the period of unreasonable delay had already accumulated and his claim had been focused on the Supreme Court’s decision of 14 April 2004 allowing the appeal against his discharge.

    Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

During his search before the hearing the applicant, stripped of his clothes and handcuffed, was allegedly repeatedly punched and kicked by escort police officers G. and T.

Chose que vous n'avez pas daigné faire jusqu'à hier. (...)

His widow A. G., and his children M. P. and A. G., declared that they wished to pursue his application before the Court. The Court decided not to disclose the applicant’s name (Rule 47 § 3).

He stressed that his own individual interests were of minor importance compared to the general interests to preserve the park.

mother and, afterwards, his grandmother (in their capacity of the applicant’s representatives) assisted by a lawyer before the courts.

  The applicant criticises the   relevant law, as applied by the Court of Appeal in his case, under which the withdrawal or the setting aside of the deportation notice did not render the ensuing

The two injured parties had not been able to recognise the applicant but they could not exclude his presence either. 5.

On the following day his wife and sister had visited him and seen his swollen and bruised face, broken nose and chipped tooth.

    The applicant submitted that his civil case was simple.

Me [I] [A] ne soulève aucune nullité de procédure ; In limine litis, Me [I] [A] soulève une irrégularité : l'audience est hors délai puisqu'il y avait une prolongation pour 30 jours, elle a expiré hier

Court and waiving his right to any compensation in exchange for receiving his house.

of his co ‑ accused.

On page 17 of his book entitled “The Armenian question has been resolved” the applicant thanked the State Archives for assisting him in his research. 2.

Nor did he provide any explanation for that omission on his part.

concerning the unlawfulness of his detention.

    The applicant complained of a breach of his rights on account of the recording of his conversations on 24 and 26 January 2007.

discernment and ability to control his actions.

suit his convenience.