text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
111. 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 |
31. The applicant disagreed and claimed that her lawyer had complained twice to the domestic courts about the inadequacy of the medical assistance available to her as an epileptic. She submitted copies of the complaints made to the investigating judge and the Chişinău Court of Appeal in which her lawyer had asked for ... | 5 |
69. The applicant complained that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also decided, of its own motion, to examine this issue u... | 5 |
54. The applicant maintained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected amounted to torture. The Government did not comment. The Court observes that the applicant sustained multiple injuries to his chest, left leg and foot. The injuries must have caused him mental and physical suffering. Moreover, it appear... | 5 |
109. 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 psychological distress in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under this Convention ... | 5 |
65. 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 authorities that there... | 5 |
34. The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they contended that he could have challenged the decision... | 5 |
381. The Government disputed the applicant’s argument that his request for a stay of execution had no chance of succeeding, producing five of the Board’s judgments from 2008 and 2009 ordering the suspension of transfers to Greece under the extremely urgent procedure on the ground that, in view of the gravity of the ap... | 5 |
57. The Government contested that argument. They considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the special detention centre in Ivanovo had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. It was impossible to provide any data concerning the daily population of the cel... | 5 |
58. The applicant argued that in view of the severity of the attack against him and the injuries he had sustained, Article 3 was applicable to the present case. As to the compliance of the State with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant argued that real and effective protectio... | 5 |
13. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of 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... | 5 |
17. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied a fair trial and an effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint. He maintained, in particular, that... | 5 |
43. The Government argued that in the internal enquiry held following the applicant’s complaint to the Supreme Court about the alleged breach of his voting rights, the complaints as to the verbal insults of the prison guards proved untrue as the prison guards denied the applicant’s allegations. The Government emphasis... | 5 |
30. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate and prosecute the individuals who had assaulted him. 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 (see, among other authorities, S... | 5 |
29. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Valmiera Prison had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that as a result of the prison administration’s refusal to provide him with personal hygiene products such as toilet soap, a to... | 5 |
21. The applicant alleged that, in the course of his detention in the custody of the Istanbul police headquarters between 6 and 20 November 1992 (see paragraphs 6‑7 above), he had been subjected to serious forms of torture in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further alleged that he had been detained i... | 5 |
72. The applicants complained that none of the domestic authorities had reviewed the merits of their claim that they faced treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in their country of origin. At the same time the requests for judicial review of the decisions not to grant them asylum had had no automatic ... | 5 |
62. The Government listed the cells in which the applicant was kept in the Gdansk Detention Centre. They acknowledged that between 29 August and 1 September 2005 and between 12 and 15 September 2005 the space per person in the applicant’s cells had been inferior to 3m². They argued, however, that the applicant had not... | 5 |
36. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that while in police custody he had been subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture. He further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a serious and impartial investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment and that they had ... | 5 |
60. The Government argued that their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had been fully discharged. As regards the applicant’s medical treatment, they submitted that shortly after his very first complaint to the resident doctor in October 2013, he had been subjected to an in-depth medical examination an... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained that his detention at the Güzelçamlı gendarmerie station was unlawful and thus in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. He also alleged under Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention that he had not been provided with information at any stage of his detention regarding the reasons f... | 5 |
284. The Government submitted that the claims were exorbitant, that the amounts sought were far higher than any previous awards made by the Court in conditions-of-detention cases in Bulgaria. In their view, the mere finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffer... | 5 |
49. The applicant submitted that her injuries were serious enough to bring the case within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, with special regard to her sex, the unlawful nature of the policeman’s action and that she, being a foreigner, did not speak Hungarian. She had, therefore, not understood what was h... | 5 |
123. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during and after his abduction Bashir Mutsolgov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate that allegation. They also submitted that, as... | 5 |
36. The Government went on to say that since the amount of time that the applicant had spent in police detention had been quite brief, the conditions of that detention had not reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also disputed parts of the applicant’s account of the conditions... | 5 |
84. The Government also reiterated that the reason why the domestic authorities had refused to reopen criminal case no. 50207598 was not because the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had been established in a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government and accepted by the Court, but because the unil... | 5 |
12. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration on 26 September 2014. In particular, they acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the remand centre had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, and expressed their readiness to pay the applicant 3,765 euros (EUR) as just com... | 5 |
34. The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Varna Prison for the period from 25 February 2003 to 19 April 2004. They further argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open to him ... | 5 |
38. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, including his detention in solitary confinement from 10 December 2008 to 8 October 2010, as well as the conditions of his detention in correctional facility IK-56 from ... | 5 |
55. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention of M.S.A. and R.K. in the detention centre for foreign nationals, because the conditions of their detention had been in full compliance with the domestic standards regulating such... | 5 |
62. The Government further submitted that they had not been able to duly examine the applicant’s description of the conditions of detention and to substantiate their own position because the relevant documents had been destroyed after the expiry of the relevant statutory time-limits. Therefore, the case should not be ... | 5 |
30. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that in 1998 the police officers had beaten him up and forced him to confess. He further complained, under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, about the restrictions on his right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice. H... | 5 |
50. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had endured mental suffering because of the national authorities’ reaction to the disappearance of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and their failure to investigate it properly. The third applicant complained under the same Convention provision that h... | 5 |
54. The Government submitted that they had indeed applied close and rigorous scrutiny to ascertain all relevant facts to establish that the applicant would not be at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if expelled to Sudan. Regarding the overall credibility of the applicant’s submissions, th... | 5 |
47. The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court on 27 March 2015. In this connection, the Court notes that, in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court t... | 5 |
62. The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order to complain about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention. They cited, in pa... | 5 |
27. The Government submitted that the applicant did not stay in the Kopeysk IVS continuously, but rather for short periods of up to three days. Furthermore, he was often taken out of the cell to take part in investigations or to attend court hearings. The applicant had sufficient personal space at this disposal and al... | 5 |
42. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He failed to bring a civil action for compensation under Articles 23 and 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code whereby persons deprived of their libe... | 5 |
89. The Government considered that the medical treatment prescribed and administered to the applicant had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been under regular medical supervision and had received the necessary medication. His condition could be sa... | 5 |
35. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had subjected him to torture in order to force him to confess to a crime. He argued that he could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 because the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, a... | 5 |
98. The Government conceded that remand centre IZ-77/2 had been overcrowded at the time of the first applicant’s detention. According to the information provided by them, the first applicant was afforded from 1.4 to 2 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 6 and from 1.2 to 1.4 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 122. In this ... | 5 |
53. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant had stated his concerns of ill-treatment after the decision on extradition had already been taken. These allegations had been examined by appeal courts at two... | 5 |
87. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that there was no evidence that Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As for the applicants, the investigation had not established that they had been ill-treated by representa... | 5 |
77. The applicant complained that his conditions of detention from 23 to 27 September 2007 had been harsh in that he had been deprived of food and water, had not been provided with any bedding, had been forced to spend nights outside on a concrete walkway, and his hands had been handcuffed at all times. Article <mask>... | 5 |
20. The applicant complains that the searches of her house on 10 April 2001 and 30 May 2002 and the related incidents, in particular that involving the spray-inhaler, amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and/or an infringement of her right to respect for her private life, in brea... | 5 |
112. The Government submitted that since the circumstances in which the applicants had been injured had not yet been established by the investigation, there were no grounds to consider that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s v... | 5 |
28. The Government contested the applicant’s allegation. They submitted that, during his interrogation on 10 February 1999, the applicant complained of irritation and itching on his arms, requesting that a doctor should see him for his dust allergy. He was taken to the hospital on the same day, where ‘surface erythema... | 5 |
37. The Government further submitted that an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been commenced on the day on which the relevant information had been received by the authorities. They pointed out that in the context of that inquiry a medical forensic examination of the applicant had been carr... | 5 |
145. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the doctors’ intentional failure to provide necessary medical treatment in the form of timely prenatal examinations that would have allowed her to take a decision as to whe... | 5 |
33. The Government considered that the applicant had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of his detention in the remand prison had been in compliance with statutory standards as regards hygiene, heating and water supply. However, the... | 5 |
23. The applicant complained that on 29 October 2000 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and posi... | 5 |
49. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the poor conditions of his detention in IZ-77/5, in the holding room at the Moscow City Court and during transfers to and from the prison. He also alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the demonst... | 5 |
