His appeals were dismissed despite counsel‘s argument that given his intellectual disability, his pre-trial confession made without a lawyer being present should not have been admitted as evidence of his

    Witness B. testified in his pre-trial statement that his business partner O. had introduced him to the applicant in November 2003.

According to the article, the applicant said that he loved his son as much as he hated him.

In March 2005 Mr Markov asked the Office to register his divorce and to give him a divorce certificate.

The policemen grabbed the applicant, pulled his arms behind his back and searched him. Then they took the applicant to a security room of the supermarket.

, place him in a nursing home and restrict his contacts with the outside world.

    The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the measures against him infringed upon his rights to family life and private life.

A fellow prisoners, G.F, made a signed statement under caution to a police officer accusing the applicant of having supplied him with drugs in prison, and later confirmed his statement under oath before

On the contrary, they wanted him to get better and to return to his family.

Shortly after his release, officers from the Criminal Investigation Department had come to his parents’ house and had asked for him.

that his psychiatrist would take action to prevent him from carrying them out; even more so as his psychiatrist knew his former criminal record and had been treating him for many years.

The OMON officers kicked and hit him on his entire body with their hands, truncheons and a spade and passed electric current through his body.

However, the applicant maintains that memories of abuse by his father returned to him shortly after March 1995 (his letter of 21 January 1997).

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to inform him promptly of the reasons for his arrest and the charges against him.

On 13 December 2003 the applicant and his lawyer, Mr A., signed a record attesting that his procedural rights, including his right to legal assistance, had been explained to him.

The Administrative Court dismissed his appeals against the decision deporting him to Turkey on the ground that, since his operation, he had undergone the prescribed tests and check-ups and that the necessary

detention centre and threatened to harm his family if he named persons who had abducted him.

According to the applicant, the food caused him severe pain in his stomach some time after it had been introduced.

The articles also contained other sufficient elements to identify him, namely an interview with him insisting on his innocence, details of his place of work, residence and neighbourhood, and a large picture