Nor had he specified what he intended to do with the tape recordings or what he wanted to prove by producing them before the Court.

The parties are requested to elaborate on the following aspects: - when did the applicants’ son started to feel ill and what where the steps taken by the State authorities to protect his life?

    In October 1992 the applicant started receiving pension from what later became the FBH Fund, in an amount corresponding to 50% of what his JNA pension would have been. 14.

It can be seen from the video recording that it was difficult for the victim to explain what had happened.

He has no clue as to what civil war entails.

At that moment, last night, I decided what the subject of my comments today would be. Interviewer: What is the justification for obstructing the construction work, Professor?

What      was the reason for it?        A:    What they say is right. Our combat has reached a certain level.

<Marine E> could not make out what he was shouting, he could not understand him.

In his statement he said that he had tried to get in touch with Mr Marquis because he blamed him for what had happened.

If so, in what circumstances did the other injury or injuries occur?

  After that I don't know what happened'.   7.       Was D blazing drunk, did not know what happened?   Answer: D was drunk.

In particular, what was the legal basis for the applicants’ involuntary hospitalisation?

proceedings against him were discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti); and (ii) on account of providing a non-governmental organisation with its Internet platform for an online public opinion poll “What

      However, counsel for the defence knew already at the time       of the taking of evidence (in Denmark) what (B) had said.

For us, on the other hand, it is not what is lawful that should be the starting point in our struggle, but what is legal.

We simply want the government to find out what the Mayor is going to do with the two double beds which are at the Mayor’s Office.

The Court reiterates that paragraph 3 of Article 4 forms a whole with paragraph 2 and indicates what the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include.

It observed that P.H.’s account of the events had been very extensive and detailed, distinguishing between what the applicant had told him and what he had deduced, that his repeated statements had been

The applicant could not have inferred what documents formed part of the case file before the Court of Cassation without having been informed of the contents of the reconstructed case file.