latter's community in the village that they would protect them.

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

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

According to the husband they had then travelled on to the Netherlands by taxi, whereas the wife stated that they had also travelled by train on this part of their journey.

Witnessing to this incident, applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7 attempted to grab the impudent agent, but each of them was then separately encircled by many other plain-clothed agents who started punching, kicking

The guards entered the village and the terrorists fled from the northern part. They were told that two villagers had died. At this stage, the security forces caught up with them. It was dark then.

In this connection, they submit that the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the cases brought by them on the grounds that they had failed to state how they would be persecuted in Tajikistan, even

This struck Anastassios Isaak on the right hand side of his head causing him to jerk. The attacker then ran away.

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.

As they got out of the door they had been told by the security forces to put their hands up and walk towards the security forces.

that there were no concrete indications that these parcels would in the near future become constructible.

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

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.

  The Government state that it is difficult to see how the tablets could have found their way into his mug unless he put them there himself.

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.

    On 4 October 1994 military units arrived in the applicants’ hamlet. They convened the inhabitants in the hamlet square and told them to leave their houses.

The conscripts climbed over the [chain-link] fence and continued to run, I followed them, then I fired one, two or three more times in the air and shouted: 'Freeze!', but they continued running.

The privates climbed over the [chain-link] fence and continued to run, I followed them, then I fired one, two or three more times in the air and shouted: 'Freeze!', but they continued running.

The applicants complain under Article   5 § 2 of the Convention that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and of the charges against them.