of his situation and to give an answer to his argument to that effect.

However, the officer had knocked him down, twisted his arms and hit him several times on the head and on the right side of his chest.

The police arrested him and took him to the police station.

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention between 12 May 1999 and 4 February 2000 as he alleged that he had already served all the sentences imposed on him by

family purposes had deprived him of the legal right to stay in the Czech Republic and made his continued enjoyment of his family life there uncertain and prone to be interrupted.

He was approached by four officers of the National Guard Service who grabbed him, threw him on the ground, twisted his arms behind his back, hit him on his torso and carried him to a police bus.

palpation in his cheekbone and hips; had bruises and scratches on his hips; severe pain in the chest, especially in the area of the costal margins; and soft tissue and bone bruising.

The policeman told him to shut up and hit him in the jaw bone with his fist, then in the belly with a truncheon.

The applicant was wounded in the hip and his cousin in the leg during the incident.

case file in support of his application before the Court, which he introduced after the completion of the criminal proceedings against him.

He refused to enter this cell, attempted to hit the colony officer escorting him with his crutch and threatened him with physical violence.

Instead, the military hit the applicant in the kidneys and put a bag over his head.

His parents were next to him.

They allegedly subjected him to ill-treatment seeking his confession.

    According to the applicant, police officers then handcuffed his hands behind his back and made him sit on a chair.

He further alleges that the presiding judge did not permit him or his lawyer to use a computer during the trial whilst the prosecutor was allowed to do so.

officers during his arrest.

He submitted that his parents-in-law unlawfully retained his daughter against his will. They prevented him from seeing X and from contacting her by telephone or through Internet.

According to the applicant, the reasons for his arrest were not clearly explained to him.