The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion

On 31 January 1995 the applicant challenged this decision through his lawyer.

He was seen with his hands tied. His feet were also tied and his toes had swollen.

    The applicant’s transfers and detention between his rendition from Poland on 6 June 2003 and his alleged rendition to Romania on 12 April 2004 as reconstructed on the basis of the 2014 US

     Everyone has the right to respect for his private         and family life, his home and his correspondence.

    [An arrested person shall have the right to] defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer from the moment of his arrest or detention, or – in the case of a suspect – prior to his first

On 6 January 2003 he specified his grounds of appeal.

His account of the events following his arrest is as follows.

Clerides, his successor. 3.     The applicant alleged that his deportation to Syria would entail the risk of his being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3.

During his police interviews, the applicant did not have a lawyer of his own choosing.

Having knocked the applicant down to the floor, and while restraining his arms and legs, they allegedly took off his underwear and inserted the end of a chair leg into his anus.

family and his own social rehabilitation."

During 1974 and 1975 his neighbours, V.B. and J.Ž., built a house and a garage on the adjacent plot of land, which in his opinion destabilized the foundations of his house. 1.

On 8   September 2010, at his request, the President of Romania approved his retirement. 4.

of his choosing.

and his family. 26 .

and the adequacy of his medical treatment while in detention, and his allegations under Article 5   §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was arbitrary and unjustified and

call his family and to invite his lawyer to be present during the search had been denied. 35 .

his case..."

The applicant kept his right to the flat and, therefore, his “possessions” were not interfered with. 23.     The applicant in reply maintained his arguments. 24.