text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
39. The applicant had less than 3 sq. m of personal space during four non‑consecutive periods, which respectively lasted for one, two, thirty‑four and forty‑two days (see paragraph 30 above). The Court considers that the periods of one and two days can be considered of short duration (see Muršić, cited above, § 130). ... | 5 |
119. The Government considered that the security installations in question neither constituted degrading treatment nor caused significant discomfort. They submitted, in particular, that all detainees who were in pre-trial detention were routinely placed either in metal cages or in the glass cabins which were progressi... | 5 |
70. 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 he raised. In particular, they submitted that as the applicant had mainly complained about the failure of the authorities to provide him with proper medical treat... | 5 |
89. The Government, in their additional observations in reply to those of the applicant (see paragraph 9 above), submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had left Cyprus illegally and had gone to Iraq. He therefore did not face... | 5 |
20. 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 27 June 2013 he had been awarded compensation of PLN 1,000 plus interest. Additionally, the domestic court relied on Article <mask> of the Convention an... | 5 |
40. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, that he had been tortured in the OCU's temporary detention facility, and that the conditions of his further detention at the Investigative Isolator No. 1 also amounted to ill-treatment. He also complaine... | 5 |
98. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in that he remained in solitary confinement between 6 January 2006 and 31 January 2008. He submitted that the cell had been fitted with a narrow bed which was too short for him, that in winter the temperature in the cell fell below zero, ... | 5 |
59. The Government challenged the country information relied on by the applicant. They indicated that the situation in Sri Lanka had developed to such an extent since the publication of the April 2009 Guidelines, that the UNHCR had published a note on their applicability (see paragraph 21 above). The Government argued ... | 5 |
40. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the impunity of officer A.C. as a result of the failure to prosecute him under applicable criminal-law provisions. They also complained, under the same Article, that the investigation of their forced undressing in front of V.D. had not been pro... | 5 |
88. The Government contested those arguments and stated that in the course of proceedings under the Dublin Regulation the Austrian authorities were required to examine whether an applicant would face a real risk under Article <mask> of the Convention upon a transfer. Should the authority find that there was a danger t... | 5 |
85. The Government, however, asserted that the applicant had waived his procedural rights, relying on his written statements of 19 March 2004 (see paragraphs 15‑16 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention – in so far as it is permissible – must not run count... | 5 |
116. The Government argued that the applicant's complaint was manifestly ill-founded, being linked to the manifestly ill-founded complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action with the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad and he had explore... | 5 |
70. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the detention centre for aliens had been satisfactory and had complied with both the domestic regulations and Article <mask> of the Convention. He had had sufficient personal space, an individual sleeping place and unrestricted access to ... | 5 |
97. The applicants complained that their relatives had been ill-treated by State agents, and that no investigation had been carried out into the matter. They also complained that during a fortnight when their relatives remained missing they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relat... | 5 |
87. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had caused him to be infected with tuberculosis by placing him in a cell with detainees who had contracted this disease. He further claimed that the authorities had not ensured adequate treatment of his hepatitis and tuberc... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention during the investigation and trial and about the conditions of his transport to and from court. He also complained that on 26 December 2004 he had been beaten by police officers during his arrest and in police custody. He referred to Article <mask> of ... | 5 |
29. The Government maintained that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection they emphasised that, unlike in İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000‑VII, the Serbian authorities had heard not only th... | 5 |
54. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody in 1995 and that, during his detention in the Donetsk SIZO from November 1995 to December 1996 he had suffered from gravely inadequate conditions of detention. Lastly, the applicant... | 5 |
94. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that it was highly probable that after the abduction Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicants also alleged that the third applicant was subjected to ill-treatment during the abduction. Furt... | 5 |
35. The Government argued that the conditions of transport had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with the applicant’s detention, and thus had not amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that all the conditions and asp... | 5 |
119. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They also stated that the first applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries and that, u... | 5 |
97. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their sons had most likely been tortured after their arrest and that the first applicant had been beaten, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that as a result of thei... | 5 |
29. The Government noted that the Court had already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms in Svinarenko and Slyadnev (cited above) and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. ... | 5 |
35. The applicant maintained his complaint. He reiterated that he had been detained in severely overcrowded cells where he was afforded no more than 0.83-1.4 sq. m of personal space. He further referred to the case of Belevitskiy (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007) where the Court had found a viola... | 5 |
93. The applicants further argued that that there was no jurisprudence to show that they could have claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, such a claim, in any event, could not have improved their conditions. As reg... | 5 |
74. The applicant contended that her son had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3, in view of the known circumstances of his arrest, and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate this complaint. Referring to the Court's established case-law, the applicant claimed that she was a victim... | 5 |
97. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s contention that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover the issues of provision of legal representation for him to enable him to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill-treatment. He submitted that the procedural guarantees... | 5 |
38. The Government contended that Article 2 did not come into play in the present case since the victim was still alive. Admittedly, the police officers who were involved in the chase had made use of their weapons; however, they had not intended to kill him, but only to force him to stop his car and arrest him. Referr... | 5 |
124. The Government submitted that there was no indication that the applicants had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that in the absence of evidence of the involvement of State authorities in the disappearance of Mayrudin Khantiyev, there was no causal link betw... | 5 |
20. The applicant complained of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention since he had been detained in inhuman conditions and had not been provided with the medical assistance that his condition required. He also complained that his detention by unconstitutional authorities had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5... | 5 |
247. 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 fact that certain applicants were minors and there was no evid... | 5 |
46. The applicant complained that because of his Uzbek ethnic origin, he was – and would remain, if removed to Kyrgyzstan – at a real risk of ill‑treatment. He argued that he belonged to an ethnic group whose members were systematically tortured by the Kyrgyz authorities and convicted in connection with the June 2010 ... | 5 |
199. The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow had been inadequate. In particular, he alleged that after his arrest he did not receive regular medical supervision, including examination by specialists and specialised tests, as required following the rese... | 5 |
77. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police, and that the State had failed to investigate his allegations of police brutality. In this context, he complained that the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been protracted, unlike the proceedings against him, which had been com... | 5 |
35. The applicant died on 8 April 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s sister, Ms Artemyeva, wished to pursue the application after his death. The Government did not comment. The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examin... | 5 |
29. The applicant submitted that the 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 applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the leader of a collective protest. He h... | 5 |
41. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality, which had caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he had been the victim of a procedural violation of ... | 5 |
41. The applicant complained that holding him in detention on remand had constituted a danger to his life and health given his sleep disorder and the need to use a respirator. He alleged that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention. The applicant was very anxious about the possibility of a pow... | 5 |
79. The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention and of a lack of adequate medical treatment in Colibaşi Prison. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, unhygienic sanitary facilities, lice, extreme cold during winter, lack of running water and lack of activities. Moreover, he complained th... | 5 |
107. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any reliable evidence to show that in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan he would run the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Uzbekistan had sought the applicant’s extradition in order to p... | 5 |
58. The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police and that despite medical evidence of his bodily injuries the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an independent and effective investigation into his ill‑treatment. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of... | 5 |
30. The applicant argued that his complaint had not been premature. In 2008-09 he had actively sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers, but the domestic authorities had repeatedly refused his requests after carrying out several pre-investigation inquiries. Judicial review of the inve... | 5 |
44. The Government further denied that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in the present case and that the police officers had subjected the applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment. They referred to the results of the forensic expert examination of 15 October 2001, according to which the injuries ... | 5 |
100. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for them to complain about the alleged violations of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular as regards the alleged lack of provisions, bedding, lighting and ventilation. They consider... | 5 |
43. The applicant complained that he had been tortured by a tax police officer, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into these events had been insufficient. The applicant also complained unde... | 5 |
62. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the lack of adequate medical assistance in correctional colony IK‑272/3. He alleged that the medical service was inadequate generally and, in particular, that there had been a failure to arrange for surgery on his prostate adenoma; he also complain... | 5 |
42. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated on 20 June 2003 and that the investigation into his complaint had not been effective. The Court considers that the applicant's complaint should be examined under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article <mask> ... | 5 |
28. The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that it had been open to ... | 5 |
49. The applicant submitted that, while not disputing that he had been arrested and detained in the manner alleged by him, the Government did not explain in a plausible way the origin of the injuries noted on him the next day. It had to be borne in mind in this connection that his complaint comprised six relatively se... | 5 |
96. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO were adequate and did not reach the threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their statements, the Government submitted a document, certified by the SIZO Governor, which contained a description of the... | 5 |
28. The applicant submitted that the 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 applying the regime to him. All of the decisions imposing and extending the regime lacked justification and did n... | 5 |
