text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
25. The applicant contended that the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to circular no. A.P.86-12 G1 of 14 March 1986 on prisoner searches was inhuman and degrading. He submitted that he had been systematically disciplined for refusing to undergo searches in accordance with th... | 5 |
69. The Government submitted that the applicant had received the medical assistance he needed for all his health problems throughout the period of his deprivation of liberty. In the SIZO the applicant received ART daily and he recovered from his tuberculosis episode. He was systematically examined and all of his compl... | 5 |
93. The applicant’s assertion that he did not receive appropriate medical care is a general one and is not supported by any factual information. At the same time, the materials submitted by the Government suggest that the applicant was medically examined on a regular basis and was provided with appropriate medical tre... | 5 |
45. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Craiova and Giurgiu Prisons. In particular, he complained of a lack of living space and light in his solitary cell, a lack of hot and cold running water, th... | 5 |
33. The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an indivi... | 5 |
169. The applicant stated that his unlawful solitary incommunicado detention and interrogation for twenty-three days in the hotel, combined with repeated threats and prolonged uncertainty as to his fate, violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Even without direct physical assaults, the cumulative a... | 5 |
155. The applicant alleged that the injuries and anguish she had suffered as a result of the violence inflicted upon her by her husband had amounted to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the ongoing violence and her repeated requests for help, however, the authorities had failed to... | 5 |
102. The Government sought to distinguish the present case from the Popov judgment, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention “in view of the children’s young age, the length of their detention and the conditions of their confinement in [the] detention centre”. In the present case, w... | 5 |
54. The applicant argued that, if the risks were weighed cumulatively, it was clear that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, relying on the most recent amendment of 6 February 2014 to the Netherlands policy position in respect of Afghan as... | 5 |
37. The applicant submitted that the conditions of her detention at the police station for a period of approximately five months constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. As found by the CPT in its 2012 report and the Ombudsman in her report of 31 July 2012, police dete... | 5 |
83. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had omitted to raise in substance his grievance under Article 3 before the district judge on 17 October 2006. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the appli... | 5 |
19. 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 |
191. The applicants also complained that the emotional trauma they had suffered in connection with the accident and the indifference of the State authorities to their loss and grief, manifested, in particular, in their refusal to negotiate a friendly settlement with the injured parties, was indicative of a breach of A... | 5 |
230. The Government contested the applicants’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation afforded the applicants with effective... | 5 |
52. The Government challenged the applicants’ version of events and submitted that they had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment on 30 March 2009. They admitted that the applicants had been injured on that day but, referring to the findings of the relevant criminal investigation, maintained that the applica... | 5 |
52. The applicant, referring to his account of facts, maintained that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that such ill-treatment amounted to torture. As to the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, he insisted that the investigation of his ill-treatment had not been effective. In particular,... | 5 |
52. The Government said that since the Federal Office for Refugees had set aside its decision of 31 August 1998 and ruled that there were bars to the applicant’s expulsion under section 53(4) of the Aliens Act, the applicant was now fully protected against an expulsion to Iran in breach of Article <mask> of the Conven... | 5 |
38. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for two years and eleven months and did not have an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. He did not challenge the data contained in the excerpts from the remand prison population register... | 5 |
36. The Government submitted that, following the publication of the CPT report on its visit in May 2014, improvements had been made to the detention facilities of Philipsburg Police Station, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the CPT. As regards the applicant’s situation, the Government submitted th... | 5 |
144. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police following his arrest. He also complained under the same provision that the prison guards had ill-treated and humiliated him on various occasions. The applicant next complained that his arrest and pre-trial d... | 5 |
88. The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints unde... | 5 |
73. The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 16 August 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State co... | 5 |
41. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained as from August 2010. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowdin... | 5 |
137. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the continued imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision. He referred, in particular, to such aspects of the regime as his mostly solitary confinement and ... | 5 |
62. The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that on 27 May 2008 he had been tortured at the Volnovakha police station and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter. The Court considers that it is appropriate to examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention... | 5 |
168. The applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while he was detained in the hotel and for the failure to prevent him from being subjected to “capture shock” treatment when transferred to the CIA rendition team at Skopje Airport. He furt... | 5 |
25. The applicant argued that the measures, omissions and incidents complained of amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, and this in respect of the whole period he had spent in Szeged Prison. The matter complained of constituted a continuous violation of his Convent... | 5 |
78. The applicant essentially claimed that he is considered a suspect of terrorism by the Moroccan authorities on two grounds: firstly because these authorities are aware of his conviction in the Netherlands for terrorism-related offences and fail to respect the ne bis in idem principle and, secondly, because these au... | 5 |
70. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, as the doctors had acted with the intention of protecting her life and health, as well as the life of her child. Had the doctors deliberately wished to deprive the applicant of her reprodu... | 5 |
52. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he and his lawyer had not had access to any of the evidence on which the domestic courts had based their decisions. He also complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 that the courts had not given “relevant and sufficient reasons” for dismissing his hab... | 5 |
10. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of her ill-treatment by the police and the insufficient investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. She also complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of her abusive detention on 22 Febru... | 5 |
15. 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 |
83. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints had been examined in detail at the domestic level by the competent sentence-execution judge, who had heard the applicant and who had regularly visited Bjelovar Prison in the period at issue, namely twelve times during the applicant’s stay there. The sentence... | 5 |
49. The Government did not present any plausible justification for the delay in transferring the applicant to a hospital after the first prescription for hospitalisation had been issued by the doctors in the evening of 9 April 2015. In the Court’s view, the refusal of the prison administration to follow the doctors’ p... | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapt... | 5 |
83. The applicants complained that after the abduction their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been ill-treated by State agents and that the investigation thereof had not been effective. They further complained that because of the abduction and subsequent killing of their relative and the State’s failure to investigat... | 5 |
48. The Government noted the relatively short period of the applicant's detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility and that he had not complained or claimed that his physical or mental health had deteriorated as a result. They also argued that measures depriving a person of his liberty may often invol... | 5 |
37. The Government firstly submitted that they had not been under any obligation to conduct compulsory screening of the applicant for the presence of HCV. Secondly, in connection with the adequacy of the medical treatment available to the applicant in the post-diagnosis period, they claimed, without providing any relev... | 5 |
26. The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings against her assailants had lacked the effectiveness required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She alleged that the authorities had not prosecuted some of the people involved, including two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., and two other individuals, Y.Y.G. an... | 5 |
175. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage flowing from alleged breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, the alleged breach of Article 6 § 2 of the C... | 5 |
27. The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicants’ favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to them in compensation for non-pecuniary da... | 5 |
13. The Government claimed that the alleged ill-treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity necessary to trigger the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention because the expert had only found two abrasions on his head. The applicant had engaged in a fight shortly before his arrest in which he had recei... | 5 |
45. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate that if expelled, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment (see Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 31, 7 June 2016). The Austrian courts and the Federal Minister of Justice had comprehensively examined in proceedings befo... | 5 |
99. The Government considered that the prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed in the daytime had been implied from a normative act – Regulation no. 423. By the same token, they argued that the applicant’s isolation had resulted from a normative act – section 504 of the Sentence Enforcement Code. It was their view th... | 5 |
48. The applicant alleged, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been beaten by unidentified prison officers on an unspecified date in Gldani no. 8 prison. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he also challenged the outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He maintained, inter al... | 5 |
166. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation in case no. 23116 had not established that Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention.... | 5 |
67. The Government reiterated the Immigration Judge’s findings (see paragraphs 19-20 above) that there was no reason why the applicant would not continue to receive the assistance in Afghanistan that he had apparently received for three to four years there after he had incurred his injuries and before he had travelled... | 5 |
71. The applicant also started his reply with listing principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to inmates’ access to medical assistance. He further relied on a number of expert reports, including the report issued on 16 May 2013 upon an investigators’ order and cited by the Russian courts in their decis... | 5 |
124. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had suffered ill-treatment by other detainees in the Kryvyy Rig SIZO and that his complaints in that regard had not been duly examined. He further raised the following complaints: under Article 7 about his allegedly unfair criminal prose... | 5 |
143. The applicants pointed out that the CSPA was theoretically intended to function as a facility for assistance and initial reception. In their view, that type of centre, which did not comply with the European Prison Rules of 11 January 2006, was unsuitable for extended stays in a situation of deprivation of liberty... | 5 |
20. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment in police custody, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant also complained about the treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest. They contended under Article 13 of the Convention that the... | 5 |
