The latter can assess whether the negative decision on the granting of a pardon is unlawful in the light of the requirements set by Article 3 of the Convention.

    The present case concerns, under Article 3 of the Convention, the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by off-duty police officers and the lack of effective investigation into the matter

THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 31.

The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention and under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of detention in Prison

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of his detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation of Article 3 of the Convention established on account of accommodating the applicant, an unaccompanied minor

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

de l’absence d’enquêtes effectives sur les allégations de mauvais traitements policiers (violation d’article 3 de la Convention) ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’ É tat défendeur, en vertu de l’article

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release was communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of their detention (see the appended table for details).

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in the Bytom, Zabrze and Poznań Remand Centres.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et la violation de l’article 3

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government, who submitted observations on the admissibility