Therefore, such measures designed to achieve greater social justice may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see, for example, Edwards v.

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

    The Court will assess the effectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicant’s sisters below (see paragraphs 100 - 107), but it is clear that it failed to establish the military

The note specified that US legislation provided for several means of reducing life sentences: “Regarding the question of commutation of a life sentence, the United States wishes to make it clear, in the

I personally inspected the area and found the place where the car had pulled over leaving clear tyre tracks.

against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr   Edward

solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s584E0B81 { width:35.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 50853/06 Edvards

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

For this reason it considers it appropriate to examine the applicant’s complaint under the two provisions taken together (see Edwards v.

In this respect he also relied on Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247 ‑ B, §   36).

Therefore, such measures designed to achieve greater social justice may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see, for example, Edwards v.

It contended that the District Court had failed to make clear what had constituted the interference with the rights of A., the article in question or other articles about the same events which had been

It therefore found that Trabelsi was not of assistance, and preferred the approach taken in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos.   9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012).

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

Where it is clear from the outset, however, that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of.

By a letter of 7 March 2024, Mr Ramaj’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s son, who was also one of his three heirs, Mr Eduart Ramaj, wished to continue the proceedings in his stead

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

    As regards the expert opinion, the court considered it comprehensive, thorough and clear.

Turkey , no. 32446/96, § 60, 2   November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §   72, ECHR 2002-II). 3.