After the shooting they both fell down...They were both lying on their stomachs, and both gave signs of life, one of them was crying and the other moaning ... then Sergeant S. appeared, I called him ..

The applicants were then taken to the Batman Security Directorate where they were detained and questioned. 12.

The security forces had not destroyed the applicants’ village or forced them to leave their homes.

The applicants then lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court challenging the application of the statutory limitation period in their cases.

  The applicant travelled from India to Kenya in November 1968. He obtained employment there as a teacher and then arranged with Miss C. that their marriage should take place in April 1969.

    The applicants maintained that they had published these declarations for commercial and journalistic purposes and that therefore their content should not be seen as their own views.

However, the Court observes that the applicants have not claimed before it that they would be persecuted by the authorities in the province of Kosovo if they were to be return there and the Court finds

He tried to report this to the police but they refused to accept the complaint, as it would create trouble for them with the mullahs.

Serif Avsar asked them their identities. They showed two cards but the witnesses could not ascertain whether the cards indeed identified them as policemen.

Thus, they claim that they lodged their applications within the required time limit.

In the evening of the same day an armed group of terrorists came and set fire to the houses in the village and destroyed them. Then they left the village.

build housing on their land overside the village, which they then sold for six-figure sums of money.

that there had been no effective remedy provided in the domestic system whereby they could have challenged their continued detention and the excessive length of the proceedings.

The Centre provided them with letters stating that their application was under consideration and they should seek an adjournment from the court on the next hearing date.

They added that their former lawyer had refused to provide them with the documents. On 3 December 1996 the High Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 25 June 1996.

  They maintain that the social authorities have dealt with their case inappropriately, in particular since they were not warned that their alleged irregular behaviour might lead to the taking into

From there, they took taxis which drove them to the outskirts of Sofia, where they slept under the open sky for two nights.

They had stated that they were unable to identify the persons who had detained them.

They had not seen their children for ten months and not even been allowed to talk to them on the telephone or write to them.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that they were unfairly deprived of their property.