At the trial, the court questioned as a witness L., the policeman who had arrested the applicant, who stated that he had not used physical coercion against him.

The court also rejected his complaint concerning the eight-day time-limit, stating that this was a statutory time-limit of which he had been informed in the police’s decision.

    Mr Umar Israilov’s murder, and the investigation and trial in Austria (a)     Threats to Mr Umar Israilov and the Austrian police’s actions In February 2007 Mr Ramzan Kadyrov became

In particular, he alleged that that the police’s decision to arrest and detain him and his ill-treatment in police custody had been due to his ethnicity.

The police’s conduct in the present case does not appear to have been unlawful or arbitrary given their obligation to verify criminal complaints, whereas the applicants chose of their own free will to

No adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant - objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion – not specified

The Court of Appeal found that the police’s arrangements for the storage of the seized items had been inadequate and that the continued storage of some of them had been devoid of a legal basis.

  On 14 November 1990 the applicants sued the administration before the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes (Polimeles Protodikeio Rhodou).

Nor does the Court consider that the police’s presence outside the delivery room during birth (item 5) amounted to an interference transgressing the limits of this provision.

request for asylum he invoked that he had been working for the Peruvian police in its anti-terrorist unit, but that at the same time he had been in contact with a special movement within the police - "Policia

    The domestic courts, while they never analysed the content of the leaflets despite the applicants’ insistence in that sense, accepted the police’s characterisation of those leaflets as “anti-government

  Three members of the Commission, delegated for the purpose, heard evidence on 4 July 1988 from two prosecutors and a policeman concerning the nature and extent of the contacts between the prosecuting

  On 19 February 1996 J.K, a policeman from the Kraków-Grzegórzki Police, heard evidence from W.K., an eye-witness of the events of 5 May 1994 at the post office.

    In this respect the Court takes note that the applicant was a policeman and a lawyer himself.

He maintained, in particular, that he was a former policeman with a clean record and that he had never previously been convicted.

That decision was approved by the Pskov prosecutor’s office and was not appealed against by the policeman. The applicant was released at about 5 a.m. on 17 August 2005.

The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “It appears from the record drawn up on 7 March 2005 by the policeman on duty A.

Seeking to retaliate for having complained about police and urge guilty plea, they hit him on arms and shoulders and threatened to place him (former policeman) in cell with ordinary detainees. 3.

According to credible sources, a policeman visited Tyshkevich at the hospital and pressured her not to file a complaint against police.