text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
50. The applicant complained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected was so grave as to fall under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that for the treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assess... | 5 |
168. The applicants alleged that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances in which their relatives had died disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the witnesses' testimonies that the bodies were mutilated and bore numerous stab and firearm wounds. They also... | 5 |
54. The applicant submitted that the respondent State had not provided an effective remedy in relation to his arguable claim of having been subjected to acts of police brutality. He further argued that Macedonian legislation did not provide a time-limit within which the public prosecutor should consider a criminal comp... | 5 |
60. The Government submitted that the applicants had not substantiated their claims and, thus, the application did not reveal a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Swedish authorities applied the same kind of test when considering applications for asylum as the Court does when it exam... | 5 |
25. The Government further invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They contended, in particular, that an action for damages in the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Co... | 5 |
35. The Government further stated that the application to the Court was belated, as it had not been filed within six months after the Supreme Court delivered, on 16 April 2002, the final judgment in the rape case. Referring to the fact that the applicant had never complained of ill-treatment before either the prosecut... | 5 |
25. The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention in that it had not attained the minimum level of severity. They submitted that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as three medical reports, drawn up by different doctor... | 5 |
46. The applicants argued that based on their statements to the Court and to the national authorities, which had been corroborated by the provided medical certificates, it had been established that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers. Moreover, the investigation had not shown ... | 5 |
48. The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had fallen short of the requirements of national standards and the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The local authorities had been actively takin... | 5 |
35. The Government pointed out that the applicant had had the right to participate in educational and cultural activities, and to take part in sport. He had been allowed to listen to a radio and had had access to a library. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompa... | 5 |
67. The Government contested the applicant’s allegations, and argued that he was not arrested by the police at the time of the events and that an ambulance was called soon after he started feeling unwell. Moreover, they submitted that there was no evidence in the file to support the applicant’s allegations and to show... | 5 |
33. The Government, referring to their description of the detention conditions submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 14-25 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all the measures necessary to ensure adequate conditions of detention, and that the applicant was afforded living space in excess of 4 sq... | 5 |
32. The applicant submitted that the verbal abuse and threats to which she had been subjected from a member of a right-wing group had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. She complained that the authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. She relied on Ar... | 5 |
22. The Government submitted that the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and behind a metal partition during the examination of the case on appeal had been in compliance with the domestic law and regulations in force at the material time (see paragraphs 12-14 above). The practice... | 5 |
57. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to properly use a constitutional remedy. In particular, they maintained that although he had complained to the Constitutional Court and invoked Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia that corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had... | 5 |
105. The Government contested that argument. They stated that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant himself would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, if extradited to Kazakhstan. They further stated that on 18 September and 2 December 2004 the Government of Kazakhstan ... | 5 |
113. The Government did not dispute that the applicant suffered from a disease which in itself entailed a risk to her life and her physical well-being. However, returning to Nigeria would not place her at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. That risk had been assessed by the Aliens Office’s... | 5 |
112. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-51/1 (SIZO-1) in Murmansk between 30 December 2003 and 21 May 2006, in correctional facility no. IK-16 in Murmashi between 21 May and 9 October 2006, in remand prison no. IZ-35/2 in Vologda between 12 and 17 October 2006, and in... | 5 |
52. The applicant argued that his confinement and forced psychiatric treatment in the Bălţi psychiatric hospital caused him severe mental suffering amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reasons to disagree with the applicant and notes that no medical ... | 5 |
70. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of his detention. He further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the duration of his detention and submitted that the reasons relied on by the national courts for ordering and extending his detention had been insufficient and inadequat... | 5 |
132. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to describe sufficiently the risks in Libya because they had not applied to the Italian authorities for asylum. The mere fact that the applicants had opposed their disembarkation in Libya could not, according to the Government, be considered to be a request ... | 5 |
68. The Government observed that they did not have access to the relevant documents from the Lugansk SIZO in order to formulate a position on the substance of the applicant’s grievances. At the same time, they argued that the applicant had failed to show that the conditions of his detention in that facility had been i... | 5 |
73. The applicant disagreed. He maintained that neither he nor his representative had been informed about the aforementioned decision and therefore could not be reproached for not having challenged it. His mother, who was his official representative at the time, denied having received the letter from the Zhytomyr pros... | 5 |
122. The applicant reiterated his complaints. He claimed that the bulk of the information provided by the Government related to the period 2000‑2005, which was subsequent to the applicant's period of detention, and that it related primarily to the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison. He noted, however, th... | 5 |
51. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention between 2001 and 2008 had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of inadequate medical assistance and incompatibility of the physical arrangements of his detention with his state of health. He further compla... | 5 |
114. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in detention. She further complained that no effective investigation had been conducted i... | 5 |
37. The Government noted that the first applicant had brought several actions under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”) but had failed to inform the Court of their existence and outcome. They also observed that an action under the SMRDA represented a real and effective remedy in ca... | 5 |
22. The applicants complained that on 14 September 2000 they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and ... | 5 |
57. The applicant complained of police brutality and of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment. He contended that the injuries inflicted on him had been caused by police officers without any justification. He further claimed that the criminal proceedings instituted by him agains... | 5 |
45. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, he failed to adduce any evidence such as medical documents and/or witness statements in support of his allegations. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is m... | 5 |
26. The Government stressed that the regime had been imposed on the applicant for a very short period of time during which he had been provided with adequate stimulation and human contact. In particular, twice a week he had the right to visit a library and a room equipped with a computer, a television and other means ... | 5 |
128. The applicants in all the applications complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that,... | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that there were several effective domestic remedies at the applicant's disposal. They argued that domestic law provided the applicant with adequate means of redress in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that a case had been brought agai... | 5 |
64. The Government considered that the applicant’s complaint had concerned only his detention from 25 April 2005 onwards, while he had had no objection to the conditions of detention in the same facility from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005. They conceded that the conditions during both periods had been identical. H... | 5 |
89. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of damage suffered on account of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also claimed EUR 5,000 for damage sustained as a result of the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Finally, he claimed EUR 50,000 for pecuniary damage... | 5 |
56. The applicant complained that the investigation into her beating was lengthy and ineffective. She invoked in this respect Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court which is master of characterization to be given in law to the facts of the case considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under th... | 5 |
11. 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 |
68. The applicant, with reference to the arguments which she had raised in the domestic proceedings, maintained that her sterilisation had not been a life-saving intervention and that it had had a lasting impact on her physical and psychological health, her relationship with her husband, and on her family and had affe... | 5 |
139. The applicant submitted that, in keeping with the Court’s case-law as established in the judgments in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011) and Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had to be examined in... | 5 |
86. The applicants considered that the verbal and physical abuse to which they had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They further claimed that the Georgian authorities were responsible, via the conduct of their agents, for the violent dispersal of several large religious gatherings of Jehovah... | 5 |
66. The Government submitted that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest on 29 October 2008 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the applicant was a young and strong man and he had... | 5 |
166. The applicants were foreign nationals whom the Government would have deported from the United Kingdom had it been possible to find a State to receive them where they would not face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 1... | 5 |
89. The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his pre-trial detention. In particular, he complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prisons. Next, he alleged that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detenti... | 5 |
40. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to an unjustified use of force which amounted to torture, and had been further subjected to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention since the police officer had insulted him and demanded that he plead guilty. He further invoked Article 13... | 5 |
34. The applicants complained that the treatment to which they and their close family members had been subjected by the police officers during the events of 3 August 2004 had caused them great physical and mental suffering, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They... | 5 |
37. The Government argued that it was open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for any alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on a case lodged by a detainee (Nichita Ipate). They also submitted that in the case of Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06, § 67, 7 ... | 5 |
76. The Government submitted that neither the conditions in the border police’s detention facility in Vidin nor the manner in which the applicants had been provided there with food and drink had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, especially in view of the presence of both their parents and the limited... | 5 |
27. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention was unlawful, and under Article 5 § 4 that he had no possibility to challenge it. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of detention in the prison where he had been placed for one month, following the ju... | 5 |
56. The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention centre in Volsk had fallen short of the requirements of the national standards and the recommendations of the CPT. At the same time, the Government considered that the fact that the applicant had been detaine... | 5 |
