The statement of claim did not contain an explanation as to what the purpose of the information request was.

The High Court had thus taken the various interests into account and given weight to what it believed to be the best interests of the children and notably their interest in maintaining the family unit.

The custom officer who was in front of the applicant noticed something in his pocket so he asked him what it was. The applicant said he had two silver ingots and he took them out of his pocket. 5.

Given that the applicant was expelled from the courtroom, what were the arrangements for his consultations with the counsel?   3.

Article   8 of the European Convention, as including all of the inconveniences necessarily linked to the experience of return: the exception provided for concerned only situations which went beyond what

    What was the total duration of the applicant’s detention in an individual unit (see Öcalan , cited above, §§ 137-45, and Bora v. Turkey (dec.), no.

carried out without sufficient and relevant grounds or safeguards against interference with professional secrecy, the order's excessively broad terms giving total freedom to the police to determine what

Furthermore, the definition of what might constitute a subject of public interest depended on the circumstances of each case.

What was the reason and legal basis for the alleged delay in the enforcement proceedings?

    What is the current living and custody situation of X and Y? What visitation, if any, do they have with A and B respectively?   2.

   What is generally called "the equality of arms", that is the procedural equality of the accused with the public prosecutor,   is an inherent element of a "fair trial";   2.

c)     What is the standard treatment for breast cancer at the stage at which it was diagnosed in the applicant’s case?

If the applicant’s brother was arrested, then on what legal basis and what happened to him afterwards?   2.

  (c)     What were the legal grounds and reasons for the applicant’s apprehension and his ensuing detention?

Presidential pardons in Lithuania de facto did not allow life prisoners to know what they had do to be considered for release and under what conditions and there was no judicial review available.

In this connection, what steps did the domestic authorities take to secure the attendance of the relevant witnesses?

    What was the total duration of the applicant’s detention in the Sincan H-Type Prison (see Öcalan , cited above, §§ 137-45, and Bora v.

What specific steps did they take in response to the allegations made? What specific steps should they have taken and when should these steps have been taken?   2.