debasement motivated by homophobic hatred • Ineffective investigation Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Confinement at the venue and subsequent transfer to the hospital and police station for several hours

At 12.45 p.m. the prosecutor informed the applicant that he would be taken into custody for twenty-four hours and that the criminal trial against him had been set in motion ( punerea în mişcare a acţiunii

The applicant had had his passport and driving licence with him and there was nothing to indicate that it had been impossible to draw up a record of the administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of

The applicant also complained of an acute headache and dizziness during the questioning, which lasted for five hours.

The experts further stated that the injuries to the head had been received more than twenty-four hours before the applicant’s examination by the expert on 16   February 2004; therefore, they could

the court-martial, the convening authority must appoint the date, time and place for the trial and post notice of the court-martial in a place accessible to the public and press at least twenty-four hours

In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government.

The “search” lasted about three hours. From the conversation of the police officers the applicant understood that they were searching for drugs and arms.

The applicant subsequently entered the woman’s house in the middle of the night and raped her.

    The applicant company, an editorial and publishing house registered in Moscow, edits and publishes a national newspaper with a circulation of 500,000, the Novaya Gazeta (“the newspaper”).

According to the applicants, P.M. was killed in the courtyard of his house in Razbojište, although he was an unarmed civilian.

In my respectful view, the legal analysis of the Supreme Court, which draws a distinction between those who, if returned, would conceal their sexual orientation for fear of persecution and those who would

an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against her neighbour, M., seeking to have dismantled a construction that the latter had built in 1987 inside the entrance of their multi-flat house

breaching Japanese exchange control regulations (B5); that gifts or hospitality had been made to substantial players in breach of further 1984 Guidelines (B7); and that the method for computing the “cash drop

In 2009 the owners of a house situated close to the stadium issued nuisance proceedings against the applicant and a number of other defendants.

    Following an agreement of 21 February 2002 between a private company K. and a communal house maintenance company Z., concierge premises were constructed near the entrance to the building.

On 13 January 1998 the House of Lords refused the applicants leave to appeal.

  Claiming that the applicant had promised to give him half his winnings in the event of a lucky draw, J.P.R. lodged a criminal complaint.

On 14 or 15 February 1990 two masked men broke into a private house, situated in Stevenston, Scotland. They assaulted the occupant causing him severe injury and permanent disfigurement.