The applicant maintained before the General Staff Military Court that he had been coerced by MIT officers into signing a statement while in custody.

.) - 31866/96 Decision 31.8.1999 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Applicants allegedly beaten up by prison staff after refusing to submit to search: admissible The applicants allege that they were

By implementing those measures, the State had complied with its obligation to take action against drug trafficking in prisons.

The health-care service of the Kyiv SIZO had a staff complement of 31.5 posts (all of which were filled).

It followed that the sole fact that the applicant had made a statement, including both admissions of guilt and denials, in the absence of a lawyer could not ipso facto bring about a violation of Article

That period is therefore potentially available to be considered as the responsibility of the State.” 38.

The applicant appealed against that judgment and submitted a notarised written statement in which A.H. had apparently retracted her pre-trial statements.

The court ruled that G.F.’s statement to the investigating magistrate had been legally obtained and was admissible in evidence against the applicant.

The police did not, at that stage, arrest and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance, but continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement.

  State institutions. 2. Treatment shall preferably take place in a private institution. ...

The Counsel for the State (Abogado del Estado), representing the Government, obtained, on 4 and 5 July respectively, a stay of three months in each of the two sets of proceedings to enable him to consult

Apessos, Senior Adviser, State Legal Council, Mrs   O.   Patsopoulou, Adviser, State Legal Council, and Mrs S. Trekli, Legal Assistant, State Legal Council. 3.

Nonetheless, her mental state had not improved since. 13.

According to the two medical reports, an extended hospital stay was not essential at that stage of the disease.

However, it was not so in the present case, where the witnesses had reiterated their statements even before the trial courts. It followed that those statements were also admissible.

d'effectuer ce stage à un autre moment de l'année.

the United States.

However, the prisoner was in a very agitated state of mind and talked about having been beaten by prison staff.” 14.

As the two respondent States had no formal diplomatic relations, the international treaties to which both States were parties could not be the sole framework of reference in determining whether both States

In the light of the statement of reasons, it could not be excluded that pre-trial material had been used at the tax inspection stage as well.