129. The applicant did not claim that the general circumstances obtaining in Iran would on their own preclude his return to that country. Moreover, the Court notes that a general situation of violence will not normally in itself entail a violation of Article 3 in the event of an expulsion to the country in question (s... | 5 |
98. The Government submitted that, generally, the alleged lack of medical treatment could not be considered as amounting to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government argued that the applicant had been provided with all ne... | 5 |
57. The applicant complained that the ill-treatment her husband was probably subjected to while he was unlawfully held in detention and her anguish at the uncertainty about his fate, coupled with the authorities' indifference to her persistent efforts to request information and an effective investigation constituted a... | 5 |
20. The applicant complained in substance under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Târgu Jiu Prison. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bed bugs, inadequate ventilation and natu... | 5 |
57. The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had incurred any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3, the finding of a violation would itself constit... | 5 |
22. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004, in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation conducted by the authorities in response to his complaint of ill-treatment had been incomplete an... | 5 |
17. 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 |
46. The applicant argued that her complaints fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the ill-treatment she had been subjected to attained the minimum level of severity required by the Court’s case-law (Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009). On this point, she maintained th... | 5 |
122. The applicants concerned alleged that they had been ill-treated by a group of Orthodox extremists led by Father Basil while attending a hearing in the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. I. Geliashvili, E. Kakhelishvili, L. Nozadze and S. Kvergelidze escaped physical aggression (see paragraph 3... | 5 |
91. The Government also pointed out that throughout the applicant’s stay in the hospital her condition had been constantly monitored, she had been given the opportunity to move about and she had not made any other complaints about the conditions of her confinement. Moreover, her mental condition had later improved and... | 5 |
36. The Government treated the applicant’s claim as a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the proceedings had not been excessively long and that the applicant’s detention during the proceedings had been justified. Referring to the claim in respect of a breach of Article <mask> of the Conventi... | 5 |
16. The Government considered that the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial which had ended on 19 March 2012 and his placement behind a metal partition in the remand prison five months later, on 10 August 2012, for the purposes of participating, via a video link, in the appeal hear... | 5 |
75. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Sultan Khatuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of her husband's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, she had endured mental suf... | 5 |
119. The applicant complained that his detention from 19 December 2003 to 12 January 2004 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Without relying on any Convention provision he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy to obtain an improvement in... | 5 |
36. The Government considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention both in the remand prison and the correctional colony were in compliance with the standards prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. At no time was the applicant held in overcrowded cells. The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfe... | 5 |
123. The Government conceded that the facility, and in particular cell no. 55 in which the applicant had been held between 15 December 2004 and 31 August 2007, had been “somewhat” overcrowded, but argued that the conditions of his detention had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the f... | 5 |
104. The applicants moreover 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 r... | 5 |
47. The applicant, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, asserted that the conditions of his hospital visits had been inhuman and degrading as the obligation to wear prison clothing, handcuffs and ankle cuffs had exposed him to the public as a prisoner. The handcuffs and ankle cuffs had, moreover, caused him ph... | 5 |
79. The Government submitted that the allegation of religious persecution against the applicant had been checked by the migration authorities when examining his refugee application and had been rejected as unfounded. The migration authorities had relied on the statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs tha... | 5 |
106. The applicant initially claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged breach of Article 8 (in her reply to the Government’s observations of 10 April 2012) and a further EUR 200,000 in respect of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (in her reply to the ... | 5 |
87. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not received adequate and sufficient medical treatment during his detention. He submitted, in particular, that there had been no medical staff in the Sevastopol ITT, where he had been detained. The applicant contested the veracity of the e... | 5 |
98. The Government also maintained that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention had been lodged prematurely as the preliminary investigation concerning Mr Gutsanov was still pending. The Court can discern no direct link between the criminal proceedings to which the Government referred and the applicants’ ... | 5 |
115. The Government disagreed with these allegations. They stated that the first applicant and Umar Zabiyev had not been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents and that the allegations of the ill-treatment had been investigated. They emphasised it was impossible to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convent... | 5 |
123. The Government first argued that the applicant’s regime in Daugavpils Prison had not exceeded the minimum threshold to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the construction works in the unit for life-sentenced prisoners in Daugavpils Prison had been finished by July 2008.... | 5 |
74. The Government further stated that the first applicant’s complaints had been duly investigated at the domestic level – in particular, a number of police officers had been questioned and two medical examinations had been performed – and that there were sufficient grounds for the decision refusing to initiate crimin... | 5 |
