As to the first of those pieces of evidence, I note that there is clear and uncontradicted evidence to the effect that the defendant did telephone Jasper Widdicombe that night; he phoned him at 10.35 p.m

had been a legal provision under which those acts had been punishable.

Those injuries were further confirmed in a report of 15 September by doctors of the Human Rights Foundation.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of sufficient reasons for

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

into those deaths and injuries; that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life

It consequently considered that there had been no “pressing social need” to dissolve the DEP on account of those two declarations.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They also emphasised that there was a difference between the prison and external community: there were different pressures on prisoners, there were greater numbers of dangerous people grouped together

    As to the applicants’ appeals, the court emphasised that there was no question of the juror having any connection with those responsible for the prosecution of the case.

In those circumstances, there was no evidence that the victims’ relatives would have access to effective remedies in the Russian Federation capable of establishing the liability of State officials and

The applicant did not point to any deficiency in those efforts. The Court concludes that there was a good reason for their absence from the trial and the admission of their pre-trial statements. 42.

did not specifically regulate in detail the case of persons not falling into any of those categories.

Understandably, in those circumstances, there was no application by the Crown for a re-trial, as there would no doubt have been had the conviction been quashed for these reasons shortly after trial.” 35

The Constitutional Court found that there had been no violation of Mr Borovský’s right to be presumed innocent.   2.

As there was no suitable neonatal unit in that hospital, the doctors decided to transfer the baby to another public hospital 110   km away.

As descendants of those persons, both applicants obtained Moldovan nationality.

There is no mention of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in the indictment with which those proceedings were instigated.

of failing to prosecute those responsible.

   that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention with regard to the first applicant;   ii.