text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officer, R., and that there had been no adequate or effective investigation of his complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective re... | 5 |
39. The applicant submitted that his unlawful stay in a strict-regime prison for a duration of eighteen days amounted to treatment prohibited under Article 3. In support of his argument he contended that during this period he had been deprived of the prisoners’ rights to which he was entitled under domestic law. In pa... | 5 |
86. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations... | 5 |
54. The applicant complained that the procedural response to the ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected had not been adequate. In particular, he took issue with the penalties imposed on the three officers who had ill-treated him, arguing that their leniency did not correspond to the seriousness of their act. He ... | 5 |
32. The Government contended that the applicant failed to substantiate his allegations of an alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further accepted that indeed the recreation yards in the wing where the applicant had been held were not equipped with toilets and running water. How... | 5 |
34. The Government considered the applicant’s allegations to be baseless. According to the Government, when the applicant and his fellow demonstrators had refused to obey the police officers’ orders to disperse, they had been warned not to violate the law. However, when the group had insisted on continuing with their ... | 5 |
31. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the police officers had not denied the use of physical force. Nevertheless, the force used in the instant case had been proportionate and not excessive. In particular t... | 5 |
72. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the degrading effect of the allegedly arbitrarily imposed disciplinary penalties in Jelgavas, Grīvas and Daugavpils prisons. The Court observes that even though it seems that the applicant has on occasion challenged the legal and factual basis o... | 5 |
30. The applicant complained that on 5 December 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 into those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this compla... | 5 |
35. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment had been carefully checked by the domestic authorities and had been reasonably found unsubstantiated. The conclusions reached by the domestic authorities were confirmed by relevant evidence which the applicant failed to refute. Referring to... | 5 |
19. The applicant finally argued that he had not been hospitalised with a view to treating his ear infection and the injury to his abdomen. The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate his assertion that he needed hospitalisation for his condition. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant was taken to... | 5 |
22. The applicant invoking Article <mask> of the Convention complained about a refusal to allow him to visit his seriously injured daughter in the hospital and the delay in examining his appeal against this decision. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 (see, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 88, 6 Decembe... | 5 |
54. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to produce any conclusive evidence showing that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. The medical expert opinion of 30 October 2003 did not exclude the possibility that the applicant suffered his injuries on 16 October 2003, i.e. prior to his arrest and... | 5 |
70. The applicant complained that his extradition to Kazakhstan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment. He formulated his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and vaguely referred to Article 6 of the Convention without making a specific detailed complaint in this respect. The Court considers that the... | 5 |
18. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive res... | 5 |
104. The applicant submitted observations concerning Y.C.’s medical care in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that were similar to those that he submitted in relation to his Article 2 complaint (see paragraph 75 above). He added that the police had not recognised that Y.C. had already be... | 5 |
63. The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicant had been detained were sufficiently heated and ventilated; tap water was available, and the toilet was separated by a wall from the rest of the cell. Each detainee had a bed and bed linen and could have a shower once a week. Detainees were allowed to b... | 5 |
34. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been provided with the adequate medical care in the remand prison, and that the conditions of his detention and treatment in the colony’s medical unit did not correspond to his needs. His grievances fall to be examined Article <mask>... | 5 |
46. The Government submitted that when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention the authorities had at all times relied on the medical experts’ opinions and took their recommendations into account. In addition, the authorities assisted the applicant with the relevant medical treatment both inside and outside th... | 5 |
40. The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had maintained his victim status and had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaints about lack of medical care, his solitary confinement in facility no. IZ-47/1, and the conditions of detention in the correctional facility were in any ... | 5 |
65. The applicant complained that the pre-trial investigation and criminal proceedings concerning the circumstances of the accident had not been effective. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that t... | 5 |
29. The Government submitted that the applicant’s description of conditions of his detention was not sufficiently detailed. Alternatively, they argued that in view of the particular circumstances of the case and of the length of the applicant’s detention, the treatment to which he had been subjected had not attained t... | 5 |
79. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention by State agents. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation tha... | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that, should the Court find a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it should make an award only in respect of the procedural aspect of the applicant’s complaint. They added that he still had a chance of obtaining compensation domestically, depending on the outcome of the on-going cr... | 5 |
48. The applicant complained that his continued detention, in spite of his deteriorating medical condition, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred, in particular, to his advanced age, prior disability and difficulty in walking, the herniotomy perfo... | 5 |
