By contrast, the present cases were processed by the Court under a simplified procedure and, following the Firth and Others judgment, the Court’s approach to such follow-up cases was clear.

  Specifically, the Court found that because, in the circumstances of the case, it was by no means clear that an objective observer would conclude that the juror who knew the witness for the prosecution

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the failure of the judicial authorities to act must have become clear by 22 December 2000, i.e. the date on which the Adana State Security Court rendered

This consideration, however, cannot be said to apply to the issues raised by the present application, since it is not clear how the quashing of the judgment, which entitled the applicant to certain pecuniary

reiterates that the required evidentiary standard of proof for the purposes of the Convention is that of “beyond reasonable doubt”, and that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear

domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Paul and Audrey Edwards

    In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment

    Despite these findings which were clear from the principal judgment the applicants made claims in this respect based on valuations which considered the lands’ development potential (into

  Moreover, it was not clear how the arrangements to place the applicant on a Lagos bound flight were made; how he had been smuggled past the airport and airline authorities and who the agent was.

In support thereof he maintained that there was a clear disproportion between the remuneration that he had received and the remuneration that the Legal Adviser to the Danish Government had received.

Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that

Belgium , judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34; as a recent example of a case in which Article

  Kamil Magomedov, born in 1955; Mr Abakar Aliyev, born in 1982; Mr Said Magomedov, born in 1960; Mr   Akhmed Magomedov, born in 1979; Mr   Akhmed Madomedov, born in 1977; Mr   Eduard

To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” –, but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences

Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.

To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences

Where it is clear from the outset, however, that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of

It was, thus, clear that the District Court did not refuse to hear Mr A.P. as a witness because he had not been properly called to give evidence. 33.

His reasons for this decision were not clear, but the Court of Appeal in its judgment of 18   February   1994 speculated that it might have been because he had, wrongly, received the impression