56. The Government submitted that in the applicant’s letters of 12 June 2006 (received by the Court on 14 June 2006) he had briefly mentioned his poor state of health and given further details only in his letter of 18 September 2006 (received by the Court on 22 September 2006). On both occasions, however, he had faile... | 5 |
104. The Government argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. The applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the guard and the latter had responded accordingly. The guard had duly warned the applicant and only after that had he used a rubber truncheon to restrain ... | 5 |
76. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1) had been inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improv... | 5 |
216. The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture while in custody from 19 to 23 April 2004 and that there had been no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The first applicant also complained that he had not been provided with requisite medical assistance and allowed to... | 5 |
42. The applicant’s allegations of his injuries being the result of ill‑treatment by the police officers from the Sverdlovskiy district police department were dismissed by the investigation authorities based on the pre‑investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian... | 5 |
225. The Government stated, with reference to information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, that “the investigation had established the fact that bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant”, but argued that before all the circumstances of the offence had been established there were no grounds to ho... | 5 |
66. The applicant submitted that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of his allegations of ill-treatment which warranted an investigation by the authorities in conformity with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection he referred to his injuries, whose nature and number had bee... | 5 |
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility and that he was awarded inadequate compensation for the aforesaid violation by the domestic courts. In particular, he contended that the compensa... | 5 |
15. The Government submitted that the case had been adequately and thoroughly examined in two different court proceedings. In consequence of comprehensive taking of evidence, the Székesfehérvár District Court had acquitted the applicant of drunken driving and violence against an official, while the Budapest Regional C... | 5 |
70. The applicant finally argued that it was true that Article <mask> of the Convention permitted the respondent State to implement legal provisions aimed at protecting its citizens. However, that provision did not authorise that State to act in breach of other Convention Articles. Moreover, it had been possible to pl... | 5 |
67. The applicant submitted that Article 13 had been violated in his case since Armenian law had not provided a possibility to seek compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of ill-treatment. He argued that for Article 13 to apply, it was sufficient to have an arguable claim in terms of the Conven... | 5 |
158. The applicants made two complaints in relation to their proposed extradition. First, they complained that, if convicted in the United States, they would be detained at ADX Florence and, furthermore, would be subjected to special administrative measures (SAMS). They submitted that conditions of detention at ADX Fl... | 5 |
32. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant neither claimed that he had ever been involved in any political activities, nor submitted any evidence confirming that the criminal proceedings against the own... | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that a review of the Court’s case-law considering the issue of life imprisonment from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention demonstrated the compatibility of Russian law – which provided for the right to release on parole also in cases where life imprisonment had been imposed ... | 5 |
47. The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that in the present case a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was difficult to prove because there had been no effective investigation. He disagreed with the Government’s contention that his complaint was belated – he had submitted the com... | 5 |
114. The Government argued that the sterilisation procedures had been performed in a medical institution in accordance with the law and with the aim of protecting the applicants’ health and lives. The applicants themselves had requested their sterilisation and had signed the relevant documents. The fact that the forma... | 5 |
22. The Government argued that the second applicant, Zinnet Onay, who is the mother of the first, was not a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that it was clear from the documents of apprehension and detention that the young man's parents had not made any attempt to vis... | 5 |
63. The Government argued that in a situation such as the present one, where the applicant claimed, on the basis of the same circumstances, a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time before the domestic authorities and a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Conventi... | 5 |
31. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had used excessive force against him at the time of his arrest and had insulted and beaten him. He also alleged a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention maintaining that the lawfulness of his detention had not been d... | 5 |
50. The Government denied the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and considered them unsubstantiated, referring to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor in response to the applicants’ complaints and to the conclusions reached in this regard by the trial and appellate courts. The Government furt... | 5 |
64. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus, he risked being sentenced to the death penalty; he would be ill-treated in Belarusian detention facilities, in particular, with a view to extracting a confession from him in relation to the criminal offences he was accus... | 5 |
132. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had been forcibly handed over to Uzbek State agents by the FSB agents “Timur” and “Zakhar”. The applicant had been subjected to torture while in detention in Uzbekistan. The Russian authorities had belatedly opened an investigation into the applicant’s a... | 5 |
105. The Government argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's view, the investigation had not breached the requirements of that provision. They also claimed that “the perc... | 5 |
99. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relative had been ill-treated during his apprehension and most likely tortured during his detention. The first, second and third applicants also claimed that as a result of their family member’s disappearance and the State’s f... | 5 |