33. The Government did not raise any objection as regards the admissibility of this complaint. However, as the domestic courts have already acknowledged the applicant’s ill-treatment, the Court considers it necessary to satisfy itself that the applicant can be considered as a victim within the meaning of the Conventio... | 5 |
132. The applicant submitted that the failure to provide him with adequate medical care, such as proper examination and treatment of his diseases, concealment of his true state of health, as well as his arbitrary discharge from the hospital and forced attendance at the court hearings despite his poor state of health, ... | 5 |
86. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure ... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk from 12 October 2004 to 3 June 2008. In particular, he alleged that he had not been afforded sufficient personal space as he had been detained with a large number of inmates, some of whom had been suffering f... | 5 |
52. The Government accepted that, in view of the applicant’s young age, the use of physical force against him had attained the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nonetheless, they submitted that the force used by the police had been used not to threaten or ... | 5 |
135. The Government maintained that there was no violation of the second applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and no violation of the first and third applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, therefore these claims were to be rejected. As regards the remainder of the applicants’ just s... | 5 |
65. The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not lodged his complaint with the domestic courts before lodging his application with the Court. Alternatively, the Government submitted that h... | 5 |
57. The Government contended firstly that the applicant had failed to raise before the Court a complaint under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the length of the procedures for the revocation of his pre-trial detention for medical reasons. They further submitted that the applicant did... | 5 |
74. The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention, including lack of personal space, poor sanitary arrangements, medical assistance, and various actions of the authorities in the Odessa SIZO, in transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival to the lat... | 5 |
65. The Government concluded that the applicant had received proper and adequate medical care and treatment. The deterioration in his health had not been caused by detention; that had been a process independent of the prison authorities. What is more, the applicant’s health had not deteriorated irreversibly; the docto... | 5 |
81. The Government maintained that Articles 2 and 3 were not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. As regards Article 2, they argued that the applicants’ lives had never been put at risk in any way. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the requisite level of severit... | 5 |
249. The applicant argued that a positive obligation arose in the present case to protect Ms Rantseva from ill-treatment from private individuals. He contended that the two forensic reports conducted following Ms Rantseva’s death revealed that the explanation of her death did not accord with the injuries recorded. He ... | 5 |
93. The applicant noted that the Chamber’s admission that the conditions in most Czech hospitals were questionable, as far as respecting the mother’s choices was concerned, was in fact a very euphemistic way of describing treatment which often attained the level of inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article... | 5 |
49. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in Łowicz Prison had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with less than 3 square metres of space per person and allowed to spend a very li... | 5 |
293. The Government submitted that there were no records in the Prison's Medical Registers of requests from the applicants for medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicants received necessary medical treatment and were provided with any required prescription drugs whilst serving their sentences and... | 5 |
62. The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the infliction of “torture” on their relatives' bodies, either before or after their deaths. They further complained under the same head about the emotional distress which they had suffered when they had seen t... | 5 |
54. The applicants Mr Makhov, Mr Resin (in two cases), Mr Anikanov, Mr Lebetskiy, Mr Gromovoy, Mr Gordeyev, Mr Martirosyan and Mr Vinokhodov complained that the conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities or the conditions of transport between them had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment proh... | 5 |
185. The applicant further complained that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in Magadan remand prison IZ‑49/1. Thus, being one-legged he had experienced difficulties in view of the lack of any arrangements for his condition, in particular, on account of receiving food th... | 5 |
174. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his conditions of detention on death row and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the... | 5 |
34. The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of his detention in Bjelovar Prison from 22 March 2010 to 5 January 2011. In particular, he complained of lack of personal space, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, no prison work, insufficient recreational and educational activities, poor quality food and inade... | 5 |
131. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s fai... | 5 |
105. The Government admitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention cell of the Mozhaiskiy District police station were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that, while the applicant’s detention in that cell between 30 and 31 July 2013 (date of the judgment... | 5 |
73. The Government contended that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his complaints had been disproved by the police officers’ reports and statements. The Government further argued that the medical records of 19 and 26 October 2005 suggested that the first... | 5 |
28. The Government further submitted that detention conditions in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and that the sanitary, hygi... | 5 |
86. The Government maintained that in general there is no basis for claiming that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement as provided for by Danish law constitutes torture in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically they submitted that the applicant's detention on remand in solitary con... | 5 |