120. The Government pointed out that the fact that the applicant had occasionally been detained in overcrowded cells could not serve as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the detention conditions (availability of an individual sleeping place, bedding,... | 5 |
52. The applicant further complained that his defamation by fellow villagers amounted to his inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 about inadequate assessment of the facts by the courts. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he next complained about t... | 5 |
193. The applicant's prison cell is indisputably furnished to a standard that is beyond reproach. From the photographs in its possession and the findings of the delegates of the CPT, who inspected the applicant's prison during their visit to Turkey from 2 to 14 September 2001, the Court notes that the cell the applica... | 5 |
44. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In parti... | 5 |
43. The Government contested that statement. They pointed out that, according to the Court’s case-law, damage to personal integrity did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy, especially where the harm had been inflicted as a result of negligence. Hence, a lack of criminal-law remedies in itself could not const... | 5 |
105. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully classified as a “dangerous detainee” and that he had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner for a period of 692 days. He referred, in particular, to routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected thr... | 5 |
93. The applicant complained of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance he had received in detention, the authorities’ refusal to release him on health grounds or transfer him to a civil hospital with a higher standard of care and the allegedly inhuman conditions of his transport on 21 December 2007. He relied on ... | 5 |
261. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Mr Shchiborshch had been subjected to ill-treatment which led to his death. They referred to forensic reports, which stated that in the course of the police operation he had sustained seventy injuries, including a craniocerebral multitr... | 5 |
40. The Government submitted that the domestic investigating authorities had conducted a thorough inquiry into the applicant’s allegations and had taken a decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant had sustained his injuries at the hands of... | 5 |
94. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by the police following his arrest on 3 July 2009. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained that there had not been any adequate domestic investigation into the matter. The applicant further complained under ... | 5 |
29. The Government argued that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were ill-founded and stressed that the applicant had not undergone a medical check-up until some twenty-two days after his release, on 29 April 2009 at the Memoria centre. In any event, only medical reports issued by authorised forensic doctor... | 5 |
38. The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained minor physical injuries. However, the Government maintained that there were no indications that the applicant had ever been assaulted by the police officers. According to them, the injuries in question had been sustained by the applicant during his fi... | 5 |
93. The applicant’s second argument concerned the risk of his being subjected to the death penalty as a form of “punishment” in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, it is common ground between the parties that the charges against the applicant under Article 139 § 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, as s... | 5 |
24. The applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He further argued that, despite the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged that the conditions of his detention in the ward had not met the requirements of Russian law, he had not lost his “victim” status, as his de... | 5 |
59. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been compatible with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied upon excerpts from the remand prison population register and certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison in Augu... | 5 |
30. The applicant's lawyer submitted that as result of the police officers' actions the applicant 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 acted in a manner not appropriate to a person suffering fr... | 5 |
74. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs, Sokyriany Colony and in transit therefrom to Torez Colony, including physical, sanitary and healthcare arrangements had been incompatible with human dignity and that the prison and convoy authorities had treated the detainees i... | 5 |
76. The Government did not dispute the principle that the Court was competent to give a set of facts a different legal characterisation by, for example, examining an alleged violation of Article 8 under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, this did not mean that the Court was entitled to discern, for example, fr... | 5 |
64. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In parti... | 5 |
85. The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicant’s son must have caused considerable emotional distress to her, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities’ actions and the applicant’s mental and emotional suffering, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investiga... | 5 |
96. The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the first applicant during the night of 26-27 May 2005. Throughout the proceedings all possible investigative measures were carried out to establish the circumstances of the alleged beatin... | 5 |
117. The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension and that the State had failed to investigate properly the events. She also claimed that as a result of her son's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate the events, s... | 5 |
38. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been detained in the temporary detention centre with persons who were hostile to law enforcement officers and that he had been beaten up by police officers or interrogators. He complained that he had had to study the case file over th... | 5 |
39. The Government pointed out that in the applicants' case the alleged ill-treatment, resulting in minor injuries, had taken place in the course of the lawful arrest of the applicants' relatives. The applicants themselves had been actively involved in the conflict and had been obstructing the police officers in the p... | 5 |
51. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, and poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as exc... | 5 |
63. The Government have not disputed that the injuries detailed in the medical reports of the three applicants had been caused while they were in the hands of agents of the State. In the absence of any explanation by the Government, who bear the burden of providing a plausible explanation for those injuries (see, in t... | 5 |