40. The Government argued that the police officers had not hit the applicant but merely ordered him to stop filming and pushed away the camera. In any event the State authorities had examined the complaint lodged by the applicant and the police officers in question had been admonished by the Minister of Internal Affai... | 5 |
50. The Government referred to the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaints and submitted that the applicant’s allegations had been properly investigated in conformity with the requirements of the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that the applica... | 5 |
112. 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 those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained under this heading that Apti and M... | 5 |
69. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and deprived of food. He complained under Article 5 of the Convention that there had been no judicial authorisation of his detention from 14 July 2004 to 8 June 2005; that he had not been afforded a... | 5 |
68. The Government relied on the information from the US Department of State Reports that persons arrested for political reasons were treated better than “ordinary” prisoners and presumably were therefore not subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is however of the opinion that ... | 5 |
113. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the app... | 5 |
23. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. His case had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in his favour had been issued. The applicant had received adequate and sufficient compensation and, as regards ... | 5 |
46. The applicants alleged that the conditions of their detention had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, drawing the Court’s attention in particular to the lack of outdoor activities and the poor quality of the food. They argued that their detention in police stations for such long periods of time had constit... | 5 |
36. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. In this connection they also relied on Article 13 of the Convention and alleged that they had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaint of ill-treatment by... | 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, cited above, in §§ 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the a... | 5 |
59. The applicant argued that a further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division in the asylum proceedings, as well as in the proceedings on the exclusion order, was not an “effective” remedy as the Division would not have reviewed the facts on the basis of which the Regional Court had found that the applica... | 5 |
51. The Government, for their part, referred to the Independent Administrative Panel's decision of 3 September 1999. They underlined that it had held a number of hearings, some of which had been conducted shortly after the events at issue, and that it had carried out a visit on the spot. Assessing the applicant's comp... | 5 |
62. The Government argued that Article 3 was not applicable to the present case since the applicant had suffered only bodily injuries of a lesser nature. Should the Court nonetheless find Article 3 applicable, the Government maintained that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention did not requi... | 5 |
43. The applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical care while in detention. He further complained that the date for his operation had repeatedly been postponed and that it had been the authorities’ responsibility to have it rescheduled. He alleged that the delay in performing his operation had resu... | 5 |
90. The applicant referred to his factual submissions (see paragraphs 33-35 and 48 above) and maintained that the physical conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs had been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Both buildings dated from the nineteenth century and needed complete renovation. B... | 5 |
74. The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies in relation to both applications because the Federal Constitutional Court, in its leading decision of 5 February 2004 to which that court's decision in his case had referred, had also had regard to the provisions of the Basic Law ... | 5 |
71. The Government submitted in respect of the applicant’s first detention in the detention facility of the General Police Station that he had been detained in four different cells which measured between seven and thirteen square metres and contained three to four persons at any time. Every cell had a window through w... | 5 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading... | 5 |
96. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the material conditions of detention while he was in the custody of the Prahova Police Department. Moreover, he complained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him for murder had been un... | 5 |
52. The applicant maintained that the cells had been severely overcrowded, that he had not had a separate bed, that there had been no ventilation or privacy during the use of sanitary facilities. Referring to the Court’s case-law, he submitted that the cumulative effects of overcrowding, absence of ventilation, excess... | 5 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that despite the serious nature of his injuries the police officers who had inflicted the ill-treatment on him had not been punished. He further maintained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings against the po... | 5 |
80. The applicant submitted that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment for his periodontitis. More specifically, his doctor’s recommendation in 2009 that he be given a dental prosthesis and moved to a semi-liquid or liquid diet had never been acted on by the authorities. As a... | 5 |
67. The Government reiterated their account of the detention conditions at the Kumkapı Removal Centre (see paragraphs 18-20 above) and stated that those conditions complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided photos of some of the sleeping and communal areas, as well as copies of t... | 5 |
38. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged negligence on the part of the prison authorities. In addition, they also claime... | 5 |
38. The Government referred to the Court's finding in Sarban (cited above, § 78) that the material conditions of the applicant's detention did not exceed the level of severity required for an issue to arise under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court referred in that paragraph to the conditions of deten... | 5 |
77. The Government submitted that the allegation that the applicant would suffer political persecution had been checked by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order and had been rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Uzbek Prosecutor General's O... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.