text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
44. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of being made to wear handcuffs whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had ... | 5 |
93. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that when he had been deported from Sweden to Estonia he had not been granted a residence or work permit and thus had had no possibility of getting social aid for subsistence or medical expenses. He further argued that his deportation to the Russian F... | 5 |
37. The Government also claimed that in accordance with domestic rules in force at the material time, it was necessary to separate the sanitary unit from the rest of the cell with a partition of at least 1.5 metres high (see paragraph 17 above), and in the applicant’s case the sanitary facilities had been separated fr... | 5 |
93. The applicant submitted that from 11 December 2007 and, at least, until 19 September 2008 he had been constantly handcuffed to his bed while in the hospital – with one hand during the day and with both hands during the night. He further noted that he had been constantly guarded by three SIZO officers and had been ... | 5 |
59. The applicants submitted that they could still be considered victims of the ill-treatment, despite the conviction of the three police officers. Given the intensity and the aim of the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected (namely, to extract confessions), it had to be recognised as torture, within the mean... | 5 |
31. The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature. They pointed out that he had raised the same complaints in his constitutional complaint of 17 August 2010 and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were still pending. The Government also argue... | 5 |
106. 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 stated that it was highly probable that Mr Ismail Dzham... | 5 |
88. The applicant argued that the circumstances that he will face in Afghanistan will amount to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the poor provision for and ignorance surrounding persons with disabilities there. He argued that his case could be distinguished from N. v. the United Kingdom, cit... | 5 |
32. The Government maintained that the treatment that the applicant complained of had not attained the level of severity proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, as the applicant had resisted the police officers during the arrest, the force used had been justified. As to the procedural limb of Arti... | 5 |
137. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated and humiliated during his arrest in the street and at Kentron Police Station after he had been taken there on 1 March 2008. The violence he had faced was above the required threshold to be qualified as torture under Article <mask> of the Convention and was attr... | 5 |
63. The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention and the health care in the prison hospital had been so inadequate as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also contended that the respondent State should be held liable for having failed to investi... | 5 |
23. The Government maintained that all medical reports concerning the first applicant concluded that there had been no traces of blows on her body. Moreover, although the medical report dated 29 July 2001 concerning the second applicant concluded that he had an abrasion on his upper lip and a hyperaemia on his chest, ... | 5 |
69. The Government acknowledged that during some periods of detention in the remand centre the statutory requirement of floor space of four square metres per detainee had not been complied with. However, this had not necessarily entailed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The other material conditions of... | 5 |
89. The applicant also complained, referring to her health problems since March 2002, that the search of her house had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained under Article 6 that she had been wrongly denied access to the file in respect of her cri... | 5 |
53. The Government notes that the applicant’s unstable health and old age might have placed him in a more precarious situation compared to other detainees and might have increased his feeling of distress or anguish, but they noted the fact that the applicant had by that time already been charged with and convicted of ... | 5 |
154. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damages for an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his detention conditions on death row and the alleged lack of effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to deter... | 5 |
61. The Government submitted that, following NA., cited above, in order to establish a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant would have to show that there were serious reasons to believe that he was of sufficient interest to the authorities to warrant his detention and interrogation, either because... | 5 |
33. The Government submitted that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage and that his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was therefore inadmissible and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. They emphasised that the administrative courts at two leve... | 5 |
65. The applicant further stated that his case was even stronger than Soering v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) where a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was found on account of the effects of the “death row phenomenon”. In particular, he was not merely a potential victim of... | 5 |
37. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated while in police custody. She alleged that she had been beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls, which had brought about intense mental suffering leading to a suicide attempt, consideri... | 5 |
98. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali Aziyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention or that State agents had participated in the beating of the first applicant. Mor... | 5 |
47. The Government claimed that the applicant himself had been partly responsible for being placed in B wing, because he had stated that he did not want to work. The applicant did not deny this fact. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that conditions of imprisonment could be determined according to wh... | 5 |
63. The applicant alleged that the search and seizure in his office and its sealing had amounted to degrading treatment. He said that these events had been widely publicised in the press and seen by several of his clients, which had had a negative impact on his professional reputation. He relied on Article <mask> of t... | 5 |
67. The Government referred to the conclusions of the pre-investigation inquiry, asserting that the applicants’ allegations were unfounded. Given that they were provided as a result of a domestic pre-investigation inquiry falling short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, which was later quashed by... | 5 |