124. The Government contested the first applicant’s arguments. They noted that, in the first place, the extradition request of 29 December 2010 had contained assurances that in Tajikistan the first applicant would not be subjected to inhuman treatment or punishment or persecuted on political or religious grounds and t... | 5 |
196. The Government submitted that the State had indeed honoured the positive obligation flowing from Article <mask> of the Convention to conduct an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. They affirmed that the authorities had adopted all the measures required by the Court’s case-law (see Gäfgen, cited abo... | 5 |
27. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been held in custody despite the fact that he was suffering from a number of ailments. He further alleged that he had been deprived of adequate medical treatment while held in custody and that the conditions of detention had been unsatisfa... | 5 |
100. The applicant disagreed with the assertion that the Russian authorities had made a thorough assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in his case, pointing out that the authorities’ conclusions in that respect had been based on the scant information obtained from a hand... | 5 |
54. The applicant complained of the impunity his torturers had allegedly enjoyed following a trial he claimed itself violated the essence of the right enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. In connection with the same complaint, the applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, while explaining that t... | 5 |
32. The Government submitted that the applicant had been afforded the necessary procedural guarantees within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. An investigation had been conducted into the actions of the police officers, who had subsequently been brought to trial. At the end of that trial, one of the pol... | 5 |
28. The applicant complained that the anguish and distress suffered by her on account of the attitude of the authorities towards their duty to investigate the circumstances of her husband’s death, including their systematic failures to update her of the progress in the investigation and to respond to her inquiries and... | 5 |
32. The Government next referred to the Court’s case-law, according to which the applicant had a duty to submit evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she had been subjected to ill-treatment that had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of ... | 5 |
77. The Government submitted that the factual circumstances of the case did not disclose that the applicant had been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. There had been no evidence to substantiate or create any suspicion that the police officers had used violence against him, or that his injuries... | 5 |
113. The applicant submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal Uçar had been subjected to coercion while in police custody. He further maintained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his son had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer author... | 5 |
102. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their suffering on account of the death of their son, further exacerbated by the alleged lack of volition on the authorities’ part to establish the truth, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention,... | 5 |
21. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, during his transfer between prisons and from prison to hospital, he had been subjected to strip-searches, including anal inspections, which had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further alleged that, because he had resisted such me... | 5 |
70. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, having failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance, despite his suffering from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. He further argued that the authorities’ persistent re... | 5 |
146. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative’s 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 argued that they had serious grounds to believe that M... | 5 |
109. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Visadi Shokkarov had been ill-treated while in police custody from 6 January to 2 February 2003, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that the death of Visadi Shokkarov and the di... | 5 |
62. The applicants complained that the poor material conditions of their stay in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained that their confinement to the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport amounted to an unlawful dep... | 5 |
57. The applicant complained that on 8, 22 and 28 June 2004 he had been subjected to violence by officers from the ORB police unit. He had then been transferred to correctional colony IK‑14 and during his detention there from July to November 2004 had been subjected to further violence by the police and prisoners acti... | 5 |
27. The Government argued that there were several effective domestic remedies that had not been used by the applicant in the present case. In the first place, they alleged that the applicant had not requested a domestic court, under Article 24 and 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, to order the relevant au... | 5 |
179. The applicant’s second complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerned the harsh conditions of his detention. In particular, he complained about the lack of natural light and ventilation in the cell, which was very small, the fact that the authorities had provided him with light, inadequate clothes and... | 5 |
39. The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage in the remand prison for the purposes of his participating, by means of a video link, in the court’s examination of his appeals against the detention orders on 6 April and 28 June 2011 had violated his human dignity. The complaint falls to be examined u... | 5 |
88. The Government argued that there had been an effective investigation in response to the first applicant’s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment on 30 June 2004. They distinguished the present case from Labita v. Italy on the facts, stating that the actions of the Cēsis District Police Department had never been... | 5 |
132. The applicant complained, with reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, about the searches of his SIZO cell on 27 March and 3 April 2007, as having allegedly resulted in the seizure of his personal belongings, namely his copy of the Code of Criminal Procedure with comments and his notepad with some telephon... | 5 |
30. The applicant submitted that the police officers had subjected him to humiliating and degrading treatment during his arrest and detention. He complained that they had exposed him to the public in handcuffs and then taken him to his workplace and his home, still in handcuffs. He contended that the police officers' ... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.