As to the confessions made by the applicant while under administrative arrest, the court noted that this fact did not render his confessions inadmissible and that not all of them had been made during the

for his election as Mufti.

Beforehand, his legal guardian was his grandmother (see paragraph 5 above). 54.

He submitted the same arguments as in his complaint to the Administrative Court concerning his request of 4 May 2004. 14.

    According to the applicant, immediately after his arrival at Liepāja prison he met “enemies” who threatened to subject him to ill-treatment throughout his stay at the prison.

His complaint in this respect is therefore premature.

The applicant was then invited to submit his reply before 6 September 1971.

house, had been the decisive factor in his conviction.

    The applicant complained of the restriction of his right of access to the appeal courts as a result of his – allegedly invalid – waiver of the right to appeal.

According to that statement, the child had publicly expressed in his class at the kindergarten his unwillingness to leave his father and his desire to live with him and his stepmother.

25   July 2002 or ordered his release even though it had found the order illegal.

to his lawyer on 17 August 1987 for which reason it should not be considered.

    The present case concerns a situation where the applicant was afforded access to a lawyer from his first interrogation, but not – according to his complaint – a lawyer of his own choosing

His main complaint was that he had not been able to enjoy his rights while in police custody ( yasal haklarımın kullandırılmaması ); he had not been informed of the charges against him until his appearance

The applicant’s father was examined as well, and he stated that he had visited his son about ten days after his arrest.

amounts to an acknowledgement that the filming did not engage his right to the protection of his private life.

During his detention, he had developed an itchy skin rash on his arms and torso. After one year he had managed to escape with the help of his uncle, who had bribed some of his guards.

    On 25 November 1996 the applicant renewed his appeal against his detention. 25.

The applicant had also showed the above-mentioned employees traces of the alleged violence – a haematoma on his hip and abrasions on his arm and legs.

trial and violated his personality rights.