221. The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected by reason of the manner in which the authorities had handled the investigation had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. As already stated above (see paragraphs 88-89), the Court will examine this complaint under the substantive hea... | 5 |
243. The Government considered that the applicant’s argument that there was a duty to investigate allegations of torture was not relevant: Jordan was not a Convention Contracting State so there was no positive obligation on Jordan to investigate breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention. Similarly, although it was ... | 5 |
87. The applicant further submitted in his request for referral that because he had never received psychiatric treatment he could not foster any hope of one day being released. At the same time he “accepted” the Chamber’s finding that, in view of the introduction of the periodic review mechanism in domestic law, there... | 5 |
106. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegation of politically motivated persecution had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekist... | 5 |
112. The applicant claimed 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, EUR 5,000 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention, and EUR 5,000 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damag... | 5 |
66. The applicant furthermore complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment after his arrest, during the pre‑trial investigation and following his admission to penal institution LIU-19; the alleged failure to provide him with medical assistance; his allegedly needless compulsory tre... | 5 |
114. The applicant complained that the search of his person on 7 May 1998 amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 26 above). In particular, he was allegedly obliged to strip naked in the presence of a female prison officer, with the intention of humiliating him. He ... | 5 |
123. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that on 16 December 2001 Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev, as well as the first, eighth and ninth applicants, had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. They argued that th... | 5 |
236. The applicants, that is the first, second and third applicants (see, paragraphs 149-153 above), mainly complained under Articles 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the special forces and were injured and humiliated in the course of the special training exercises organised on 30 May 2001 and 29 Janu... | 5 |
38. The Government raised a further preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the grounds that the applicants had been released or transferred to a prison prior to lodging their application with the Court. The Government submitted that the applicants should have lodged an action for damages with ... | 5 |
132. The applicant complained of a violation of both the material and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to her husband. She submitted that the videotape showed her husband being kicked by the soldiers, who had used obscene and threatening language towards him. She submitted that person... | 5 |
46. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable to the present case, since it did not provide a detainee with an unconditional right to leave prison to attend the funeral of a family member. In the instant case, the applicant had accepted that the prison leave would entail certain restrictions (see para... | 5 |
70. The Government argued at the outset that the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required to engage Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he had never challen... | 5 |
67. The applicant maintained his complaints. In particular, he claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence of ill-treatment and that the ensuing investigation had fallen short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention under its procedural head. In particular, he referred to medical certifica... | 5 |
87. The Government submitted that the notion of theoretical punishment and actual punishment implied that there was a clear distinction between what is traditionally called “poena in abstracto” and “poena in concreto”, and that the possibility of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention should be dealt with by ... | 5 |
20. The Government considered that the applicant had introduced his complaint out of time. He had started serving his prison sentence in 2007, and if he considered that his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated at that time, he should not have waited until 2016 to lodge his complaint before t... | 5 |
122. The applicants submitted that after 7 May 2004 their conditions of detention did not change. They alleged that the purpose of the first two applicants’ detention was intentionally and deliberately to humiliate and debase them and to destroy their personality and health. For these reasons, the particularly serious... | 5 |
43. The Government contested the applicant's allegations. They claimed at the outset that the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been exposed had not attained a level of severity which would justify the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The incident had been caused by unknown individuals and not b... | 5 |
80. The applicants submitted that they had been the victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the destruction of the bodies of their relatives with high velocity machine guns and hand grenades. Under the same Article, the applicants also complained that the bodies of their relatives had ... | 5 |
66. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to horrendous treatment in detention, which had been meted out deliberately and had been aimed at breaking his moral resistance and forcing him to testify against third persons, and to confess to crimes he had not committed. He also maintained that the atrocious man... | 5 |
46. The Government submitted that it was undisputed that, on 21 November 2006, the applicant had attempted to escape from a police vehicle. They considered that the use of force had been made necessary by the applicant’s own conduct; the applicant must have been aware that his attempt to escape would have led the poli... | 5 |
20. The Government submitted that by not claiming compensation for the damage allegedly caused by her detention in inhuman conditions and by the alleged lack of medical care, the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They submitted a summary of forty-six cases examined by the domestic courts... | 5 |
