had jumped on him pressing the knee on his chest.

The District Court, however, relieved him of criminal responsibility in view of his mental illness and authorised his involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital.

over his sweater and had thrown it on the ground near him.

  Prior to his election he practised as a lawyer and, in the course of his professional activities, two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him, one for insulting a lawyer and the other

In 1994 the Rome public prosecutor’s office sought his arrest for his part in the murder of three hundred and thirty-five civilians.

He also complained that there had been no reasons for prosecuting him in absentia , that the lawyer had not represented him properly, and that his rights of defence had been ignored.

  The applicant knew all along what his co-accused said against him.

The court again decided to keep him in detention. The case file does not contain any document which shows that the applicant objected to the extension of his detention.

On 6 July 2006 the applicant again requested the Pecherskyy Court to release him pending trial, referring to his previous arguments and absence of prior criminal record and complaining that in detention

(d)     to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (...)”

The applicant's wife, who visited him twice a month, submitted that his health constantly deteriorated during his detention.

According to the applicant, during the last four days of his detention (between 21 and 24 June 2011) the SIZO staff subjected him to serious ill-treatment with a view to extorting money from him.

against him) he was – either directly or indirectly through his entourage (his bodyguard and lawyer) – subject to unlawful covert surveillance and audio and video recording by the NABU.

As the applicant had refused to confess, they had handcuffed his hands behind his back, pulled a black cap over his head, covering his eyes, and had taken him somewhere downstairs.

He considered these conditions to be inhuman, they had made him feel degraded and also fear for his life and health.

On 23 September 1998 the applicant requested the court, inter alia , to quash his detention on remand and to allow him and his lawyer to participate in a court session at which his motion would be examined

He claimed that the refusal to allow him to participate in his father’s funeral, even under convoy, had violated his right to family life.

The applicant found out in May 1995 that the divorce proceedings had ended but his ex-wife refused, despite the applicant’s numerous requests, to send him a copy of the divorce decree.

According to him, the father had refused to believe it, since his son had already tried to trick him into visiting him in prison by claiming to be hurt. 21.