In addition, the applicants requested, albeit unsuccessfully, that the courts hear other witnesses who had allegedly seen them arrive at Police Station no. 39. 51.

no. 52676/99, 27 August 2002), or the validity of which was questioned (see Hussun and Others v.

(see paragraph   9 above). 17.

  43726/02, § 19, 27 July 2006; see also paragraph 58 below). 35.

    The applicant was not brought before a court after his arrest (see paragraph 8 above).

  Insanov (see paragraph 28 below), and the husband of the applicant in application no. 33248/08 (see paragraph   15 below). Aliyeva v. Azerbaijan, application no.   26193/08 11.

However, they ignored his allegation of ill-treatment and their decisions made no mention of it (see paragraphs 16-19 above).

They could have secured a hearing in the establishment where the applicant was serving his sentence (see, mutatis mutandis , Shilbergs , cited above, § 109).

The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Mammadov and Others v.

The staff at the accommodation sent reports to the Migration Agency regarding A.H.’s stay.

#Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö – Asetus (EY) N:o 2200/96 – Asetus (EY) N:o 1432/2003 – Maatalous – Yhteinen markkinajärjestely – Hedelmät ja vihannekset – Tuottajaorganisaatiot – Edellytykset, joilla kansalliset

R.S. was sent to serve his sentence in a Hungarian prison. R.S.’s transfer to Azerbaijan 18.

They presented a different account of the events surrounding their arrests and detentions (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above). 15.

Gafgaze Mammadov v.

What is at stake here is not only the “right to liberty” but also the “right to security of person” (see, among other authorities, Bozano v.

Such measures had had very serious consequences for that applicant and had affected his private life to a very significant degree (see Namazov , cited above, § 34, and see also Bagirov , cited above, §

  Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016; Mammadli v. Azerbaijan , no.   47145/14, 19 April 2018; Aliyev v.

The Court has also taken into account reports by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (see, for example, Bajsultanov , cited above, §§ 38-42, and I v.

The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v.