The Custody and Guardianship Agency concluded that it was in the best interests of the children that they remain in the custody of their father...

  In this respect they point out that in the course of the extensive interviews by the police during their periods of detention, the applicants maintained almost total silence and failed to respond

They alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that, because of this, the domestic remedies for their claim had remained ineffective.

They thus considered that they remained victims of the violation despite the Constitutional Court judgment in their favour.

The document then listed a number of requests for information that had been sent to various departments of the Ministry of the Interior and their replies, without specifying the subject matter of these

On their way, they were intercepted by a group of about twenty or thirty Roma people who informed them about the brawl. The officers parked their car nearby and continued on foot.

The panel held that there was still a risk that they might abscond, but considered that their presence could be ensured with a less severe measure. 26 .

They also argued that visiting the detainees had been practically impossible. There had been “real, well-documented risks to their life in the ‘NKR’”.

In their notice of appeal they pointed out their child’s age at the material time and referred to all the considerations that had led the court below to dismiss their appeal.

The suspicions were grounded mainly on articles published in the newspaper, whose editorial stance they had allegedly influenced in their capacity as managers, and on material shared by some of them on

    Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

In this connection the applicants pointed to the investigation’s limited scope and short duration and also complained that there had been a number of shortcomings in the examination of the body of their

impossible for them to have been involved in the light of their activities on the night in question which they explained in some detail.

At the same time they stated that they could not continue their stay in Belarus, as their visas had expired and in practice it would be impossible for them to obtain international protection there.

The Federal Office concluded that the applicants had not shown that there was a sufficiently high degree of likelihood of their persecution if they were to return to their country.

When they arrived at the meeting point they found Lj.Č., D.J. and M.P. there, who told them that “two fools [had] just brought two people in a car and killed them by the road.”

They sought compensation for the damage resulting from these acts of negligence in the French administrative courts.

They put them on a bus and drove them outside the village in the direction of Famagusta. 55.

During their questioning before the Regional Court the witnesses K.H., L.M., S.V., L.Mel., N.H., H.K. and L.S. retracted the statements they had given to the investigative authority claiming that these