91. The applicant alleged that the poor conditions of his detention were in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The parties’ submissions as regards the material conditions of detention have been summarised in paragraphs 56-59 and 66-67 above. The main facts relevant to the assessment of the conditions of de... | 5 |
109. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relatives had most likely been tortured after their abduction and that such a possibility had not been investigated. The applicants also claimed that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to in... | 5 |
93. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Gilani Iriskhanov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of the disappearance of their son Zurab Iriskhanov and the State's failure to investigate it properly they... | 5 |
33. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the applicant’s alleged infection with tuberculosis in prison was inadmissible for non-exhaustion. Notably, in line with the Court’s conclusion in the Goloshvili case (cited above, §§ 32-33), they maintained that there we... | 5 |
53. The applicant conceded that he had undergone a course of chemical treatment in the hospital of remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow. However, the hospital did not have all the medicine required and his mother had to send him antihistamines and badger and bear fat. Besides, the chemical treatment had been interrupte... | 5 |
25. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. According to the Government, the applicant could have argued that he was a suicide risk and raised Article <mask> of the Convention in the context of his appeal against deportation, but did not do so, relying instead only upon Art... | 5 |
99. The Government contended that the investigation had obtained no evidence confirming that the applicants' eight relatives had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the reports on the forensic medical examination of 12 April 2004 did not attest the presence on th... | 5 |
94. The applicant complained that on 5 September and 17 October 1999 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 examine this complaint ... | 5 |
72. The applicants maintained that the mutilation of their relatives' bodies, before or after their death, had been in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that their own suffering as a result of that disfigurement amounted to a breach of this provision. The applicants lastly alleged t... | 5 |
76. The applicant contested the Government’s view that he had lost his victim status in connection with the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment. He stressed that it was impossible to answer the question of whether he had lost his initial status of a victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention without having fi... | 5 |
73. The applicant’s injuries (as described above) were confirmed on numerous occasions by the findings of forensic medical experts. It is not contested by the Government that the treatment described by the applicant reached the threshold of severity necessary for the events in question to fall within the ambit of Arti... | 5 |
114. The applicants complained that as a result of their relative's killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured profound mental suffering. Furthermore, referring to the forensic expert examination report, the applicants alleged that Umar Zabiyev had sustained an injury to his lower jaw ... | 5 |
57. The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment were largely unsubstantiated and exaggerated. Instead of providing sufficient details to illustrate in what manner each of the applicants had been individually ill-treated, they focused on the general events that had taken place during the m... | 5 |
44. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been degrading; under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest and detention between 28 February and 26 June 2005 had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons; un... | 5 |
68. The applicant argued that the medical evidence indicated that the ill-treatment he had been subjected to on 4 July 2009 amounted to torture. In particular, he referred to a broken rib, scratches, abrasions and bruises, crepitation in the area of the eighth and ninth ribs and blood in the urine. The ill-treatment h... | 5 |
88. The applicants complained that Isa Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment while being apprehended. The applicants further claimed that they had serious grounds to believe that he had also been ill-treated in custody. They also complained that they had suffered severe mental distress and angu... | 5 |
51. The applicant complained of having been ill-treated by his cellmates while in detention pending the outcome of the investigation into his case and the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him, and of the absence of an effective response on the part of the domestic authorities in that regard. He relied on... | 5 |
40. The Government stressed that the issue of whether the first, second and fourth applicants’ mental health should entitle them to residence permits on grounds of exceptionally distressing circumstances (Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Aliens Act) had been considered by the domestic authorities. In their view, the concep... | 5 |
110. The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted that the 1999 Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act envisaged a number of remedies for the protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty... | 5 |
158. The applicants submitted, with reference to the medical documents they had furnished, that Zelimkhan Isayev had been ill-treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the treatment to which he had been subjected had amounted to torture. They also stated that there had been a breach of Article 3 i... | 5 |
153. The applicant submitted that the conditions under which he had been detained at the three police stations for such a long duration had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Those establishments had been inadequate for the purposes of custody exceeding a few da... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained that his punishment by solitary confinement had been excessive and that the conditions in Rahova Prison’s solitary confinement cells were inhuman and degrading. He also alleged that on 27 January 2006 he had been beaten by members of a special intervention unit wearing masks, and that the ... | 5 |
183. The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. His representatives further supplemented his complaint, submitting that there had been a violation of Arti... | 5 |
81. The Government noted that from May to December 2007 the applicant had participated in nine court hearings. When scheduling the hearings the court had periodically verified whether the applicant was fit to participate in the hearing. When being transported to the court hearings the applicant was accompanied by a me... | 5 |
119. The Government further submitted that a thorough investigation was necessary not only to determine if the alien in question has adequately established that he can expect to be subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 upon returning to his country of origin but also because it was necessary to ensure that th... | 5 |
