The applicants had a large social network in Switzerland and, considering how long they had lived there, to have to return to their country of origin would doubtless have placed them in some difficulty

obligations, to dismiss their claims on the merits and return them to their country of origin or a third country which accepted them.

they knew that there were tensions with their neighbours and that the latter would object.

They appeared to have taken their two successive decisions not to open criminal proceedings against Mr V. solely on the basis of the written reports by the police.

As they did not have any documents to prove their age, the asylum authority subjected them immediately to a medical examination to determine their age.

villagers who directly witnessed the events alleged by the applicant; there was no evidence of any request to the security forces for information concerning their operations at the time in the region or

order to serve in the military, as they consider this to constitute multiple punishments for the same offence.

H. and P. had not been granted permission to disclose in court the identity of the person from whom they had received their information, prevented him from examining these witnesses in this respect and

    However, the applicants observed that the Government had not clarified their position as to whether they accepted this valuation.

It was the CPT’s view that there could be no justification for routinely handcuffing life-sentenced prisoners outside their cells; they found these arrangements disproportionate and punitive and recommended

They ordered them to stop, but to no avail. Instead, they were threatened with iron bars and sticks. The police fired warning shots in the air.

In so far as these witnesses had sought to explain this change by alleging that they had been put under pressure by the police at the pre-trial stage, no such allegations were proven before the court.

It does not appear from the record of this hearing that their statements were challenged by the defence, only that the suspect did not recognise these witnesses.

They had seen that there were officers on the riverbank, and they had also noticed a police motorboat on the river.

They maintained that there were no grounds for changing their tax returns or imposing tax surcharges on them.

However, while the latter were inside, trying to save their furniture and belongings, they realised that the soldiers had set fire to the house.

They then dragged them outside, firing several shots in the air to prevent the first and second applicants, as well as their relatives L.Sh. and Kh.A., from following them.

The applicants complain of the risks to which they were exposed on account of their deportation to Libya, that they did not have an effective remedy against the decisions to deport them, that they were

It was against the best interests of the children to take them out of the new environment in which they were building up new contacts, and to restore them to their former family, there being the risk that