They were discussed with the parties and partly amended.   Then the jury started its deliberations following a summing up (Rechtsbelehrung) given to them by the presiding judge.

The judge concluded that there was a risk of their absconding and tampering with the evidence, and also the risk of their continuing their criminal activity.

This time, the Treasury sought to evict them from the dormitory building, regardless of which rooms they were occupying.

    The applicants also claimed EUR 4,032.25 for the work performed by their representatives before the Court. In support of this claim they submitted a time sheet.

the authorities would not be able to protect them from their assailants.

    On 12 February 1996 the applicants were brought before the Public Prosecutor and then before a judge. On both occasions they repeated their statements of 10 February 1996.

these applicants were younger than 18 years of age at the time they committed the offence.

They insisted that they had never done any such things and that there was no proof that the conditions of their children’s upbringing, albeit basic, were in fact dangerous.

was available to them would have been effective within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention for their grievances under this head. 36.

They drove close to the village and then had to proceed on foot because it had rained in the night and the village was muddy. There were over 100 soldiers.

It was against the best interests of the children to take them out of the new environment in which they were building up new contacts, and to restore them to their former family, there being the risk that

The examination of the applicants’ complaint was limited under this Article to the events leading to the death of their son.

They were armed with stones and pieces of wood and were very worked up. Most of them went past the post office, but others stopped there and broke the windows.

They were supported in their efforts by the SRJI.

with the permission and grace of Allah; at this moment it means that they share [their suffering].

This would increase the value of the company which would then be sold at a higher price.

On this occasion, they raised the question of compensation for their loss of residence rights.

They also claimed damages for their inability to use the land.

The applicant and his family then moved to Ankara, where they currently live.