When M. appeared to give evidence, she carried out a 'dock identification” of the applicant, namely, she pointed to the applicant in the court room as her assailant.

    On 12 March 2001 the first applicant was charged with attempted aggravated murder and several robberies committed in concert.

When D.M. had returned from the room, he had looked agitated and had kept his head down. No visible injuries had been noticed on him. 29.

The applicant’s sister further submitted she had not witnessed any ill-treatment as she had not been present in the applicant’s room.

The presiding judge also warned the jury not to discuss the case outside of the jury room. 31.

She ran to the room where Vakhit Avkhadov was sleeping and alerted him about the intrusion.

At 4.40 p.m. and 5.40 p.m.: “[use of the restraint measures] to be continued, behaviour abnormal, [the applicant is] silent”.

The applicant slept on a mattress on the floor in the baby's room; she had to look after him if he woke up. 15.     She was never paid, except by Mrs B.'

    On 21 March 2007, when interviewed by the police, the applicant exercised his right to remain silent in the presence of his lawyer. 16.

A suspect or an accused shall be given the same information (including the information on the right to remain silent) before being questioned by police officers (Article   147 of the Code of Criminal

He revoked his confession, alleging that the police officers had put mental and physical pressure on him to confess to the robberies. He also testified against his co-defendants.

The latter furthermore submitted that on 22 December 2004 his meeting with the applicant had been interrupted and she had been taken out of the meeting room. 34 .

According to the report on his questioning, he was twice advised by the investigating judge of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer of his own choosing, who could be present during the questioning

Officers Ya.M. and V.G. were in the room and R.Kh. stayed outside. The applicant was shown a confession statement written by someone else and was ordered to confess too.

The questioning itself took place in a special room for the questioning of children ( vaikų apklausos kambarys ); the boys were questioned by the psychologist, and it appears that no other person was in

The facility’s shower room was equipped with twelve shower heads.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that his conviction for the murder of Mrs K. was based on incriminating evidence obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege

    The interrogation team leader and the external communication expert watch and listen to the interrogation in another room.

    Paragraph 2 of Section 64 imposes an obligation on the Court to demand an explanation of the reasons why the administrative body remained silent.

The decision further read that the applicant had been questioned at the Drug Control office and that he had chosen to remain silent.