77. The applicant's situation is comparable with that in the Kalashnikov case, in which the applicant had been confined to a space measuring 0.9‑1.9 sq. m. In that case the Court held that such a severe overcrowding raised in itself an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ... | 5 |
35. The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the claim that the applicants had been kept outside for a long period without being allowed to get properly dressed was not true. Moreover, they pointed out that in their... | 5 |
104. The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand prisons in Moscow and Volokolamsk and in the Dmitrov detention centre, as well as the conditions in which he had been transferred to the courts and back, were compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted thei... | 5 |
26. The applicant pointed out that, according to the medical report compiled after he had arrived at the police station, he had not had any injuries at that time. However, after his release from police custody he had undergone a medical examination which had confirmed the presence of injuries on his body. He also alle... | 5 |
119. 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 stated that their relatives had been subjected to ill-t... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he was subjected to acts of police brutality which caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that t... | 5 |
49. The Government submitted that the applicant could have had recourse to administrative authorities i.e. a complaint to the penitentiary authorities. They further stressed that on 26 October 2006 the applicant had been released from the Gdansk Remand Centre. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the a... | 5 |
69. The applicants submitted that the allegations of ill-treatment rested on a solid evidentiary basis which included their original complaints to the authorities in May 2001, the reports on the use of rubber truncheons and materials of the criminal investigation. It was undeniable that the treatment complained about ... | 5 |
118. The applicant maintained that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension as he had been ordered to get half undressed, to kneel on the rails and to stay in this position for over two hours while his hands had been tied behind his back with iron wire. She further contended that the State had failed to co... | 5 |
50. The Government argued that the treatment provided to the applicant in detention facility no. IZ-24/1 had been in accordance with the applicable domestic legal norms and Article <mask> of the Convention. They further pointed out that the applicant had undergone a number of medical examinations, tests and procedures... | 5 |
37. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He had never made any such allegations before the domestic authorities. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Belarus were insuf... | 5 |
112. The Government conceded that the entry of the police into their home, and the search of the house, had undoubtedly aroused negative feelings in the applicants. However, they submitted that these were the normal and inevitable consequence of this kind of investigative measure; hence, the unpleasantness caused had ... | 5 |
20. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, including the time during which he had been detained in a disciplinary cell, had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. At all times he had received necessary medical treatment. The Government s... | 5 |
67. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention were inhuman. In particular, he submitted that he suffered from heart, stomach, kidney and liver pain, was constantly at risk of contracting tuberculosis and was not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention. He further complained of lack of... | 5 |
130. The Government insisted that the tissue removal had been carried out in accordance with domestic law. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the removal of tissue from her husband’s body had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. With reference to Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, § 78, Report... | 5 |
97. The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wo... | 5 |
51. The applicant further complained that, as a result of the repeated refusal by the Ministry of Labour of his requests for retirement benefits in 1996 – 1997, the ensuing civil proceedings and the quashing of the judgment in his favour, he suffered severe anguish and distress which amounted to inhuman and degrading ... | 5 |
51. The applicant claimed that the conditions of his detention in the EPKT, the disciplinary cells and the old wing of the prison hospital had been appalling; that he had not benefited from proper medical care; that he had been beaten up by the guards and that these incidents of ill-treatment had not been duly investi... | 5 |
316. The applicants' representatives alleged that there had been a violation of the right to life in respect of Mr Aziev. They considered that the Georgian authorities had exposed the extradited applicants to the risks of imposition of the death penalty, extra-judicial execution and ill-treatment in Russia in breach o... | 5 |
80. The applicant stressed that under the legislative scheme currently in force in Cyprus there was no parole board system and no provision was made for the granting of parole to prisoners or for the protection of their rights during the execution of their sentence and their readmission to society. Thus, the principal... | 5 |
50. The applicants complained that the first applicant's removal to Kazakhstan amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) on account of his detention between 17 January and 15 April 2003. Under the same heading he alleged a violation of Art... | 5 |
40. The Government did not comment on the merits of the complaint under the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the procedural aspect, they argued that the prosecution authorities had carried out a thorough investigation, and that its discontinuation as a result of the expiry of the statutory... | 5 |
9. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prison no. 13 and Prison no. 8. In his reply to the Government’s observations dated 15 July 2011, the applicant also complained for the first time abou... | 5 |
102. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been released from prison on 2 February 2009 and that the second applicant had been moved to a prison in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 square metres per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbe... | 5 |
144. The Government submitted that on no occasion had the applicant been subjected to treatment which would result in a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant might have felt some stress or discomfort, but the treatment complained of had not approached the threshold of severity sufficient for it to ... | 5 |
