annual reports ‒ violated his right to liberty. 4.

K. had told the applicant to keep away from his workers or he would trash him.

his private and family life and his home contrary to Article 8 (Art. 8).

The lawyer repeated his request for those people to be questioned. For his part, the second applicant stated his interest in having the first applicant’s alibi verified.

RP should have been taken to have waived his right to be present at the hearing because of his status as a fugitive from justice.

The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the appeal hearing, whereas his co-accused were both present and represented.

  According to the applicant, his refusal to make any statements on the charges against him did not render the investigations more difficult.

He did not display any injuries on the upper part of his body. He did not take off his pants.

They do not appear in his interview at all.

The plaintiff's principal objection was that his letters to and from his solicitor were read by the Governor or his deputy - he submitted that the power to interfere with his right of communication with

Moreover, his social prospects in the event of his release had deteriorated as his relationship with his fiancée had ended. 31.

his appeal against his dismissal had not had been sufficiently competent to hear and determine the case before them, which, in his view, had prevented them from assessing all the decisive issues for the

       The applicant has explained that he acts on behalf of his brother since his brother's injuries render it impossible for him to act on his own behalf.

This, in his view, warranted the examination of his case and the finding of a violation of his Convention rights. B.     The Court’s assessment 33.

Therefore, his detention lacked any legal basis under Polish law at the relevant time.

His objection was supported by the other defendants.

The court reiterated that according to the domestic case-law the reading of pre-trial or interrogation statements of absent witnesses did not render the proceedings invalid if the accused or his counsel

for his destroyed property.

and, by extension, any of his informants who might be identified if he revealed his sources.

        On 10 July 1991 the Vienna Regional Court rejected his appeal on points of law on the ground that, in presence of his defence counsel, he had waived his right to appeal