49. The applicant complained that the authorities in colony no. 8 had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical assistance in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the conditions of his detentio... | 5 |
65. The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her sterilisation without her and her representative’s full and informed consent, and that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough, fair and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding he... | 5 |
109. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison van had been technically in good order, had been heated and ventilated. It had not been overcrowded. The applicant’s medical record showed that he had been fit to be tran... | 5 |
67. The Government did not argue in their written observations that the Court should not have regard to facts which occurred after the final domestic decision in January 2008. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention, the existence of a risk faced by an applic... | 5 |
27. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that that they had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. The applicants’ complaints do not concern the material conditions of the Riihimäki prison, nor their isolation as such but rather the use of closed overalls while in isolation. They ... | 5 |
81. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers following his arrest on 18 September 2001 and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate, however, to examine the above complaints only ... | 5 |
16. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive res... | 5 |
83. The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, during his detention in the temporary holding facility of the Kirovskiy District Police Department of the Stavropol Region. As regards the medical expert examination carried out on... | 5 |
150. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the manner in which the bodies of their relatives had been exhibited at the military base constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. They also complained that the prosecutor had not investigated this particular complaint and that they therefo... | 5 |
39. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his allegations had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine these complaints under Ar... | 5 |
43. The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention had been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that at all times the applicant had been provided with an individual bed and bedding. The Government referred to the copies of excerpts fro... | 5 |
56. The applicant complained that the police had beaten him and threatened him. He complained that the conditions of his detention in the SIZO had been incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular, he was not able to breathe fresh air and the food given to him had not been suff... | 5 |
86. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in Płock Prisons from 8 August 2003 to 4 June 2007 and from 9 January to 6 February 2008 had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and, in particular, those required for persons in his state of health. He complained t... | 5 |
60. The applicant concluded that all of the above circumstances – in particular the insufficient and inadequate medical care and the humiliation resulting from the fact that he had had to ask for assistance from his fellow inmates in order to be able to get to and from the exercise yard – amounted to degrading treatme... | 5 |
54. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, it was impossible to determine whether the applicant had been subjected to ill‑treatment while in police custody, given that the inquiry into the applicant's allegations was still pending. They further submitted that the Russian authorities had complied wit... | 5 |
41. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant’s injuries were caused by misconduct on the part of the police officers. In addition, the evidence had led to the conclusion th... | 5 |
101. The applicant was wanted by the Tajik authorities on account of his alleged involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which he consistently denied. Regard being had to the reports by reputable organisations (see, in particular, paragraphs 73 and 75 above), the Court considers that there are serious reasons... | 5 |
57. The Government argued that the investigation conducted by domestic authorities had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the authorities had conducted a number of investigative actions, interviewing S., G., and the applicant, conducting photo identifications and face-to-face conf... | 5 |
29. The applicant submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and that the Voronezh prosecutor had acknowledged the existing overcrowding problem. He did not have an individual sleeping place, which indicated a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he suffered from extreme cold and hea... | 5 |
48. The Government contended that the conditions under the “special regime” in which the applicant had been detained in both prisons had been applied in accordance with section 167d(1) of the regulations for the implementation of the 1969 Act, and subsequently with section 213 of the newly adopted regulations for the ... | 5 |
101. The applicants complained about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process. They were also dissatisfied with the circumstances of their personal participation in the identification process. According to the applicants, this treatment by the aut... | 5 |
33. The Government submitted that as the first applicant did not seek to rely on Article 3 before the domestic courts, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the alternative, while the Government did not doubt that the first applicant had suffered distress due to the circumstances in which he found himself, th... | 5 |
58. The Government submitted that the injuries alleged by the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to a number of domestic medical examinations carried out, which had concluded that the applicant had only suffered ne... | 5 |
34. 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 applicant had failed to appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum of 26 November 2013. If t... | 5 |
342. The Government repeated their arguments that the applicants had not been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and their respective complaints were manifestly ill-founded. Accordingly, their claims for the non-pecuniary damage should be rejected. Moreover, the Government, referr... | 5 |
53. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers during his detention in Korsun-Shevchenkivsky police station in 2003. He also relied on Article 3 in complaining about the material conditions of his detention in various penitentiaries, his placement in a di... | 5 |
73. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to provide any detailed arguments or evidence in support of his complaints. They further noted that it was an established fact that the applicant had resisted the police prior to his arrest on 16 July 2008 and that legitimate force had been applied to him. Thi... | 5 |
62. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 is three-fold. First, she complained that her husband had been ill-treated upon his detention; second, that no investigation had been carried out by the authorities into this allegation; and third, that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with... | 5 |
64. The applicant complained that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he alleged that he did not receive the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis while serving his sentence. He also complained that the conditions of hi... | 5 |
127. The applicant submitted that the minimum level of severity for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply had been reached in the present case. She had witnessed the condition of her husband’s body ‒ with the legs tied together ‒ after the tissue removal. She had also been pregnant at the time with their second ch... | 5 |
40. The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison staff on 3 May 2006, that his complaint in that respect had not been investigated and that there was no effective mechanism for the prevention of ill-treatment. The Court considers that the complaint... | 5 |
53. The Government contended that both the decisions of the Asylum Office of 28 February 2012 and the Asylum Court’s ruling of 24 September 2012 had analysed not only the situation of asylum-seekers including the situation faced by Dublin II returnees, the detention practice and a possible refoulement in general, but ... | 5 |
37. The Government contended that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest and transportation to the police station on 21 October 2010 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant was a healthy young man a... | 5 |
60. The applicants submitted that there was no adequate remedy for their complaints about the treatment of Judith McGlinchey in prison, or a remedy that would address the defects in management and policy which allowed the neglect and ill-treatment. Any cause of action in negligence was dependent on establishing the ne... | 5 |
85. The applicants complained that the first applicant had suffered ill-treatment (including sexual abuse together with a subjection to forced labour), as had to a lesser extent the second and third applicants at the hands of the Roma family in Ghislarengo, and that the authorities (especially the Public Prosecutor in... | 5 |
44. The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the p... | 5 |
73. The Government did not consider that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached. They pointed out that on his arrival in prison on 4 March 2013 the applicant had already been suffering from a disease which would have fatal outcome in the short term owing to the metastases spreading to his skeleton. They fu... | 5 |
45. The Government further argued that the applicants had not exhausted all the available remedies since they could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have to establish whether the allegations of ill-treatment were well-founded ... | 5 |
32. The applicant submitted that his detention at the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre had not had a proper legal basis and that it had been entirely arbitrary. He noted in particular that following the judgment of the Court in Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 36370/08, § 28, 13 April 2010), where it f... | 5 |
80. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow from 29 October 2002 to 20 December 2003 and on the premises of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow. He also complained about the conditions of his transport to and from the courthouse. He referred to Art... | 5 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his detention and that he had not been provided with food and water between 25 and 27 April 2006. He also complained of the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate properly his allegations o... | 5 |
180. The Government argued that the applicant should have pleaded the State’s vicarious liability for the patron and/or manager. However, the Government mainly relied on two other remedies. In the first place, they referred to an action claiming that the primary-education system, foreseen by Article 42 of the Constit... | 5 |
83. The Government argued that it had not been proven in the present case that the applicant had been treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the resort to physical force by the officers had been strictly necessary due to the applicant’s behaviour. The police actions were not planne... | 5 |
188. The applicants submitted that Italy’s interceptions of persons on the high seas were not in accordance with the law and were not subject to a review of their lawfulness by a national authority. For that reason, the applicants had been deprived of any opportunity of lodging an appeal against their return to Libya ... | 5 |
91. The applicant argued that her allegations of a violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov were supported by the fact that other men detained on 18 May 2001 who had subsequently been released had sustained serious injuries as a result of torture. She claimed that the Government had failed to produce a... | 5 |
31. The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Lovech Prison for the period from 8 March 2000 to 27 October 2004. They argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open for him to seek ... | 5 |
66. The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant and the effects of the treatment to whic... | 5 |
88. The Government submitted that the applicant had not substantiated his claim for pecuniary damage. They further submitted that the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unfounded, and referred to several cases of the Court in which the applicants had been awarded non-pecuniary damages ... | 5 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality inflicting on him great physical and mental suffering which amounted to torture or inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he was a victim of a procedural violation of the ... | 5 |
95. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in the SIZO medical unit, in particular, the lack of glass in the window of his cell and the quality of the food provided by the SIZO. He also complained that the conditions of his transportation amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.