47. The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the examination of the applicant’s refugee status application by the migration authorities and domestic courts... | 5 |
34. The applicants submitted that they had less than 3 square metres of personal space per cell. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of an extreme lack of personal space for detainees (see, for example, Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 143 et seq.; Bakhmutskiy v... | 5 |
49. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it had not been proved by the applicant and 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 ... | 5 |
43. The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions in which she had been held throughout almost the entire duration of her time in government custody, that is, the period from 5 February to 17 May 2009, when she was held at Ta’ Kandja Detention Centre; the period from 17 February to 17 June 2011, partic... | 5 |
83. The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the applicant’s detention had been of a relatively short duration (three days and four hours). Moreover, the police officers entrusted with guarding the applicant had tried t... | 5 |
39. The Government further submitted that the applicant could have brought a civil action for the protection of her personal rights under Article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code or could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have had t... | 5 |
39. The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by prison officers during the arrest following their unsuccessful attempt to escape from prison and immediately thereafter on 30 March 2009. They further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to co... | 5 |
56. The Government argued that the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement had been a measure taken to protect the applicant himself and the other detainees rather than a disciplinary sanction. The Government insisted that the applicant’s fellow detainees had objected to his presence in the regular cells because... | 5 |
22. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the first applicant's ill-treatment by the police during his detention and the authorities' failure to conduct a proper investigation into the complaints concerning ill-treatment. They also complained of the failure to give the first applicant med... | 5 |
31. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in Bacău and Vaslui prisons. In particular, he complained of overcrowding, poor hygiene, the presence of pests and of dam... | 5 |
97. The applicant originally complained that, if extradited to Tajikistan, he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Following the subsequent developments, his representatives supplemented the complaint, submitting that the applicant was forcibly transf... | 5 |
28. The Government submitted, in relation to the applicant’s isolation, that the “special regime” normally applicable to life prisoners, which entailed keeping them constantly under lock and key, as well as segregating them from other prisoners, was not incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. This regime w... | 5 |
133. The applicant disputed the Government’s factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility (see paragraphs 63-64 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 59-62 above), amounted to ill-treatment under Article <m... | 5 |
59. The applicant submitted that he had not been properly treated for his serious illnesses during the period in question. In particular, there had been no perceptible treatment in the Simferopol ITT, the Daryivka no. 10 Prison, the Sofiyivka no. 45 Prison, and the Hola Prystan no. 7 Prison. In view of the constant an... | 5 |
44. The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on the excerpts from the remand prison’s population register for each day of the applicant’s detention in remand prison SIZO-1 in Samara, the rem... | 5 |
24. The Government further stated that the applicant had been allocated to IK-7 in the Krasnoyarsk Region in his own interests, in view of the need to avoid overcrowding. The Russian authorities could not allow a situation where the applicant’s fundamental right under Article <mask> of the Convention would be breached... | 5 |
32. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant’s detention. In particular, they pointed out that the fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells in the both detention facilitie... | 5 |
51. The Government contended that the injuries the applicant had sustained had not been serious enough to engage the State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that his allegations of ill-treatment by the police were unfounded and unsubstantiated since they had not been borne out b... | 5 |
55. The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention in Kharkiv SIZO had been poor. He further stated that, from 6 October 2005 to 5 May 2009, during his pre-trial detention in Donetsk SIZO, he had been handcuffed whenever he had left his cell, including during family visits and daily walks. The... | 5 |
221. The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul was inadequate. In particular, he was not getting the regular medical supervision required, including examination by specialists and specialised tests. He also alleged that he was not getting any adequate trea... | 5 |
161. The Government reiterated that relevant medical care and counselling were available to the applicants and, largely because of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies, they had not demonstrated any good reason for not availing themselves of these services. No act of the State prevented consultation and any perc... | 5 |
70. The Government underlined the need to test domestically whether any damage had been done to the applicant and his health by the conditions of his detention. The administrative and civil law provided remedies in which the courts would make rulings to remedy the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convent... | 5 |
78. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him, without specifying the relevant complaints. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution, Article 1405 of the Civil Code and of Law... | 5 |
32. The applicant considered that imprisonment should merely entail depriving a person of his freedom of movement and that all other fundamental rights remained intact during detention. The Court should therefore, in his opinion, set out to determine whether the suffering he had endured in the course of his illness wh... | 5 |
51. The applicants submitted that agents of the State had subjected them to torture while in custody to make them confess to the crimes they had been accused of committing. They also argued that the investigation in response to their complaints had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Conve... | 5 |
22. The applicant complained that his detention in solitary confinement between 26 March 2008 and 17 November 2008 in the CFECC detention facility had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the material conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13, b... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.