The Court would note at the outset that it does not consider it necessary to decide whether the absence of the applicant and his counsel, taken separately, would render the proceedings before

right to remain silent and his privilege against self-incrimination, as well as the alleged violation of his defence rights.

The applicant applied to the High Court to have the order set aside on two grounds: first, that the lapse of time since the commission of the alleged offences would render his extradition unjust and oppressive

The District Court refused his request. 7.

As regards his complaints concerning the conditions of his detention, and his assertion that there existed no effective remedy whereby he could raise his allegations and complain of the unlawfulness of

[The applicant] did not attend interviews, was not at his registered address, and his whereabouts could not be determined.

of his property ...”

As the motive of his actions was his need to obtain money to pay off his debt, it could be presumed that, if released, the applicant would carry on his criminal activities to achieve that objective.

He asserted that his detention was putting a severe strain on his family.

for his request.

After the first applicant had broken into his school where he committed acts of vandalism, his stepfather decided to send him temporarily back to the Lebanon.

    He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his claim for damages had been dismissed on the grounds that he had not proved that his mother had been killed by members of the

On both occasions, the trial court decided to notify the applicant that it would render its judgment at the next hearing, without having his submissions on the merits of the case if he failed to appear

On 6 October 1999 the court upheld his claim and declared the Commission’s decision null and void.

        The applicant was found to have a growth in his chest and he underwent radiotherapy to reduce the obstruction to his superior vena cava.

The applicant raised his objections, claiming that the wrong kind of ink did not render his passport invalid. 6.

Since the applicant was not aware of the actual breed of his dog, no submission was made on his behalf challenging the assertion of the prosecution that his dog was "of the type known as the pit bull terrier

life or his security would be endangered on the grounds of his race, religion, nationality or adherence to a social group, or on the grounds of his political opinion.

participation in the war and that his suicide could not be attributed to his wartime service.

for his arrest.