They can all testify that the eleven persons now missing were held with their hands tied behind their backs by rope throughout their detention at the site.

They put Mr Mukhtarov and Mr Umarov on the ground threatening them with weapons, then forced them into the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Ordzhonikidzevskaya village.

When they got to the first floor the officers of the anti-riot squad were already there.

They claimed that the new property provisionally allotted to them was not as valuable as their prior property and that the yield per year and hectare would be some AS 70 000 lower.

In addition, their child had been obliged to follow them in all their movements around the centre (OFII, CIMADE, medical visits), then on their visits to the courthouse (when summoned to appear before

The Court therefore notes that, as the applicants have not yet been convicted, they still have at their disposal the possibility of submitting their complaints before the domestic courts.

They submit that had they charged the authorities with the allegations set out in their application their lives would have been placed at risk.

  If there are not sufficient sites where gipsies may lawfully stop, then they will be without the law whenever and wherever they do stop.

They stated that they had been authorised, under the law, to warn him. They further contested the audio recording, arguing that there were gaps and interruptions in it.

They applied for planning permission for the stationing of their caravan.

On their way to the police station, they made telephone calls to friends and informed them about the incident.

These powers allow magistrates, at any stage in proceedings before them, to bind over any participant in the proceedings if they consider that the conduct of the person concerned is such that there might

There is, however, no evidence in the file to show what has happened to these persons after they were taken away on 27 October 1995. In other words, their fates are unknown.

    The applicants maintain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were deprived of their right to liberty and security on account of the forced eviction of them from their village.

Once there they had shot them in the head with firearms and thrown their bodies into the river.

They arrested the three men, handcuffed them and took them to the Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (the UBOP) of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (the Dagestan MVD). 12.

The fires were so far advanced that there was nothing the applicant could do. Since a few of the houses had not caught fire, the applicant and the other villagers thought they could shelter in them.

Once they had crossed the barriers, they were arrested by members of the Guardia Civil , who handcuffed them and returned them to the other side of the border, without an identification procedure or the

Following their deportation to Iraq and resettlement in Sweden, the applicants maintained the same complaints and asserted that they had lived in fear that the Iraqi authorities could return them to Iran

Finally, they submitted that there had been substantial delays in the appeal proceedings.