They also informed them of the registration numbers of the APCs which had taken away their sons on 19   June 2002. 26.

Both Necati and Mehmet confirmed the statements they had made to the Prosecutor earlier the same day. The Judge then ordered their release. 51.

The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home was violated as they had been forcibly displaced from their villages and had been

They were then handed over to the gendarmes at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command.

Then the applicants had also got up and had been beaten and arrested by the police. The applicants complained that their arms had been twisted and that they had been beaten, particularly on the head.

They were stopped by the soldiers, who asked them for their identity documents.

The judge determined that there was no evidence that the jurors had seen these posts or had felt intimidated by them. 18.

    From there the applicants heard shooting at no. 28 and then at their own house.

They allege that each time they wished to lodge asylum applications, but were denied that opportunity by the border guards, who refused them entry and removed them to Belarus, even though the applicants

The applicants and their families then moved to Diyarbakır where they currently live.

The applicants and their families then moved to Diyarbakır where they currently live.

They were successful at first and second instance but the Supreme Court quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court, which then found that the first applicant’s husband was required

the applicant and his children, there was no interference with the right to respect for this life as the refusal to issue the entry visas did not deprive them of a residence permit which enabled them to

The applicants and their families then moved to Tunceli, Mersin and Bursa where they currently live.

  They complained that the report determined their civil right to honour and reputation and denied them effective access to court in the determination of this civil right, contrary to Article 6 para

They claimed that the furniture had been destroyed by the guards and the police officers who had arrested them. 19.

They denied that they had previously tried to escape the social authorities and emphasised that, even if the authorities believed that there was such a risk, this should not prevent them from being granted

To the Swedish immigration authorities they gave the following account of the reasons for their departure from Uganda.

  They all have children. These requests for transfer had been refused by the Home Office.