and their use on the ground that the use of these techniques had been discontinued and that there were security considerations involved.

They obtained possession and control of those items as thieves which gave them a possessory title pending their return to the true owner.

They are of the opinion that they will not be able to speak freely about their political opinions or about their opinions regarding the civil war without serious consequences.

These were the first applicant and the second applicant, who were then also arrested and placed in the police car, where they were then held together with the third applicant and Officer J.C. 10.

Law : Article 3 – There was no doubt that the treatment described by the applicants fell within the scope of this provision as inhuman and degrading.

They were told that he was “unavailable”. They called again at 5.40   p.m. and were told that their details would be passed to the officer in charge of the investigation for him to call them.

Mr M. testified that he had then left the bar with Mr Zabchekov and that they had parted at the door, Mr M. returning home.

The applicant company took over the leased premises, invested substantially in their renovation, and ran a hotel in them.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty as there was no reasonable suspicion for their arrest and that they were held in

The applicants did not appeal against this award. On 4 July 2003 the IBA informed the applicants that they had registered judgment against their property.

They were addressed by a Tamil-speaking migration officer who explained the processes that they would have to go through. The British High Commission official then addressed them in English.

The applicants submitted that they had lived in the Netherlands since 1998 and were going to school there.

Because the State pays part of their price so they are cheaper and more accessible to patients.

    The police officers then took the applicants to the investigation unit and introduced them to their State-appointed lawyers, F. and U.

The raiders sold the plant’s property to the affiliated companies via persons controlled by them... the transaction presumed the sale of the property to the companies specifically registered for this purpose

They alleged that the attack came from Russian troops stationed nearby despite the fact that they had been forewarned that local villagers would be working there that day.

The Court also notes that the applicants gave a power of attorney to several lawyers and they have not claimed that they were in any way hindered by the authorities in the exercise of their right of individual

They submitted that this deprived them of the possibility to submit counter arguments and evidence, and that they did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence.

They also claimed that the health of their children was threatened and this could not be subject to judicial control through a request for suspension of the measures.