries had been sufficiently serious as to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the Government’s view, the responsibility of the State could not be engaged in the current case since the domestic investigatio... | 5 |
59. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that the police had had ill-treated them in November 2000 and had failed to properly investigate their allegations of ill-treatment; that the first applicant was not given sufficient medical assistance on 4 November 2000 and that no investig... | 5 |
34. The Government confirmed that on 15 June 2001 the applicant was abducted and ill-treated and that he had sustained the injuries he claimed, contesting, however, any involvement of state officials in the infliction of injuries. The Government found it impossible to conclude that the applicant’s rights guaranteed un... | 5 |
63. The applicants complained that expulsion of the children to their home country would be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, because they would be separated from their immediate family and sent to their home country, where they have no one to care for them. They would probably be sent to an orphanage and... | 5 |
126. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant had not brought her grievance concerning her al... | 5 |
42. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that from 19 to 23 June 2003 he was ill-treated by the police officers who visited him in hospital. He further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the period of his stay in the hospital from 19 to 23 June 2003 was not included in the ove... | 5 |
80. The applicant complained that the absence of adequate medical care while in detention, in particular in Ploieşti Prison and Dej Prison Hospital, and the length of the proceedings concerning his request of 22 October 2007 for the temporary suspension of the execution of his prison sentence due to his serious medica... | 5 |
20. The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the domestic criminal and civil proceedings had afforded the applicant proper redress. They submitted that the domestic courts had determined ... | 5 |
120. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd‑Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mas... | 5 |
111. The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that he and his son had been beaten by servicemen and that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. He alleged furthermore that his son had been subjected to ill-treatment after his apprehension as well. The appli... | 5 |
107. The applicants further asked the Court not to limit its examination to the establishment of the Government's failure to assess properly the risk of ill-treatment before taking the extradition decision. They argued that they had submitted sufficient information for the Court to rule that their extradition to Uzbek... | 5 |
110. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their sons had most likely been tortured during and after their apprehension. They also claimed that as a result of their sons’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suf... | 5 |
137. The applicant took the view that he could still claim to be the “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While it was true that the Joint Court of Justice had reduced his sentence in view of the extreme conditions of his detention, the reduction had been intended to compensate only for the iso... | 5 |
122. The Government’s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see para... | 5 |
64. The Government acknowledged that the applicant’s conditions of detention from 23 December 2002 to 10 December 2008 did not comply with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of perso... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.