to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction (see, for example, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, §   36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards

    In the 1970s Mr Gunnar Nordhus, then a law student, and Mr   Edvard   Vogt, then an associate professor of sociology at the University of Bergen, carried out an investigation into

The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (see, mutatis mutandis , Edwards v. the United Kingdom

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

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

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

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.

However, it is clear from the circumstances of the present case that JM’s mental state during imprisonment had never called for such special protective measures. 50.

which operates against a wide spectrum (e.g. in relation to its effect on post-tariff discretionary life prisoners, and those detained under some provision of the Mental Health Act 1983), but, as is clear

    It is not clear from the evidence before the Court whether the applicants received a reply to their request. 35.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the kidnapping. 86.

He also requested, relying on Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16   December 1992, Series A no. 247 ‑ B, §   36), that the police officer in charge of the criminal investigation

    On 30 May 2000 the applicant requested an update on progress in the proceedings from the regional health authority, stating that she had still received no clear explanations concerning the

authorities' failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards

Edwards Frais, Liverpool.   3.    The application is directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. M.C.

    A third application for bail, dated 19 January 2010, was refused by the Court of Magistrates on 26 January 2010 on the ground that the courts’ position had already been made clear.

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

Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the kidnapping. 68.