53. The applicant referred to the Court’s decision on the admissibility of his application and replied that he had provided the German courts with documents showing that he faced persecution if expelled to Iran right from the start of the proceedings. Accordingly, he requested the authorities to grant him refugee stat... | 5 |
47. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, only Mr Mangîr adduced medical evidence proving that he had been diagnosed with concussion after his release from detention. The other applicants failed to adduce any evidence... | 5 |
70. The applicant further complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy through which to assert his claim that he had been summoned and sentenced in absentia to seven years’ imprisonment and 70 lashes of the whip by the Revolutionary Cour... | 5 |
76. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. He further complained that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention and that the material conditions of his detention had been poor. Lastly, he co... | 5 |
44. The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers who, owing to an inadequate investigation, had been neither identified nor punished. They also complained that the German legal system did not provide them with an effect... | 5 |
146. The Government have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the applicant’s injuries recorded following his transfer from Kentron Police Station. The applicant, on the other hand, has consistently and repeatedly raised his allegations of ill... | 5 |
118. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during the abduction of Murad Gelayev, the second and fourth applicants were subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that Murad Gelayev was subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of th... | 5 |
37. The Government firstly submitted that the obligation to investigate under Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In that connection, they submitted that the investigation of the assault against the applicant had been prompt, independent and adequate – the investigating autho... | 5 |
123. The applicant maintained that he had been ill-treated and tortured by the police in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his assertion he submitted the transcripts of oral submissions of F (the co-suspect in the alleged killing of MS), B, M and V (his ward mate in Hospital no. 39) taken by tw... | 5 |
61. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the Gdansk Detention Centre had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the conditions of detention had been inhuman. The des... | 5 |
39. The Government submitted that on 24 July 2008 the applicant had been released from Łowicz Prison. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Ar... | 5 |
51. The applicant claimed in particular that he had been transported in cramped conditions to and from the City Court on one hundred and ninety-five days. At the courthouse he had been kept in a cell measuring 1.5 square metres with two to three other persons. There had been no bench, no ventilation and no natural lig... | 5 |
89. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment at the time of his arrest on 19 October 2001, that he had been kept in solitary confinement, that he had been detained under the special regime reserved for “dangerous prisoners” and that the prison authorit... | 5 |
102. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in the light of the case-law of the Court. They submitted that the judgments 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... | 5 |
39. The applicant made three distinct complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention: he alleged (i) that the material conditions of his detention in prison no. 7 had been poor; (ii) that he had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis there; and (iii) that he had not been provided with appropriate medical care for his va... | 5 |
21. The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the author of the “protest letter” that ... | 5 |
33. The Government stressed that the applicant had had the right to receive a visit from a family member or a phone call once a week. Moreover, once a week he had the right to visit a “day room” in which he could participate in cultural and educational activities. The Government concluded that the treatment to which h... | 5 |
53. The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the conditions of his detention under the additional security measures, in particular the use of handcuffs on him at all times when he was outside of his cell and his being banned from using the prison’s sports facilities and exercising, t... | 5 |
58. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of that inadequate medical care had been secured to him in Dobrowo and Koszalin Remand Centres. He submitted that because of the poor sanitation conditions and limited opportunities for keeping clean he had contracted various skin diseases. Some ... | 5 |
58. The applicant maintained that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the prison officers had “used violence and caused injuries” to him. He considered these actions unlawful. The applicant referred to his injuries as identified following a forensic medical examinat... | 5 |
33. The Government argued further that any suffering on the part of the first applicant during the events at issue had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the prosecution authorities had been well aware of his state of health, and had carried out... | 5 |
86. The applicant sustained a fracture of the jaw and some other injuries (see paragraphs 37, 46, 52 and 54 above). Although some of the injuries did not constitute damage to health by national standards, this does not prevent the national authorities and the Court from establishing whether those injuries were suffici... | 5 |
61. The applicant complained that his proposed removal would place the United Kingdom in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While the domestic authorities found that certain aspects of his account were not credible, he now relied solely on facts which were not in dispute, namely that he was a southern Bhut... | 5 |
63. The applicant submitted that his detention pending the moratorium on executions amounted to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given the fear of a possible resumption of executions, the long time spent in uncertainty (1990 -98) and the detention's ma... | 5 |
140. The applicant submitted that the reason why his action had been rejected as unsubstantiated had been the refusals of the courts to carry out an on‑the‑spot inspection of the detention facility and to question the director of the National Investigation Service. On the other hand, the administration of the detentio... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.