The applicants alleged essentially that their deportation to Iran would subject them to the risk of death, torture and the break-up of their family and that they had no effective remedy in

They calculated these amounts on the basis of the minimum salary for their respective fields of employment. They each sought 1,000,000 pesetas for loss of career prospects.

  In this regard they complain that the assessments made about them by the Secret Service may be used to damage them in their political or professional careers.

He was also certain that they had “good relationship” with the head of the VOVD and that was the reason why the officers of the VOVD accompanied them to Kurchaloy and afterwards allowed them to question

They found the gates closed and smoke coming out of the house. They received no reply to their calls, and forced the doors open. The cellar was burning and they were unable to access it.

They then left the shop, went to the rental car parked nearby, where the applicant was waiting for them, and fled. 11.

    The applicants alleged, in particular, that there had been numerous defects in the criminal proceedings against them, resulting in a violation of their right to a fair trial, and that their

On 11 September 2020 the Registry sent letters to the applicants requesting them to inform the Court of their current postal address for further correspondence.

to the banks of the river Drava, where they killed them with shots from firearms and threw their bodies into the river Drava.

and that there was nothing to suggest that they had influenced the judges of that court who had ruled in the applicants’ case.

The soldiers ordered them to stop, but as they were driving at high speed and the brakes had failed, they could not stop.

They were then informed that the Cypriot police had DNA matches for at least three of the suspects.

original application form and in the statements which they made to the domestic authorities, namely that the police officers had raided their flats, had arrested them using force and had taken them to

They also threatened to hurt their family members. The officers said that they wished those in the office were men, in which case they would feel freer to use physical force on them.

They, however, wished to maintain their complaints despite the revocation, given the years of litigation at a financial cost to them, costs which they wished to have compensated.

    The respondent Government stated that the police did not keep the congregation in the courtyard against their will nor did they force them to disperse.

They also submitted that the removal order against them had exposed them to a situation which had put their lives and physical integrity at risk.

There they met a watchman who told them that “10 or 11 people in three cars had entered this polygon on the same day at about 7.30 a.m.”.

Although the domestic courts had given relevant reasons for their decision to revoke the adoption, they had failed sufficiently to justify them for the purposes of Article 8 §   2.

While there are official sites in the area, he complains that these are not fit for human habitation as they are located on rubbish sites or on old sewage beds.