Germany , 22 September 1993, § 29, Series   A no.   269).

Germany , 22 September 1993, §   29, Series   A   no.269).

Germany , 22   September 1993, §   29, Series A no.   269).

should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey

Moreover, he had already been found guilty of criminal offences in Lithuania and Germany, and it was possible that he would commit new ones.

Germany , 22 September 1993, §   30, Series A no. 269).

The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United

Germany , 22 September 1993, § 29, Series   A no.   269).

has previously held on many occasions that normally the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among many other authorities, Paul and Audrey

Germany , 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no.   269).

Germany , 22   September 1993, § 29, Series A no.   269).

Germany , 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no.   269).

should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey

should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey

Germany , nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05, § 29, 5   March 2009, and Oyal v. Turkey , no. 4864/05, §§ 51-57, 23 March 2010). Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.

should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey

Audrey Glover, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.   4.     The application concerns the seizure and forfeiture of an aircraft belonging to the applicant company.

In effect, the six-month period runs from the final decision in the context of the exhaustion of domestic options (see, inter alia, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7

would require an applicant to seize the Court of his or her complaint before his or her position in connection with the matter has been finally settled at the domestic level (see, for example, Paul and Audrey