into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear

Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 34, para. 33, with further references).

They emphasised that there was no   clear and precise basis for the Constitutional Court to prohibit the Parliament of Catalonia from meeting. 15.

with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Maltese nationals, Mr   Michael Galea and Mr   Edward

From the medical records it was clear that [the applicant] had complained of lower back pain but only the scratch on his knee was noted, received, from his own description during the arrest.

The applicant made clear to the TCPO that he had injured his left arm during that conflict. 30.

It is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v.

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

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

It had therefore been clear which juror was sitting as a full member and which juror was a substitute. The jury was consequently not wrongly composed as claimed by the applicant.

    The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the legislative interference pending judicial proceedings in Italy (see, for example, Arras and Others

it had issued a permit, had complied with the rules on work safety, and to ensure that the construction site had been properly closed off with wooden panels as a safety measure, and (ii) it was not clear

Furthermore, the law had failed to specify a clear course of action which the gas company and consumers had been obliged to follow upon discovering the defective installation of a gas-operated device in

  48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004 ‑ ..., and, mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002 ‑ II). 86.

The applicants contend that the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) failed to treat the incident as a racially motivated crime notwithstanding the existence of clear evidence confirming this.

However, it is clear, from the case-law relied on by the Government, that in situations such as those of the present case, namely where as a result of a protected rent regime (such as that arising from

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

At the time of sentencing, it would be clear to the applicant when he would become eligible for parole. 47.

However, such proof may follow from the co ‑ existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.