104. The applicant submitted that there was a danger that he would be subjected to ill-treatment on account of the possible application of the death penalty and the time spent awaiting its execution, the poor conditions of detention in Kazakhstan, the lack of proper medical treatment and assistance in detention facili... | 5 |
18. The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect, they maintained that the ward in which the applicant was kept could not be considered to have been a cell. They stated that the ... | 5 |
111. The Government concluded from all these factors that the applicant’s health did not appear to have been affected by solitary confinement and that the conditions in which the applicant was being held had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall foul of Article <mask> of the Convention, despite t... | 5 |
78. The applicant argued that following his arrest the medical care he had received in detention had been extremely scarce and ineffective and had led to a steady deterioration in his health. The applicant stressed that he was seriously ill and unable to care for himself. He required permanent assistance even with his... | 5 |
111. The applicants contended that their sons had been tortured during their detention by State agents and that the investigation in this respect had not been adequate. They referred to NGO reports concerning mass torture in Chechnya during that period to support this assertion. The applicants further submitted that t... | 5 |
37. The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider his claims that he risked ill‑treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan, and that if extradition was to take place it would expose him to that risk. Further to information ab... | 5 |
14. 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 |
271. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ arrest by State agen... | 5 |
170. The applicant asked the Court to indicate to the respondent State that it should take general measures to prevent breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention by the police in connection with arrest operations. Those measures should consist of changes in the law, in particular the putting in place of detailed reg... | 5 |
28. The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. The food met the applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance. The Government further submitted that they were not in possession of any documents showing the number of inmate... | 5 |
42. The applicants submitted that the detention of the second applicant, who was then five years old, for nearly two months in a closed centre for adults constituted inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They explained that Transit Centre no. 127 was a closed centre near Brusse... | 5 |
98. The Government also submitted that the alleged injuries had not caused serious suffering to the applicant as he had been discharged from the specialist hospital for outpatient treatment the following day. The Government concluded that it had not been proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant had been ill... | 5 |
41. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his pre-trial detention, the obligation to remain in town and unlawful conviction had amounted to inhuman treatment; under Article 6 § 3 (b) that he had not had access to the victim’s medical records used in the trial; under Articles 7, 17 a... | 5 |
98. The applicant stated that she was the wife of the missing Mr Ali Dudayev and that she had actively sought the authorities’ assistance in establishing his whereabouts and prosecuting the people who had abducted him. The applicant had not received any proper explanation or information as to what had happened to her ... | 5 |
99. The Government submitted their account of the general conditions of detention in prison ZhH-385/5 (see paragraphs 22-31 above) and claimed that they had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They asserted that the applicant had been provided with an individual bed at all times and that the sanitar... | 5 |
68. The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had sustained any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation, that in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, should the ... | 5 |
94. The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States of America exposed him to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that offences A and B, on the basis of which his extradition had been granted, carried a maximum life prison sentence which was irreducible de fact... | 5 |
53. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the ensuing investigation in response to his complaint about ill-treatment in police custody had been ineffective. The Court consi... | 5 |
109. The applicant asserted that if extradited to the United States he would be subjected to torture and a disproportionate prison sentence, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The national authorities had not examined the probability of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited t... | 5 |
47. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated by the police during her arrest and while she was in custody at the police station. She also complained that her allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated effectively, as required by the procedural obligation... | 5 |
42. The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected because he had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he had not exhausted domestic remedies bef... | 5 |
136. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had end... | 5 |
20. The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant's detention at the temporary detention facility had not been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The premises had not been suitable for long-term detention. Nor had there been any funds allocated from the f... | 5 |
24. The applicant claimed that his detention at the Yalova police headquarters had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that the detention facility was not designed to hold foreign nationals in an immigration context for long periods of time. ... | 5 |
62. The Government may be understood to be maintaining that the applicant would be safe and would not be exposed to a risk of ill‑treatment upon arriving in Damascus, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown or settling in another part of Syria (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). The Court reiterates in this co... | 5 |
5. The applicant’s complaint alleging a violation of his right of access to a court, inherent in Article 6 § 1, was intrinsically linked with the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, a prohibition which, as held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81 and 89‑90, ECHR 2015), is ... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.