The alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant and the investigation (a)     The alleged ill-treatment (i)     The first applicant’s description At about 4 p.m. on 12

including an alleged practice of failing to protect this group’s rights under these Articles.

victim (M.) feared that the alleged perpetrator (the applicant) would use violence against him or those who lived with him; (iv) the alleged victim asked to isolate the alleged perpetrator from him; and

    Do the alleged violations of the Convention fall within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent Governments within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?   2.

    Do the alleged violations of the Convention fall within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent Governments within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention?   2.

It was also alleged that the respondent State had failed in its obligation to protect life by law, contrary to Article 2, and that the impugned events were the result of discriminatory attitudes towards

trial;Violation of Art. 6-1 due to refusal of the right of access to court;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;No violation of Art. 6-1 due to alleged

Departing from the Chamber's approach, the Grand Chamber did not consider that the authorities' alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged racist motive for the killing should

The applicant further alleged that the prosecutor’s office’s decision to reopen the proceedings had breached his rights guaranteed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

The applicant alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention.

an alleged violation of his rights to respect for his private and family life and for his correspondence, under Article 13 of the Convention concerning an alleged violation of his right to an effective

In January 2017 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against unknown police officers for the alleged racially motivated police brutality.

The applicants complain, under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (substantive and procedural limbs), about alleged ill-treatment by the police, the alleged ineffective investigation

respect. alleged ill-treatment of the applicant 2.

The applicant alleged that the public prosecutor’s written opinion had not been communicated to him during the proceedings before the 11 th Istanbul Assize Court.

Communicated on 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 66418/14 Alexei GOLOVCHENKO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 September 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged

(ii) violated his right to be presumed innocent because the courts had reversed the burden of proof and had convicted him mainly on the ground that he had not provided credible explanations for his alleged

According to the applicant, those publications alleged, inter alia , that he had been “caught” by the police while drunk driving and referred to him as a “troublemaker” (“ бешкетник ”).

The applicants alleged under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the criminal proceedings could not be considered reasonable.