The gendarmes then took the applicant to a place where they sprayed him with cold water.

From there, with about 1,800 other migrants, they started a demonstration through the streets of the island.

of them of this practice had violated their rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

The defendants then proceeded to determine the issue summarily in their own favour, without any consideration of the rights of others or any opportunity given to them to make their case known.

However, they had failed to obey the soldiers’ orders and had started running away. The soldiers had then fired in their direction, injuring one of them. 6.

  Social workers had learnt from the neighbours that there were repeated noisy quarrels between the parents and that they often beat their children violently.

They maintained that on the same day the security forces had set fire to their houses and had taken most of the male villagers into detention.

  They were concerned about the statements which the applicants made, or which they allowed others to make on their behalf, which had the effect of influencing people to act favourably towards them

However, the applicants’ status had not changed since there was still a removal order against them and they were obliged to leave Belgium.

There were six inmates in the room, and they often changed.

They stated that the polythene sheet had been planted there by the police after they had been brought to the police station.

After the statements were read out to them, they denied their accuracy.

The Latvian Government then informed the Court, before which the present application was by then pending, that Mr   Sisojev and their daughter could be issued with residence permits, initially for

In support of their claim they could plead that the administrative rules which precluded exemption were not binding on them because these rules were not adequately provided for in the 1970 amendment and

In reaching this decision, it considered it to be in the best interests of the children to accompany their parents to a country where they had relatives and spoke the language.

;    they just get an expensive flat, right there and then.

Even if they are correct in their assertion that they had no effective remedies, this does not re lieve them of the obligation to comply with the six-month rule.

Consequently they had unknowingly been occupying their property in contravention of domestic law. The applicants then complained to the Paphos DLO and requested them to intervene. 16.

There was no indication that their life was determined by this religion that their neighbours considered them as Yezidis.