It consisted of twenty days of peaceful protests, and caused the then President, Mr Eduard Shevardnadze, former First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party and former Soviet foreign minister, who had

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals, Mr Pavel Nikolayevich Nagibin, Mr   Boris Vadimovich Batyy and Mr   Eduard

Republic no. 2/1940 of 15 October 1940 on provisional exercise of legislative power ( ústavní dekret presidenta republiky o prozatímním výkonu moci zákonodárné ), to the President of the Republic, Mr Eduard

It is clear that the applicants suffered pecuniary loss, no matter how small the number of their shares.

The first and second applicants, Mr Eduard Anatolievich Posevin, a Russian national born in 1962, and Ms Tetyana Anatolyivna Posevina, a Ukrainian and Bulgarian national born in 1974, are spouses.

concerns such “procedural” obligations, which, it must be stressed, require that there should be some form of official investigation by the authorities of the State (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards

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

Firstly, it is clear that where the death occurred before the critical date, only procedural acts and/or omissions occurring after that date can fall within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction.

Detention could only be dispensed with, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, when it was clear and beyond doubt that any danger of absconding or re-offending was objectively excluded, for example, if the

accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom , no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001 ‑ III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards

principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards

Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the kidnapping. 74.

H.R., Edwards judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 34).   73.

The Court’s role is confined to ascertaining whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair (see, mutatis mutandis , Edwards v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no.

Edward Fitzgerald, Q.C., Mr. Oliver Thorrold, Counsel and Mr. Andrew Bergman, Solicitor.   9.

and effective investigation” capable of establishing the causes of death and identifying and punishing those responsible must be carried out of the authorities' own motion (see Paul   and Audrey Edwards

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.

principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards