diff --git "a/echr_loc.jsonl" "b/echr_loc.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/echr_loc.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,1039 @@
+{"target": "the Southern Federal Circuit", "prompt": "62.  On 18 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office sent a request for information to all the district prosecutor's offices in Chechnya. The letter referred to the detention of the three men on 16 December 2001 by unidentified armed persons and asked the offices to check whether Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev had ever been detained or treated in medical institutions. On the same day the investigators requested information about the three men from various State authorities in Chechnya and in "}
+{"target": "State", "prompt": "26.  On 28 November 2008 the trial court found the applicants guilty and imposed a prison sentence in respect of six applicants and a suspended sentence in respect of the others. As the trial had ended and the applicants had a permanent residence and family in the respondent "}
+{"target": "Gekhi", "prompt": "16.  Thereafter the Musayev brothers were brought to the Urus-Martan Temporary Office of the Interior (\u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u041e\u0412\u0414 \u0423\u0440\u0443\u0441-\u041c\u0430\u0440\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430, \u201cthe VOVD\u201d) and questioned. The first applicant submitted, with reference to the witnesses' accounts, that after the interrogation her sons and three other persons apprehended in "}
+{"target": "the Achkhoy\u2011Martan District", "prompt": "26.  On 17 June 2000 the investigators from the town prosecutor\u2019s office questioned the applicant who stated that on 9 February 2000 she had returned to Grozny from Ingushetia and found out that her sisters Shema and Shamani had been killed by servicemen from military unit no. 3737. On the same date she had found her sisters\u2019 bodies in the basement at no. 154B Pugacheva Street and had subsequently buried them at a cemetery in "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "99.  Between 22 August and 23 October 2003 the investigators forwarded several requests to a number of State officials, including the military commander of the UGA, the head of archives of the Headquarters of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "Dundas", "prompt": "11.  On 27 July 2001 Greenpeace requested permission to visit \u201cthe Dundas peninsula around the Thule Air Base\u201d. By fax of 30 July 2001 the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed Greenpeace that Thule Air Base, including the "}
+{"target": "Baltic Sea", "prompt": "9.  Before the Second World War the applicant's mother occupied a dwelling house (\u201cthe house\u201d) on a plot of land measuring 1,422 square metres (\u201cthe plot\u201d) in the centre of the tourist resort of Palanga on the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "17.  Following Saydi Malsagov\u2019s disappearance the applicants repeatedly applied, both in person and in writing, to various official bodies, trying to find out the whereabouts and fate of their relative. They also personally visited places of detention in the Chechen Republic and elsewhere in "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "50.  On 4 March 2001 an investigator from the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office sent a request to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 (Khankala), asking him to identify the exact locations of the military units at the relevant time, to identify the commanding officers and to retrieve notes referring to operations in the "}
+{"target": "Transdniestria", "prompt": "78.  In a report entitled \u201cState to Public: Genuine Public Service Broadcasting in Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine?\u201d (December 2005), Article 19, an international non-governmental organisation based in London which works on issues connected with freedom of expression, found as follows (footnotes omitted):\n\u201c3.1.  Overview\nMoldova was the first country of the CIS to embark on a process towards the establishment of PSB [public service broadcasting]. It is also currently the only one of the three countries to have transformed its State broadcasting company, TeleRadio-Moldova (TRM), into a PSBO [public service broadcasting organisation]. Yet while PSB exists in theory, in practice the new broadcasting company remains only nominally independent from government control, and output continues to be heavily biased in favour of the existing regime. Overall, it fails to provide viewers and listeners with accurate and objective information and a plurality of views and opinions. The consolidation of a genuine PSB structure will depend on the ability and will of the authorities to fully implement the newly-adopted provisions, as well as on the success of civil society's campaigning efforts.\nIn March 2003, the Moldovan Parliament adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing Law No.1320-XV on the National National Public Broadcasting Company TeleRadio-Moldova (First Amending Law), which modified a previous law passed in July 2002 (PSB Law) following recommendations from the Council of Europe. A later controversial amendment to the Law, adopted in November 2003, provided for the liquidation of TRM, enabling its reincarnation as PSB, as well as the replacement of its entire staff (Second Amending Law).\nFor a prolonged period of time it remained unclear how the re-staffing would be carried out, and generally journalists and human rights organisations were not provided with essential information as to the mechanisms that would be employed to implement these measures. In addition, the initial debates which led to the adoption of the First Amending Law in its first reading were held in an atmosphere of virtual secrecy. At this stage the company's staff was utterly unaware of the fact that a law on TRM was being debated in Parliament.\nSimilarly, the process by which the Second Amending Law was adopted did not provide for sufficient opportunity for public consultation, despite the significant public importance of a law of this nature. The draft was submitted to Parliament by seven MPs on 13 October 2003, and adopted in its first reading almost immediately; it then passed its second reading exactly a month later. Some local NGOs and international organisations, such as the Council of Europe, acted very rapidly in providing recommendations on the draft. Other groups simply did not have the time to participate in this process.\nDespite the changes, TRM is still under the influence of the authorities. In addition, the quality of programmes has been quite low since the transformation. There is a need for additional funding, to train the employees and raise the standards of professional journalism.\nAnother worrying fact is that there has been a progressive decrease in the diversity of media outlets. 'Analitic Media Grup', the media organisation that founded Pervii Kanal v Moldova, which until recently re-broadcast the Russian First Channel - as well as having some programmes of its own, including Moldovan news - , was deprived of its licence in October 2005. The licence was, instead, given to a newly-established, unknown television station, which allegedly has close links to President Vladimir Voronin. The decision to deprive ORT Moldova of its licence was reached very speedily; there was even a special edition of the Official Monitor announcing it, to avoid a wait of approximately three days for the decision to come into effect. This development is even more worrying as the old Moldova ORT displayed virtually no criticism of the authorities, and frequently its portrayal of the authorities was positive. Moldova ORT was one of the main television channels in Moldova, together with TRM and private NIT. With TRM and NIT heavily pro-governmental, the new development is likely to dramatically reduce the (already limited) diversity of the Moldovan broadcast scene.\nThe breakaway region of "}
+{"target": "Gazel", "prompt": "59.  On 16 May 2006 the attesting witness for both searches, Mrs O.P., stated that both had been initiated by a number of the special police force officers \u2013 who were wearing masks and were armed with automatic weapons \u2013 running into the houses. At the Vashayevs\u2019 house the witness had seen one man being led out, with his pullover over his head, and being stood up against the police vehicle with his legs apart. When she had entered the house, the men of the house were lying on the floor face down, with their hands behind their heads, while the woman was sitting on the sofa. The men were then allowed to stand up; they walked around the house and, initially, they had voiced their objection to the search. The search at the Antayevs\u2019 family home had proceeded in a similar manner. She had seen Mr A.Sh. and the ninth applicant talking by the fence; she had also seen the eighth applicant in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "42.  In a letter of 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the United Group Alignment confirmed, in reply to the first applicant\u2019s complaint of 20 April 2004, that the criminal proceedings concerning the attack of 19 October 1999 on "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "19.  At 6.01 p.m. on 1 February 2002, Mr Broekhuijsen was arrested on suspicion of having violated Article 184 of the Criminal Code. He was not taken to the police station but remained on the applicant company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Leninskiy Distict", "prompt": "14.  On 12 November 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that an investigation into her husband's kidnapping had been instituted on 11 November 2002 under Article 126 \u00a7 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (\u201caggravated kidnapping\u201d). The decision to institute the investigation stated, inter alia:\n\u201cOn 29 October 2002 at approximately 2 a.m. unidentified men armed with automatic weapons in masks and camouflage uniforms, having broken down the entrance door, entered apartment no. 77 at Bogdana Khmelnitskogo street, house 141, building 5 in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "44.  In reply to the judge\u2019s letter of 5 March 2008, by a letter dated 16 April 2008 the MNS informed the judge that the first applicant, who was at that time detained in the MNS pre-trial detention facility, had been diagnosed with hypertension and was being provided with the relevant treatment. However, the MNS\u2019s letter was silent as to the judge\u2019s requests for information concerning the first applicant\u2019s presence on the "}
+{"target": "Hyde Park", "prompt": "13.  The Municipality did not adopt a decision in respect of the application before the first date of the planned demonstration, on 4 September 2007. Therefore, at 9 a.m. that day the applicants started their protest in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. At 9.25 a.m. Ghenadie Brega, Oleg Brega and a "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "19.  At around 3 p.m. the servicemen gathered in the street in front of house no. 28 where the initial shooting had broken out. The soldiers laughed and said that they had killed one fighter (\u201cboyevik\u201d) and another one had run away. At about 3.30 p.m. the head of the town administration and the head of the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "6.  At the material time the Urus-Martan district and the town of Grozny were under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on all roads leading to and from the area, which was under a strict curfew. A checkpoint manned by policemen from the Special Task Unit of the Yaroslavl region (\u201cthe OMON\u201d) was located on the road between the town of Urus-Martan and the village of Gekhi. The applicants and Adam Makharbiyev lived in Gekhi, in "}
+{"target": "St. Maarten", "prompt": "9.  On 8 May 1996 the applicant was arrested in New York (USA) and placed in detention on the basis of a extradition request from the authorities of the Netherlands Antilles where he had been charged with embezzlement and forgery. He was extradited to the Netherlands Antilles on 30 May 1996 and detained in the Pointe Blanche Penitentiary on the island of "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "57.  On 9 April 2004 the unit military prosecutor\u2019s office again questioned the head of the Headquarters, officer Sh. He stated that the information note about the killing on 17 September 2003 of the two rebel fighters had been based on the field report by the Temporary Operational Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "the Ural Mountains", "prompt": "9.  According to Vatan\u2019s constitutional charter, it was founded \u201cto support the renascence of the Tartar nation, to enhance the latter\u2019s  political activity and to protect Tartars\u2019 political, socio-economic and cultural rights\u201d. The name \u201cTartar\u201d applies to the peoples of Turkic origin who speak a language which belongs to the Ural-Altaic language family. Four-fifths of the Tartars (about 5.5 million people) live in the Russian Federation: the majority live in the Republic of Tatarstan and the Republic of Bashkortostan, and the rest are dispersed across "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "36.  It does not appear that the first applicant applied personally to law-enforcement agencies in connection with the attack of 2 October 1999. It can be ascertained from the documents submitted that Mr A. Khamzayev, a former resident of "}
+{"target": "the Grozny District", "prompt": "34.  Between midnight and 3 a.m. on 22 February 2003 a group of about ten men, wearing camouflage uniforms, masks and armed with automatic rifles consecutively broke into three houses in Dachu-Borzoy, in "}
+{"target": "the Argun river", "prompt": "13.  Witness Umayat D. is a resident of Novye Atagi and knew Said-Khuseyn Imakayev from school. On 17 December 2000 he was at the market in Starye Atagi. At about 2 p.m. he met Said-Khuseyn Imakayev, who said he had wanted to buy a jacket but had not found anything. He offered D. a lift back to their village, but D. was driving himself and declined. He later learnt that Imakayev had been detained by Russian soldiers on the road near the bridge over "}
+{"target": "Black Sea", "prompt": "19.  The Van Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation against the gendarme officers. In this connection, both Mr Eri\u015fen and Mr Demir gave statements to the Bitlis Public Prosecutor on 17 and 26 August 2005. They both stated that they had been ill-treated by the gendarmes during their custody period. Mr Eri\u015fen further explained that he had heard that two of the gendarmes\u2019 names were Seydi and Orhan, and that Seydi spoke with an accent of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "36.  On 11 October 2004 the investigators also questioned the head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr A.Z., who gave a statement similar to the applicants\u2019 submission before the Court. In addition, he stated that when he had asked the head of the UBOP, officer K., whether Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained on their "}
+{"target": "Microdistrict", "prompt": "6.  Not having received the flat, the applicant sued the enterprise. On 24 November 1997 the Kropotkin Town Court ordered the Town Authority to provide the applicant with a three-room flat in the 199-apartment house no. 19, 20, 21 that was being constructed in "}
+{"target": "South America", "prompt": "20.  In a judgment of 5 December 2006, notified to the applicant\u2019s representative on 22 January 2007, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s administrative-law appeal, finding as follows:\n\u201c... 2.1.  Under Article 264 of the Civil Code \u2013 in the version in force since 1 January 2003 \u2013 a child may be adopted if the future adoptive parents have cared for it and provided for its education for at least one year, and if all the circumstances make it foreseeable that the establishment of a parent-child relationship will further the child\u2019s welfare without unfairly affecting the situation of any other children of the adoptive parents. All adoptions must thus be preceded by a placement and fostering relationship of a certain duration. An imperative condition for adoption, this measure serves to justify the subsequent establishment of a parent-child relationship, to allow a probationary period for those concerned, and to provide the opportunity and means to ensure that the adoption will further the child\u2019s welfare (ATF [Federal Court judgments] 125 III 161 point 3a p. 162 and citations). Under Article 316 of the Civil Code, the placement of children with foster parents is subject to the authorisation and supervision of the supervisory authority or another office for the place of residence of the said parents, as designated by cantonal law (\u00a7 1); where the child is placed with a view to its adoption, a single cantonal authority is competent (\u00a7 1 bis, as in force since 1 January 2003); the Federal Council stipulates the requirements for implementation (\u00a7 2).\nIn accordance with Article 11b of the Federal Council Order of 19 October 1977 governing the placement of children for the purposes of support and with a view to adoption (\u2018the OPEE\u2019; RS 211.222.338), as in force since 1 January 2003, placement authorisation is given only where the personal qualities, state of health and educational capacities of the future adoptive parents and other persons living in their household, together with the housing conditions, offer every guarantee that the placed child will benefit from appropriate care, education and training, and that the well-being of the other children living in the family will be safeguarded (\u00a7 1 (a)), that there is no statutory impediment to the future adoption and that all the circumstances put together, in particular the motives of the future adoptive parents, enable it to be foreseen that the adoption will further the child\u2019s welfare (\u00a7 1 (b)). The authority must particularly take the child\u2019s interest into account where the age difference between the child and the adoptive parent is more than forty years (Article 11b \u00a7 3 (a) OPEE; see, on this issue, ATF 125 III 161 point 7a p. 167/168).\nThis primary condition of adoption \u2013 the welfare of the child (Article 264 of the Civil Code) \u2013 is not easy to verify. The authority must ascertain whether the adoption is really capable of ensuring the best possible development of the child\u2019s personality and of improving his or her situation; that question must be examined in all respects (emotional, intellectual, physical), without attributing excessive weight to the material factor (ATF 125 III 161 point 3a in fine p. 163 and citations). 2.2.  Under Article 264b \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code, an unmarried person \u2013 whether single, widowed or divorced \u2013 may adopt alone if he or she is at least 35 years old. In this form of adoption, the parent-child relationship is established with a single parent. As a result of that situation, the adoptive parent must, on his or her own, assume the duties that meet the child\u2019s needs and remain available to care for the child to a degree that exceeds that required of each parent in a couple adopting jointly. Accordingly, the authority must particularly take into account the child\u2019s interest where the applicant is not married, or where he or she is unable to adopt jointly with his or her spouse (Article 11b \u00a7 3 (b) OPEE). The legislature\u2019s intention was that joint adoption should be the rule and adoption by a single parent the exception (ATF 111 II 233 point 2cc p. 234/235). It may indeed be considered that the child\u2019s interest, which is paramount, consists in principle of living in a complete family. Nevertheless, the law does expressly permit adoption by a single person, without subjecting him or her \u2013 unlike those wishing to adopt an adult or a person deprived of legal capacity (Article 266 \u00a7 1 Chapter 3 of the Civil Code) \u2013 to the existence of \u2018valid reasons\u2019. In any event, where the requisite conditions for the child\u2019s welfare are satisfied, and the adoption by a single person meets all the requirements for the child\u2019s fulfilment and personality development, the adoption will be granted; in such cases, at the preliminary placement stage, the conditions laid down in Article 11b of the OPEE will be satisfied, and the placement authorisation must be granted (ATF 125 III 161 point 4b p. 165 and citations). 3.1.  The court below found that the appellant had appropriate educational qualities. She can count on a wide network of persons who support her in her project and have promised to help her take care of the children when she is busy. Since the refusal of the authorities of the Canton of Jura (see B.a above), she has changed the organisation of her life by moving to Geneva, where she carries on her professional activities; since November 2004 she has been renting accommodation in an area close to the parish church of which she is ma\u00eetre de chapelle and in a building that also houses the offices and secretariat of the music festival of which she is the artistic director. Lastly, her financial resources are sufficient (7,000 [Swiss francs] per month). Those points being established, it is not necessary to examine them again. 3.2.  In her application of 19 January 2004 the appellant had sought authorisation to receive \u2018a second child, from "}
+{"target": "Cricova", "prompt": "8.  In the meantime, on 28 January 2009 the applicant\u2019s family learned of his situation and employed a lawyer. As a result of the lawyer\u2019s involvement, on 30 January 2009 the applicant was transferred back to "}
+{"target": "Pionerskaya", "prompt": "103.  The judgment further stated that all three aforementioned expert reports had established that no measures to implement the federal programme in question had been taken. It then described in detail the poor state of the "}
+{"target": "\u0412\u044b\u0431\u043e\u0440\u0433\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e", "prompt": "6.  On the evening of 14 April 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder and remanded in custody in detention facility IVS of police station no. 36 in the Vyborgskiy District of St Petersburg (\u0418\u0412\u0421 \u043f\u0440\u0438 36 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martan", "prompt": "39.  On 21 June 2005 the military commander of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant\u2019s complaint about abduction of her sons by armed men in camouflage uniforms to the military commander\u2019s office of the "}
+{"target": "Freeport", "prompt": "14.  By that date, only a portion of the four plots of land had been used, the remaining portion remaining unused but earmarked for future expansion. More precisely, most of Plot 2 is currently being developed as a stacking area for containers for the purposes of the Freeport, the remaining 500 sq. m forming part of an area of land conceded on lease by the Freeport Corporation to Medserv Ltd. Plot 3 (consisting of a farmhouse and adjacent rural structures) and Plot 41 are outside the "}
+{"target": "the Achkhoy-Martan District", "prompt": "57.  On 19 and 20 February 2010 the applicant was again questioned. She submitted that on 17 February 2009 her daughter had shown her a photo of Mr Apti Zaynalov that she had printed off from an Internet page together with the accompanying text. The text alleged that officers of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic had apprehended a resident of Ingushetia aged twenty-nine years who had confessed to being a member of an illegal armed group in "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District", "prompt": "7.  At some point in 1999 due to heavy hostilities between Russian forces and Chechen fighters the applicant moved to a refugee camp in Ingushetia. Two of her sisters, Shema Inderbiyeva and Shamani Inderbiyeva, and her mother Yakhita Inderbiyeva remained in their flat \u2013 no. 10 in the block of flats at 154B, Pugacheva Street in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "32.  In a letter of 3 September 2003 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that a number of investigative actions in criminal case no. 24031 had been taken, and in particular the scene of the incident had been inspected, fragments of bombs had been seized, new expert examinations had been ordered, and the military commander of the Chechen Republic (\u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0442 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0438) had been requested to take steps aimed at disposing of unexploded air bombs found in the residential district of "}
+{"target": "the Magadan Region", "prompt": "51.  The court also noted that during the six-month period of the defendants\u2019 detention pending trial the case had not been examined for reasons beyond the court\u2019s control, such as the composition of the jury, issues concerning some jurors\u2019 participation in the trial, and difficulties in ensuring the appearance of victims and witnesses who lived in a remote district of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "13.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant was charged with covering up a crime committed by others (Article 295 of the Penal Code). In particular, the investigators suspected that in October and November 2002 the applicant had helped to hide stolen cars on the "}
+{"target": "the Malgobek District", "prompt": "78.  On 4 September 2006 the town prosecutor\u2019s office carried out a confrontation between Magomed M., inspector on duty of the Ministry of the Interior, and Oleg Dzh., officer on duty of the UFSB on the night of 4 to 5 December. Magomed M. confirmed his statement of January 2005 (see paragraph 65 above) that he had talked to Oleg (Ali) Dzh. on that night and that the latter had confirmed to him that the UFSB had carried out a special operation in "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "173.  On 10 November 2006 the investigators questioned the first and the second applicants and Mr S.U. All of them reiterated their earlier statements. The first applicant additionally stated that in May 2002 she had met a woman at the central market in Grozny whose son had been detained in "}
+{"target": "the Sunzhenskiy District", "prompt": "24.  On 17 April 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the second applicant that the investigation into the murder of Umar Zabiyev in case no. 03600032 had been commenced by the district prosecutor's office. It noted, in particular, the following:\n\u201cAs a result of the investigative measures taken it was established that the crime had been committed by the servicemen of military intelligence unit no. 194 KTG (\u00ab\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0430 194 \u041a\u0422\u0413\u00bb) with the direct involvement of the head of that unit, [S.P.], nicknamed 'the Snake' (\u00ab\u0417\u043c\u0435\u0439\u00bb), who is unable to leave the location of the unit in the village of Dattykh in "}
+{"target": "Syrianochori", "prompt": "43.  Applicant no. 16, Mr Ioannis Hadjinikolas Kamilares, claimed that his father, Mr Nicolas Georgiou Hadjinicola Kamilares, had owned the following properties:\n(a) Syrianochori, plot no. 142, sheet/plan XIX/14E2, registration no. C95, orange plantation; share: whole; area: 3,614 sq. m;\n(b) "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "17.  According to another resident of Gikalo, Mr V.Ts., at about 7.20 a.m. on 27 February 2000 he arrived at his brother's house. There he saw a military vehicle with about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms on it; some of them were wearing masks. The servicemen had specially trained German shepherd dogs with them. The majority of these men were of Slavic appearance, but two of them looked Asian. The servicemen checked the passports; after that one of them spoke with someone via a portable radio set. After that the witness and his brother were taken by the military vehicle to the village centre. There they were transferred to an Avtozak vehicle in which the witness found a number of his fellow villagers, including Murad Gelayev. From there the detainees were taken to the "}
+{"target": "Dolni Pasarel", "prompt": "26.  At a hearing held on 29 May 2003 the court admitted in evidence the additional expert report relating to the house, which also concluded that it was divisible, and the expert report concerning the value of the plot in "}
+{"target": "State", "prompt": "39.  As regards his questioning, the court stated that the applicant had been given four hours (between noon and 6 pm.) after being served with the transcript of the witness\u2019s statement in a language that he had understood to put questions to him in writing. No extension of this time-limit could have been granted, given that the witness had only had leave to remain for twenty-four hours in the respondent "}
+{"target": "Central Sudan", "prompt": "17.  On 6 August 2012 the FAC dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal. It held that the applicant\u2019s statements regarding the itinerary he had taken while fleeing already lacked credibility. Owing to rigid border controls, it was according to them almost impossible to get to Calais without any travel documents, even if they were only forged. The applicant should therefore have been able to submit some form of travel document. The FAC further considered that the birth certificate submitted had no value as evidence. It ruled that it could have been forged, since in Sudan such certificates were obtainable in exchange for bribes. However, even assuming that it was authentic, it was only evidence that the applicant had been born in Darfur, but not where he had grown up and been socialised. By contrast, the Lingua analysis of 21 September 2004 gave clear answers to those questions and had shown that the applicant originated from "}
+{"target": "Oryol Regional", "prompt": "11.  According to the applicant, in September 2000 he had been detained for several days in a punishment cell with an inmate, Mr Ye., who was suffering from an active form of tuberculosis. Mr Ye. had been constantly coughing up blood. The applicant\u2019s requests for a transfer to another cell received no response from the colony administration. Soon after release from the punishment cell the applicant had fallen ill. However, his numerous complaints to the colony medical division had been to no avail. Relying on a certificate issued by the "}
+{"target": "the United Nations Protected Area", "prompt": "6.  The events at issue took place in Vukovar, a Croatian town near the Serbian border which was heavily attacked by the Yugoslav People\u2019s Army and paramilitary Serbian armed forces during the armed conflict in Croatia from August to November 1991 and was finally occupied at the end of November 1991. Between 1992 and 1996 Vukovar was a part of "}
+{"target": "Ayios Amvrosios", "prompt": "11.  As a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention the applicant had been deprived of his property rights, his properties being located in the area which was under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and using his property and his parents\u2019 house located in "}
+{"target": "the River Sava", "prompt": "7.  On 25 August 1991 a number of members of the \u201cWolves\u201d (Vukovi) unit of the Sisak police entered the house of the applicant\u2019s son Z.T., They abducted Z.T., the applicant\u2019s second son B.T. and her former husband N.T. On 26 August 1991 the body of N.T. was found in "}
+{"target": "Bug River", "prompt": "33.  Meanwhile, in the spring and summer of 2003, during the process of preparing a bill designed to settle the \u201cBug River claims\u201d (\u201croszczenia zabu\u017ca\u0144skie\u201d; hereafter \u201cthe Government Bill\u201d \u2013 see also paragraphs 111-13 below), the government estimated the number of claimants and the value of the claims. According to the government, there were 4,120 registered claims, of which 3,910 were verified and regarded as meeting the statutory conditions. The registered claims were valued at three billion new Polish zlotys (PLN). There were also 82,740 unverified claims pending registration, of which 74,470 were likely to be registered. The anticipated value of the unverified claims was PLN 10.45 billion. The anticipated total number of entitled persons was 78,380. As the parliamentary debate over the Government Bill \u2013 a debate which was widely discussed throughout the Polish media \u2013 progressed, the number of "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "34.  On the same date the Grozny city prosecutor\u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events, under Article 126 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 52112. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:\n\u201c...On 30 August 2002 [Muma Babuyev] went to the military settlement of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "8.  On 29 January 2000, following the outbreak of armed conflict in Chechnya, Yusup Satabayev joined one of the paramilitary groups which fought against the federal army. According to the applicant, he stayed with the paramilitary group for less than a month, during which time there were no armed confrontations, and then left. On 23 February 2000 he arrived in Martan-Chu, in the "}
+{"target": "the Astrakhan Region", "prompt": "24.  The applicant Mr Bashirov also produced a copy of a letter which the Astrakhan Regional prosecutor\u2019s office had sent to his counsel on 28 February 2008 in response to a complaint about the conditions of detention raised by another detainee. The letter stated as follows:\n\u201cOn 29 February [sic] 2008 a deputy district prosecutor and deputy heads of prison no. 1 in charge of logistics, the detention regime and the medical unit carried out a comprehensive technical examination of cell 79. At the time of the examination, cell 79 had twelve sleeping places but housed fifteen persons. The above-mentioned examination of cell 79 also established that similar violations had occurred in a majority of cells of the prison. In connection with the overcrowding, dilapidated state of the building and other violations of the Pre-trial Detention Act, the district prosecutor\u2019s office sent two warnings to the director of the Federal Penitentiary Service in "}
+{"target": "Yaylatepe", "prompt": "40.  On 11 April 2000 the military prosecutor took a statement from Mehmet Zeki Bah\u015fi. Mr Bah\u015fi had performed his military service in the area in question at the relevant time but had since completed his service and been discharged from the army. He had taken part in the operation under Lieutenant G\u00fcldal's command. Mr Bah\u015fi stated that on the night in question he had been using night vision binoculars and had thus been able to see the two persons. The soldiers had then started firing to the left and right of the two men, upon which the two had started running towards the river bed. When the soldiers opened fire in that direction, the two people had put their hands up and said \u201cStop firing; we surrender\u201d. Lieutenant G\u00fcldal had then ordered the two men to lie on the road but they refused to do so, instead advancing towards the soldiers on "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "9.  In 1996 the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation (CMF) organised a demonstration aimed at protesting against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. On 2 August 1996 a group of over one hundred Cypriot and other European motorcyclists set off from Berlin and made their way through "}
+{"target": "Ural", "prompt": "8.  The first applicant is the father of Said-Rakhman Musayev (born in 1984). On 10 December 2000 Said-Rakhman and his cousin Ruslan T. visited their grandmother in a neighbouring village. At about 8 or 9 p.m. they were returning to Raduzhnoye in a UAZ-469 car. They were stopped at the edge of the village by military servicemen with two APCs and ordered out of the car. Ruslan later testified that the servicemen had searched them and inspected the car, tied their hands behind their backs and put them into the back of a "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "66.  On the same date the applicant\u2019s lawyer complained to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (\u201cthe UGA\u201d) and the district prosecutor that the investigation of the criminal case was ineffective. In particular, he pointed out the following:\n\u201c... The investigation is being conducted in a slipshod manner. It is obvious that the death of Mamed Bagalayev was caused by a gunshot from a military serviceman\u2019s automatic weapon ...\n... For your information, as of 21 June 2005 neither eyewitnesses to the events, nor the parents of the murdered boy have been questioned by the investigators. The investigators have not questioned any of the servicemen stationed on the "}
+{"target": "the \u015eehit Kamil District", "prompt": "19.  On 31 March 1994 the applicant and the DEP Member of Parliament for Siirt, Naif G\u00fcne\u015f, met the representative of the Governor of Gaziantep. The Gaziantep Security Director and the Provincial Gendarmes Commander were also present. The Gendarmes Commander said that the body of Mehmet \u015een had been found by a shepherd near the village of Karpuzkaya in "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martanovskiy", "prompt": "20.  On the same day an internet newspaper called \u201cKavkazskiy uzel\u201d reported as follows:\n\u201cToday a considerable number of residents of the village of Valerik gathered at the central square of Achkhoy-Martan, Chechen Republic. They wanted the State authorities to liberate their 22-year-old fellow resident Shamkhan Tumayev, who had been abducted by armed men wearing masks on 19 September. The residents of Valerik consider that Tumayev was kidnapped by officers of the battalion named after Akhmed Kadyrov.\nSeveral days before, a large number of servicemen of that battalion (the former security service of the President of the Chechen Republic) had arrived in the ["}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "12.  On 10 February 2000 the applicant and Ms F.A. went to the Staropromyslovskiy District military commander\u2019s office to obtain permission to bury her sisters\u2019 remains in the cemetery of the village of Valerik in "}
+{"target": "the Kur\u015funlu plain", "prompt": "142.  He said that the Kur\u015funlu plain was about two kilometres long and 600-800 metres wide. It was flat with three or four sporadic trees. It was completely surrounded by mountains. In the forested area there were oak trees, bushes and rocks. He identified the location shown on two photographs of the places where the bodies of Mehmet Akan and Dervi\u015f Karako\u00e7 had been found as being on "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "13.  On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 requests for judicial review. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code, despite the Vajnai judgment, whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the "}
+{"target": "Dniestr", "prompt": "22.  The Moldovan Government considered that the Convention responsibility of the Russian Federation continued to be engaged having regard to the latter\u2019s support for the Transdniestrian regime and to the fact that they maintained their troops on the territory of Moldova, in breach of international law, of the OSCE Summit Statements in Istanbul (1999) and in Porto (2002) (see also Ila\u015fcu, Ivan\u0163oc, Le\u015fco and Petrov-Popa cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 124, 354 and 387), and of Law no. 173-VI of 22 July 2005 on essential provisions on the particular legal status of the towns on the left bank of "}
+{"target": "the Tornio River", "prompt": "9.  In 1971 Finland and Sweden concluded the Frontier Rivers Agreement (Suomen ja Ruotsin v\u00e4linen rajajokisopimus, gr\u00e4ns\u00e4lvs\u00f6verenskommelsen mellan Finland och Sverige; SopS 53-54/1971), which included provisions on the right to fish in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "53.  On 23 October 2004 Mr Yu., Ms Yu.\u2019s son, was questioned. He submitted that in the winter of 2003 the second applicant had told him that Ms Yu. had taken USD 2,800 from him promising that his son would be released but had not kept her word. The second applicant had demanded that Mr Yu. pay him back. Mr Yu. had requested an explanation from his mother who had confirmed that she had taken the money from the second applicant and given it to a policeman of "}
+{"target": "Central or East Sudan", "prompt": "15.  By a decision of 8 June 2012 the FOM rejected the applicant\u2019s asylum request. It ruled that he had only joined the SLM-Unity after he had left his home country and after his first asylum request had been dismissed in 2005. He had not proven that he had in-depth knowledge of the structure and agenda of the SLM-Unity, nor had he been able to precisely describe his responsibilities as human rights officer of that organisation. According to the FOM, it was therefore evident that his political activities only served to create subjective post-flight grounds (subjektive Nachfluchtgr\u00fcnde). Furthermore, his statements regarding the interview given to the local TV channel had been very vague, and it was not established that the interview had been broadcast at national or international level. While the FOM did not dispute that the Sudanese government was monitoring political activities of opposition leaders abroad, it held that the authorities were only focusing on people with a high political profile. They did not have the resources to monitor people like the applicant, whose activities were carried out at low level. It was therefore unlikely that his political involvement had attracted their attention. In addition, the FOM ruled that the applicant, who had failed to submit identity papers and had made contradictory statements regarding his ethnicity, could a fortiori be returned to Sudan because the Lingua analysis had shown that he did not originate from Darfur, but from "}
+{"target": "the Khmelnytskyy ITT", "prompt": "81.  The Shepetivka Court next expressed its concern over the way the investigation had received the statements by the taxi driver Mr K. (according to the court's ruling \u2013 a key witness in the case), who had recognised the applicant as one of his two passengers whom he had driven to the building where the crime was committed, around the time of the murder, had waited for there for about half an hour and had then driven to a caf\u00e9. The court noted that on 22 March 2004 the investigator had questioned Mr K. as a witness in the case concerning the murder of Ms I., while at the same time Mr K. was detained in "}
+{"target": "Straits", "prompt": "36.  On 13 March 1992 the applicant company appealed against the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant company disputed the court\u2019s conclusion that a state of war existed between Turkey and Cyprus. The ground of appeal also questioned the legitimacy of the court\u2019s reliance on the earlier Vassoula case, and pointed out that the arms cargo had only been in transit through the "}
+{"target": "Presnenskiy", "prompt": "16.  On 6 November 2003 the Moscow City Court granted the Commission's request and annulled the first applicant's registration as a candidate for the Duma elections. It established that the first applicant had submitted untrue information about his employment as head of the district council of the "}
+{"target": "Oktyabrskiy District", "prompt": "7.  However, in Saransk the applicants were stopped by the police (acting in the course of a special operation named \u201cVikhr [Vortex] - Anti-terror\u201d), allegedly beaten up, handcuffed and brought to a temporary detention centre at the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "6.  The article read:\n\u201cThe Turkish bourgeoisie has being advancing their intention of associating with the European Community since the date of the Treaty of Rome. However, the economic and political problems of Turkey have not been solved since that date. The conditions for association have not been established either. \nOn the other hand, the founders of the European Union are not keen on taking on board a huge problem with its fifteen million unemployed people and serious economic and social problems.\nConsidering the still unresolved problems of German unification and the unexpected economic integration of East European countries, the acceptance of Turkey by the Community definitely seems impossible.\n However, "}
+{"target": "the Middle East", "prompt": "40.  On 27 August 2002, the Acting Head of the AIVD sent a further official report to the national public prosecutor responsible for combating terrorism. This report reads in its relevant part:\n\u201cI.  The recruitment network\nIn the exercise of its statutory task, it has appeared to the AIVD from reliable, vulnerable sources, that a network of extremist muslims is active in the Netherlands which is in particular involved in providing material, financial and logistical support and in propagating, planning and inciting to actually using violence for the benefit of the international jihad. The members of this network understand jihad as the armed battle in all its forms against enemies of Islam, including the (for them) unacceptable governments in "}
+{"target": "Black Sea", "prompt": "39.  Later that day Mr Z. Kh. had been questioned. He had explained that on 28 June 2009 at approximately 9 a.m. he had gone out in his GAZ-3102 car and, having told his relatives that he was going to a service station, decided instead to go to the "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy district", "prompt": "34.  On 21 December 1998 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of evidence of a crime. The investigator found that the applicant had been arrested on 10 September 1998 in connection with the disappearance of MS. On 11 September 1998 the police had carried out a search of the applicant\u2019s car and found three gun cartridges. On the same day the applicant and F had been released. However, shortly after their release inspector N of the Bogorodsk police had identified certain factual gaps in their written submissions. Inspectors N and D had followed the applicant and found him at the town\u2019s railway station. The applicant had been disturbing passers-by by addressing them with obscene language. As a result the applicant had been arrested again and on the next day made the subject of an administrative arrest for disturbance of the peace. On 16 September 1998 a new criminal case had been opened against the applicant in relation to the gun cartridges found in his car. On 19 September 1998 a detention order had been issued against the applicant on this new ground. On the same day he had been transferred to "}
+{"target": "Meri\u00e7", "prompt": "70.  On 10 February 1998 the Edirne Security Directorate informed the Ministry of the Interior in Ankara that the search for Talat T\u00fcrko\u011flu was ongoing and that it was established that the allegations made in the applicant's letter sent to the Edirne Security Directorate were unfounded since his body had not been found in or near the river "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "75.  The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining \u2013 in time and by the means and limits to be set by law \u2013 a juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation, aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in "}
+{"target": "Seine", "prompt": "14.  In a judgment of 11 October 1999, the Paris Criminal Court convicted the second applicant of defamation and the first applicant of complicity in that offence, taking account, however, of only four of the six offending extracts, namely those on pages 10, 86, 105-06 and 136 of the book. They were each sentenced to pay a fine of 15,000 French francs (FRF) (equivalent to 2,286.74 euros (EUR)) and ordered jointly and severally to pay FRF 25,000 (EUR 3,811.23) in damages to each of the civil parties, together with the cost of publishing an announcement of the judgment.\nIn its judgment the court found as follows:\n\u201cWhether the publication was defamatory:\nIt should first be noted that, whilst the author chose to write a \u2018novel\u2019, as indicated on the front cover of the book, he portrays, along with a number of fictional characters, an actual and living political figure, namely Jean-Marie Le Pen, and his party, the Front National. In addition, the author announces the subject matter of his work in the title itself, \u2018Jean-Marie Le Pen on Trial\u2019. On the back cover he asks the question \u2018How can Jean-Marie Le Pen be fought effectively?\u2019 and in the first few lines of the book he raises another question: \u2018Isn\u2019t the Chairman of the Front National responsible for the murder committed by one of his teenage militants inflamed by his rhetoric?\u2019 The reader thus immediately becomes aware that the fictional trial is a vector for direct criticism of Jean-Marie Le Pen, especially since the facts described are largely, and obviously, inspired by actual events which have had a great impact on public opinion.\nAccordingly, although it is a novel, and although the offending remarks are only made by fictional characters, it can nevertheless be observed that the work seeks to impart clearly expressed ideas and to communicate a certain image of Jean-Marie Le Pen, his party and their behaviour. The classification of the charge cannot therefore be ruled out purely on the basis of the technique used to that end.\nThe text, regardless of its literary genre, is capable of harming the honour and reputation of the civil parties and it is appropriate to examine each of the offending extracts to establish their meaning and significance and to determine whether, for the charge of defamation to be made out, they are precise enough for the issue of proof to be addressed.\nFirst passage, page 10: To allege that Jean-Marie Le Pen is the chief of a gang of killers \u2013 in other words, that he heads a group of murderers \u2013 constitutes, in the context of the book, an evidently defamatory allegation of sufficiently precise conduct, reference being made to the racist crime committed by the novel\u2019s protagonist, a young Front National member whose criminal act is said to have been inspired by the ideas advocated by Jean-Marie Le Pen.\nIt is of no consequence that the crime of \u2018Ronald Blistier\u2019 is not real, because the author\u2019s intention is not to write a satire about an impossible event but, on the contrary, to make the reader believe that, given Jean-Marie Le Pen\u2019s ideology, such a scenario is quite plausible and that he would be accountable for it. The story also evokes \u2013 inevitably, for the reader \u2013 the trial in June 1998 of the Front National billstickers accused of killing a Comorian youth, Ibrahim Ali, in Marseilles. Similarly, when the author, a few passages further on, recounts the killing of a black youth called \u2018Julien Thoris\u2019, who is thrown into the "}
+{"target": "\u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e-\u041a\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430", "prompt": "64.  In June 2000 the military prosecutor requested the chief of staff of the United Group Alignment (UGA) (\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0431\u0430 \u041e\u0413\u0412), the chief of staff of the Internal Troops Alliance in the Northern Caucasus (\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0431\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0438 \u0412\u0412 \u041c\u0412\u0414 \u0420\u0424 \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438 "}
+{"target": "Balkans", "prompt": "61.  The report observed that:\n\u201cPolice reportedly use pressure and threats to discourage Roma from pressing charges of police brutality. In 1998 and 1999, Roma in the town of Vr\u00e1ble lodged complaints against a local law enforcement officer ... for allegedly attacking teenage Romani boys. The Ministry of the Interior investigated the case and found [the officer] not guilty ... In March two Roma from the eastern town of Michalovce voluntarily came to the police station for questioning. They were allegedly beaten by some police officers. The victims suffered several injuries including broken legs, hands and ribs. When questioned about the incident, the police first claimed that the action was justified but later admitted that it was unwarranted.\u201d 6. International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights: Human Rights in the OSCE Region: The "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "24.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment on 4 and 22 April 2005, alleging that his defence rights had been violated in that he had not been given an opportunity to consult the case file. He alleged that on 1 October 2004 he had been brought to the Prelog Municipal Court in order to consult the case file. However, owing to the large volume of documents in the case file, the time allowed for that purpose had not permitted him to consult all the documents he had wished to. It had therefore been agreed that the requested documents would be copied and sent to him in prison. However, this request had only partially been complied with and he had never had an opportunity to read the whole case file. He further alleged that he had complained about this at the hearing held on 1 April 2005 but that his allegations had been ignored. He further complained that the search of his "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "26.  The Court of Appeal echoed the reasons given by the Criminal Court and added that there was sufficient evidence in the case to demonstrate that the applicant had been contacted regularly in order to be kept informed of events, that he had been responsible for funding GIA operations in "}
+{"target": "Rh\u00f4ne", "prompt": "27.  Meanwhile, on 20 February 1998, the Minister of the Interior had issued an order requiring the applicant to reside in the Rh\u00f4ne d\u00e9partement, in a place to be determined by the prefect. It included the following passage:\n\u201cWhereas Mr Ali Mehemi Ali was permanently excluded from French territory by a judgment of the Fourth Division of the Lyons Court of Appeal on 4 July 1991 ...\nSection 1:  Until such time as he is able to comply with the order permanently excluding him from France, the above-mentioned person shall reside where required to by the prefect of the "}
+{"target": "the Nizhniy Novgorod Region", "prompt": "11.  On 11 March 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia via the Moscow Domodedovo International Airport (\u201cDomodedovo Airport\u201d). On 23 July 2009 he was issued with a temporary residence permit valid until August 2012. He lived in Dzerzhinsk in "}
+{"target": "North Caucasus", "prompt": "38.  On 10 September 2002 the National Public Commission for Investigation of Offences and Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus requested the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the North Caucasus Circuit (\u201cthe "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martanovskiy District", "prompt": "37.  On 8 September 2001 the Grozny town prosecutor\u2019s office received a complaint by Z.T. about the abduction of Abdula Edilov. The complaint bore a handwritten note dated 13 September 2001 and reading \u201cto be transferred to the prosecutor\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "the North Sea", "prompt": "83.  In section 5.7.4 of the above-mentioned 2003 Lossius report, the following observation may be found under the title \u201cWork on diving tables offshore\u201d:\n\u201c[1]  Diving tables specify how rapidly a diver can be decompressed following a dive (a table for compression prior to a dive is called a compression profile). The physical and medical factors are addressed in more detail in (3), above. It is primarily the decompression tables that have been and continue to be the subject of discussion. The main issue here is the ascent speeds indicated in the tables and the use of increased O2 content in the breathing gas in order to reduce the ascent time. The time factor is important since the purpose of the table is to bring the diver up to normal pressure without injuries, while prolonged decompression can be very uncomfortable for the diver. In the case of commercial diving in "}
+{"target": "the Central District of Yerevan", "prompt": "6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of "}
+{"target": "Mayskiy", "prompt": "58.  On 7 December 2012 the investigators also questioned the husband of the first applicant, Mr I.Ts., who stated that he had accompanied the first applicant in the search for Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov when the latter had not returned home. Driving around "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "56.  On 26 September 2001 the second applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to question the former head of the district department of the FSB, the former senior investigator of that department and the former military commander of the "}
+{"target": "the Khmelnytsk Region", "prompt": "15.  On the same date the prosecutor issued a decision rejecting the applicant\u2019s complaints and informed the applicant of it. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:\n\u201c...On 15 January 2001 A. V. Kaverzin was questioned at the regional prosecutor\u2019s office in the course of consideration of the question of ... his placement in Kharkiv [SIZO] No. 27. During his questioning with the participation of [his] defence lawyer, A. V. Kaverzin explained that he had sustained the injuries in the course of his arrest, that he did not have any complaints against the police, [and] that he had made his first statements freely, without psychological or physical pressure on the part of the police officers.\nThe [police] officers ... who had taken part in the arrest of A. V. Kaverzin [were questioned and] explained that they had been aware that A. V. Kaverzin had used firearms during his attempted arrest by the police in "}
+{"target": "Sokol district", "prompt": "8.  Later, the policemen took the applicant to a special Metro police station for further questioning. According to the applicant, as soon as the interrogation had begun, the policemen beat him to make him sign a confession they had prepared. The applicant refused to sign. Angry about this refusal, the policemen cuffed the applicant\u2019s hands behind his back, dropped him on the floor, and applied electric shocks to his neck, kidney and liver areas and private parts. They kicked the applicant in the stomach, put him in a chair, and beat his head with a document file until he fainted. Fifteen minutes later the policemen told the applicant that they would hand him over to officers from the "}
+{"target": "Ivanovo", "prompt": "8.  At the material time the applicant lived with his family in his own house at 148 Klyuchevaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, in the residential quarter referred to by the local residents as "}
+{"target": "the Eastern District of New York", "prompt": "31.  On 23 July 2015 the Government submitted their response and attached a document issued by the Office of International Affairs of the US Department of Justice called \u201csupplemental information to Spain on Sentencing Issues in Relation to Andres Lopez Elorza, a/k/a \u2018Andres Lopez Flores\u2019 (hereinafter, \u201cthe US report\u201d). The report stated the following:\n\u201cBy way of introduction, Lopez Elorza\u2019s extradition is sought in order for him to stand trial on federal narcotics offenses in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "18.  The hearing of the appeal was adjourned for reasons unconnected with the present application, and resumed almost a year later, on 16 October 2001, when the applicants repeated their submission that the present case was indistinguishable from Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, ECHR 2000-II (see paragraphs 37-38 below), and that, in order to comply with Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal was required either to quash the conviction or order full disclosure of all relevant evidence not seen by the trial judge.  In its judgment of 1 November 2001 ([2001] EWCA Crim 2226), the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that it could never be appropriate for it to conduct an ex parte hearing to determine a claim for public interest immunity in respect of material which had not been placed before the trial judge. It explained its approach in the disclosure proceedings as follows:\n\u201cWe turn next to the ex parte hearing which we held at the first stage of this appeal and its consequences. We considered the matter in relation to which the prosecution claimed public interest immunity before us in the context of all the matter before the trial judge, both disclosed on his order and undisclosed. We specifically bore in mind the grounds of appeal and the terms of the letter of 31st March 2000, from the CPS to the appellants' solicitors setting out their disclosure strategy in response to the solicitors' request for disclosure. We also specifically considered whether there was disclosable material relating to any warning by the Israeli ambassador or any involvement in the bombing by Mossad or in relation to bombings in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Our approach was to consider whether there was a public interest in the non-disclosure of particular matter and, if there was, whether this was outweighed because it might, if disclosed, have helped the defence on issues raised by them at trial.... Because a year had elapsed between the first and second stages of this appeal we again, at the second stage, and in accordance with the same considerations, looked at the matter in relation to which public interest immunity was claimed. We also took into account the further submissions made on behalf of the appellants during the second stage of the appeal. We are unpersuaded that the Crown's system and strategy in relation to disclosure ... is flawed. In particular the suggestion that they adopted too narrow an approach is unsubstantiated.\nHaving considered all the matter placed before us in this way, we were and are entirely satisfied about five things. First, prosecuting counsel have had access to everything they want to see and have examined all relevant and potentially material matter ... and they have continued to keep the need for disclosure under review. Secondly, the trial judge was correct to rule as he did in relation to the disclosure and non-disclosure of the matter before him. Thirdly, no one has attempted to conceal from this court any relevant or potentially material matter. Fourthly, public interest immunity has been rightly claimed in relation to the matter which we have seen, because it affects national security at the highest level and would, if disclosed, present a clear and immediate threat to life. Fifthly, apart from the two matters to which we shall refer, there is nothing of significance before this court which was not before the trial judge. Having ordered disclosure of these matters to the appellants, in a suitable form, and having heard submissions in relation to them, we are satisfied that no injustice was done to the appellants by not having access to that matter at trial. We say this, first, because the matter added nothing of significance to what was disclosed at trial and, secondly, because, for whatever reason, no attempt was made by the defence at trial to exploit, by adducing it in any form before the jury, the similar material in relation to the embassy which had been disclosed at trial. This included information, on the day before the bombing, that Hizbollah was planning attacks in London and Geneva and, after the bombing, that it had been carried out by Hizbollah using non\u2011Muslim mercenaries. Information was also disclosed that three named Iranians were involved in the bombing under the direction of the IRGC Chief in "}
+{"target": "South\u2011Western", "prompt": "28.  On 9 April 2005 an investigator with the town prosecutor\u2019s office issued a decision, finding no evidence of criminal conduct. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:\n\u201cPoliceman Kul. explained that on the morning of 13 September 1999 the "}
+{"target": "Pirin Macedonia", "prompt": "14.  An earlier attempt by the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (\u201cIlinden\u201d), an unregistered association based in south-western Bulgaria, in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of "}
+{"target": "Marum 1:8", "prompt": "17.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (H\u00f6gsta domstolen). She later requested, inter alia, that no further action be taken on the case pending the outcome of division proceedings which she had begun in October 1990. In these proceedings, the applicant claimed that the joint ownership of the two estates should be dissolved and individual plots be assigned to the family members. Following several decisions taken by the Real Estate Formation Authority (Fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten \u2013 \u201cthe REFA\u201d) and the courts, the case had to be referred back by the Court of Appeal to the REFA for re-examination as the latter had made procedural errors. Subsequently, by a decision of 1 December 1995, the REFA allowed the creation of four individual plots on "}
+{"target": "the Motajica mountain", "prompt": "17.  On 22 September 2006 the Sisak County Court found both M.G. and the applicant guilty of three counts of murder motivated by personal gain and sentenced each of them to forty years\u2019 imprisonment. The judgment also held that they had taken no less than 960,000 Croatian kuna from the house of the victims. The applicant was convicted solely on the basis of the evidence given by S.\u0160. The relevant part of the judgment reads:\n\u201cThe first accused M.G. ...\nand\nThe second accused Ne\u0111o Ajdari\u0107 ...\nare guilty\nin that they: 1. on the night of 8 to 9 October 1998, in accordance with their previous agreement with an unknown woman, after arriving in a Peugeot 406, licence plates BJ 406 BF, at no. 23 A.G. Mato\u0161 Street in Kutina, residence of R.S., I.\u0160. and G.C., and having parked the car near the house, in the knowledge that I.\u0160., R.S. and G.C. kept a large amount of money in the house, left the car in order to kill them and appropriate their money, while the unknown woman hid close by the car and kept guard so that nobody would find them. They entered the house in which late I.\u0160., R.S. and G.C. lived, through the door in an unidentified manner, approached G.C. who was asleep in his bed and from a 7.65 mm calibre Scorpion gun shot two bullets into the head of G.C. from a distance of about eighty centimetres and thus caused him two gun-shot wounds to the head ... from which he died instantly, and then took and kept an unidentified amount of money, but no less than 960,000 Croatian kuna, and distributed it between them;\n... 2. immediately after the offence under point 1., at the same place and in the same manner, after they had entered the house, shot two bullets at R.S. who was asleep, from the 7. 65 mm calibre Scorpion gun from a distance of eighty centimetres, thus causing him two gun-shot wounds to the head, ... from which R.S. died instantly, and then took from the house and kept for themselves an unidentified amount of money, but no less than 960,000 Croatian kuna, which they distributed between them;\n... 3. immediately after the offence described under point 1. and in the same place and at the same time from the said 7.65 mm calibre Scorpion gun, shot two bullets into the head of I.\u0160., who was asleep, from a distance of eighty centimetres, thus causing her two gun-shot wounds to the head ...from which I.\u0160. died instantly, and then took an unidentified amount of money, but no less than 960,000 Croatian kuna, which they distributed between them;\n...\nR e a s o n i n g\n...\nWitness S.\u0160. said that he had been placed in detention in Bjelovar Prison because he had been sentenced to a seven-year prison term. His conviction was not final. Owing to his health problems he had been transferred to Zagreb Prison Hospital. He had stayed there in room no. 206 from the end of November 2005 until 13 January 2006. He had met the first accused for the first time in the prison hospital. They had spent time together and he had immediately told the first accused why he had been detained, but the first accused had at first not wished to disclose the reason for his own detention. They had had an argument about the defence counsel of the first accused. He [S.\u0160] had been displeased by certain comments that the first accused had made about her.\nIn mid-December of 2005 the second accused [the applicant] had been placed in the same room [having been transferred] from Remetinec Prison. [S.\u0160.] had noticed that the first and the second accused had greeted each other as if they already knew each other. The second accused\u2019s bed had been placed between his and that of the first accused. The first and the second accused had talked a lot between themselves ... He had overheard their conversations while lying on his bed and reading the newspapers. ...\n... he learned from these conversations that the two of them knew each other from Banja Luka. ... The first and the second accused had also talked about a mobile telephone and the second accused had said that he had come to Kutina with a certain S. and that they had waited there for a long time for a woman to return to the house. They had said that they had not known that a third person had been present in the house.\nFrom these stories he had understood that, apart from the three of them, the first accused\u2019s wife had also been implicated, and that it [sic] had concerned an exchange office in which a childhood friend of the first accused had worked. The second accused had feared being discovered and the first accused had told him that one woman, a witness, had changed her statement in their favour. The second accused had told the first accused that he would pay for his defence ...\nHe had also learned from their conversations that the second accused and the first accused\u2019s wife had crossed the border to Bosnia and Herzegovina at Davor, because the first accused\u2019s wife had had to take the mobile telephone belonging to the first accused back to Croatia, while S. had crossed to Bosnia and Herzegovina at Stara Gradi\u0161ka. The money had been carried by the second accused and the first accused\u2019s wife as well as the two mobile telephones, while the first accused had returned to Bjelovar. They had taken the mobile telephones to Bosnia and Herzegovina because it had been necessary to send signals to Bjelovar: the signals had been sent from "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "451. Mrs \u015eahin was further recorded as having said that she was a PKK sympathiser as her husband was Kurdish and gave assistance to the PKK. She acted as a PKK courier between prisons and PKK prisoners. She took part in the successful campaign to close down the Eski\u015fehir Prison. She and her spouse had connections with PKK activities in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "115.  The KIA governor was ordered to make provision for the applicant to have his own television in his cell; the applicant's other requests \u2013 including a request to be transferred to the Netherlands (the Realm in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "16.  In the morning of 12 February 2001 the applicant went to the Urus-Martan District military commander\u2019s office. During the lunch hour she heard her husband singing a prayer. The voice was coming from the second floor of the building of the "}
+{"target": "the Southern District of Florida", "prompt": "12.  On 19 August 2009, with a view to identifying the taxpayers in question, the Federal Council (Government) of the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America (\u201cthe United States\u201d) concluded an \u201cAgreement concerning the request by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States relating to the Swiss company UBS SA\u201d (\u201cAgreement 09\u201d) ...\nUnder the first Article of Agreement 09 Switzerland undertook to deal with the US request for mutual assistance concerning UBS SA\u2019s American customers in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Appendix to that Agreement and, moreover, in conformity with the Convention of 2 October 1996 between Switzerland and the United States on double taxation (CDI-US 96) ...\nDrawing on those criteria, the parties to Agreement 09 considered that the request for mutual assistance concerned \u201csome 4,450 open or closed accounts\u201d.\nSwitzerland further undertook to set up a \u201cspecial task force\u201d enabling the Swiss Federal Tax Authority (AFC) to reach its final decisions in the framework of the mutual assistance request within a specific timescale.\nIn return, the Agreement provided that the United States and UBS SA would submit to the US District Court for "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "5.  According to the official documents, in connection with an ongoing investigation against an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers\u2019 Party of Kurdistan), the police received information that the second applicant, a suspected member of that organisation, had arrived from the rural area in order to conduct activities in cities on behalf of the organisation. Having established the second applicant\u2019s address in Diyarbak\u0131r, the police conducted a search of the "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "30.  In February 2001 Human Rights Watch issued a Memorandum on Domestic Prosecutions for Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Chechnya, in which it reported a lack of progress in the investigation into the attack on the applicant and into other killings committed in the "}
+{"target": "the Urus\u2011Martan District", "prompt": "14.  On 16 October 2001 the Town Court held a hearing in the applicant\u2019s case. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant gave the following explanation as regards his failure to comply with the time\u2011limits:\n\u201cI applied to a court only on 9 October 2001 as I did not know that law established the time-limits for applying to a court. I request the court to reinstate the time-limits for applying to a court and to recover salary arrears ...\u201d\nThe defendant accepted the applicant\u2019s salary claims only for the period between June and August 1996 and submitted that the applicant would receive the arrears as soon as funds were available.\nOn the same date the Town Court adopted a judgment in the case, which in its relevant part provided as follows:\n\u201c... [Mr Itslayev] applied to the court only on 9 October 2001 because he did not know that law established the time-limits for applying to a court and he requests the court to reinstate the time-limit for applying to the court and to recover salary arrears ...\nThe defendant\u2019s representative submitted that ... the Administration of the Urus\u2011Martan District agreed to pay the applicant salary arrears for the period between June and August 1996 as soon as the funds were available.\nHaving regard to the parties\u2019 submissions and having read the materials of the case, the court comes to the following conclusion:\n... According to Article 211 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute is to be lodged with a district court within three months of the date when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right. In violation of this statutory provision, the applicant did not apply to a court between December 2000, when the courts started functioning in Chechnya, and 9 October 2001. The court considers that the applicant\u2019s arguments that he had missed the time-limits because the head of administration of "}
+{"target": "the Vostochniy District", "prompt": "18.  In his report of 23 September 1999 an acting head of the Interior Department of the Altayskiy Region concluded that Mr T. had acted in compliance with the rules governing the conduct of the police. The use of weapon had been justified by the circumstances and lawful in accordance with section 15 (1)(2) of the Police Act. On the other hand, he found that the casualty had occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the officers on duty, Major D. and Major P., who had not recorded the information received from Mr T., had not informed their superiors about the on-going incident and had not sent reinforcements to Mr T. He ordered that Major D. be demoted and Major P. be reprimanded. He further reprimanded the head of the police station of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "10.  On 17 January 2006 the Regional Court rejected an objection by the applicant company. It held that section 116 of the German Code of Civil Procedure exhaustively determined which legal persons were entitled to receive legal aid, and it was not for the court to extend this provision to include companies based outside "}
+{"target": "the Avtozavodskoy District", "prompt": "74.  The decision also referred to police officer K.O., who had stated, in particular, that he had arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station following a telephone call from an officer on duty, B., about the applicant\u2019s apprehension. K. had told K.O. about the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s apprehension. In particular, K. had seen, in the garage being opened by the applicant, some things that he had collected and was preparing to carry away. B. had said that the applicant had had a bunch of metal picklocks on him. K.O. had believed that the applicant had been involved in the series of garage thefts. The type of lock on the garage which the applicant had opened was the same as those on the other garages from which thefts had been committed. He had taken the applicant to his office and questioned him until 3 a.m. No one else had been present in his office. The applicant had stated that he had had no previous criminal convictions. K.O. had phoned the information centre of the Nizhniy Novgorod regional police department, which had informed him that the applicant had previously been convicted of garage thefts in "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny", "prompt": "15.  In support of her statements, the applicant submitted her own statement dated 22 February 2010; a statement by Ms G.P. dated 29 January 2004; a statement by Mr S.Kh. dated 1 March 2010; a statement by Ms Z.T. dated 1 February 2004, a copy of the witness statement by the applicant\u2019s mother Yakhita Inderbiyeva dated 5 July 2000 and copies of other documents received from the authorities. The applicant also enclosed a Human Rights Watch report \u201cCivilian Murders in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny\u201d of February 2000 and a sketched map of the district indicating the place where the bodies of her sisters had been discovered. The applicant also referred to the Court\u2019s judgments Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005), Makhauri v. Russia (no. 58701/00, 4 October 2007), Tangiyeva v. Russia (no. 57935/00, 29 November 2007), Goncharuk v. Russia (no. 58643/00, 4 October 2007), and Goygova v. Russia (no. 74240/01, 4 October 2007), and the witness statements contained therein, stating that the events she complained of had been examined by the Court in those judgements and that they concerned the same events which had taken place in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "7.  In March 2004 the applicant association planned to start an advertising campaign under the head \u201cThe Holocaust on your plate\u201d. The intended campaign, which had been carried out in a similar way in the United States of America, consisted of a number of posters, each of which bore a photograph of concentration camp inmates along with a picture of animals kept in mass stocks, accompanied by a short text. One of the posters showed a photograph of emaciated, naked concentration camp inmates alongside a photograph of starving cattle under the heading \u201cwalking skeletons\u201d. Other posters showed a photograph of piled up human dead bodies alongside a photograph of a pile of slaughtered pigs under the heading \u201cfinal humiliation\u201d and of rows of inmates lying on stock beds alongside rows of chicken in laying batteries under the heading \u201cif animals are concerned, everybody becomes a Nazi\u201d. Another poster depicting a starving, naked male inmate alongside a starving cattle bore the title \u201cThe Holocaust on your plate\u201d and the text \u201cBetween 1938 and 1945, 12 million human beings were killed in the Holocaust. As many animals are killed every hour in "}
+{"target": "Acid Knoll", "prompt": "11.  In a news broadcast on 24 May 2000, 6.30 pm, TV2 reported that members of the press had followed a 42 year old murderer from Kristiansand in his footsteps. Then ensued an interview with the applicant, during which he was filmed from behind and partly from the side, on his way to the so-called \u201c"}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "11.  It appears from the evidence before the Court that the programme started late in the evening of 12 June and lasted about four hours. Relevant excerpts from the programme are set out below.\nHulki Cevizo\u011flu (presenter \u2013 \u201cH.C.\u201d): \u201cGood evening ... There is a group that is grabbing public attention because of the black robes [c\u00fcppe] worn by its members, the sticks they carry and their habit of chanting [zikir]. How can this group be described \u2013 it is called a sect [tarikat], but is it really a community or group? We will be discussing the various characteristics of this group \u2013 the Aczmendis \u2013 with their leader, Mr M\u00fcsl\u00fcm G\u00fcnd\u00fcz, who will be talking to us live. We will also be phoning a number of guests to hear their views. On the subject of the black robes, we'll be talking on the phone to Ms N. Yarg\u0131c\u0131, a stylist and expert on black clothing. We'll also be hearing the views of Mr T. Ate\u015f and Mr B. Baykam on Kemalism[1]. As regards Nurculuk[2], we'll be calling one of its most important leaders. The Aczmendi group \u2013 or sect \u2013 has views on religious matters as well. We'll be discussing those with Mr Y. \u0130\u015fcan, of the Religious Affairs Department. And while we are on the subject, viewers may phone in with questions for the Aczmendis' leader, Mr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz ...\u201d\nMs Yarg\u0131c\u0131, a stylist taking part in the programme via a telephone link, asked Mr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz a number of questions about women's clothing. They discussed religious apparel and whether the clothing worn by the sect's members was in keeping with fashion or with Islam.\nThe presenter then discussed movements claiming to represent Islam and asked the applicant a number of questions on the subject. They also talked about methods of chanting. In this context Mr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz stated:\nMr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz (\u201cM.G.\u201d): \u201cKemalism was born recently. It is a religion \u2013 that is, it is the name of a religion that has destroyed Islam and taken its place. Kemalism is a religion and secularism has no religion. Being a democrat also means having no religion ...\u201d H.C.: \u201cYou have already expressed those views on a programme on the Star channel ... We are now going to have Bedri Baykam on the line to see what he thinks about your comments. We are going to ask him, as a proponent of Kemalism, if it can be regarded as a religion.\u201d H.C.: \u201cDo you agree with Mr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz's views on Kemalism? You are one of Turkey's foremost Kemalists.\u201d\nBedri Baykam (\u201cB.B.\u201d): \u201cI don't know where to begin after so many incorrect statements. For one thing, Kemalism is not a religion and secularism has nothing to do with having no religion. It is completely wrong to maintain that democracy has no religion.\u201d\nMr Baykam challenged Mr G\u00fcnd\u00fcz's arguments and explained the concepts of democracy and secularism. He stated: B.B.: \u201cA sect such as the one you belong to may observe a religion. But concepts such as democracy, philosophy and free thought do not observe a religion, because they are not creatures who can establish a moral relationship with God. In a democracy all people are free to choose their religion and may choose either to adhere to a religion or to call themselves atheists. Those who wish to manifest their religion in accordance with their belief may do so. Moreover, [democracy] encompasses pluralism, liberty, democratic thought and diversity. This means that the people's desire will be fulfilled, because the people may elect party A today and party B tomorrow and then ask for a coalition to be formed the day after tomorrow. All that is dictated by the people. That is why, in a democracy, everything is free, and secularism and democracy are two related concepts. Secularism in no way means having no religion.\u201d B.B.: \u201cSecularism is freedom of the people and the principle that religious affairs may not interfere with affairs of State.\u201d\n... M.G.: \u201cMy brother, I say that secularism means having no religion. A democrat is a man with no religion. A Kemalist adheres to the Kemalist religion ...\u201d B.B.: \u201c[Our ancestors were not without a religion.] True, our ancestors did not allow the establishment of a system based on sharia ... inspired by the Middle Ages, an undemocratic, totalitarian and despotic system that will not hesitate to cause bloodshed where necessary. And you call that 'having no religion' \u2013 that's your problem. But in a law-based, democratic, Kemalist and secular State all people are free to manifest their religion. Behind closed doors, they may practise their religion through chanting, worship or prayer; they may read what they like, the Koran, the Bible or philosophy \u2013 that is their choice. So I'm sorry, but your views are demagoguery. Kemalism has no connection with religion. It respects religion; all people are entitled to believe in a religion of their choice.\u201d M.G.: \u201cYes. But what I am saying is that a person who has no connection with religion has no religion. Isn't that so? ... I'm not insulting anyone. I am just saying that anyone calling himself a democrat, secularist or Kemalist has no religion ... Democracy in Turkey is despotic, merciless and impious [dinsiz] ... Because two days ago, six or seven of our friends were taken away while on the sect's "}
+{"target": "North Caucasian", "prompt": "85.  On 10 July 2001 the CPT issued a public statement concerning the Chechen Republic, under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This step was prompted by the Russian authorities' failure to cooperate with the CPT in relation to two issues: (i) the carrying out of a thorough and independent inquiry into the events in the detention facility at Chernokozovo during the period from December 1999 to early February 2000; and (ii) action taken to uncover and prosecute cases of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the Chechen Republic in the course of the current conflict. The statement said, in particular:\n\u201cI. The information gathered by the CPT during its visits to the "}
+{"target": "South Hook", "prompt": "56.  On 4 March 2004, the Western Telegraph newspaper published a question and answer article with ExxonMobil regarding the LNG terminal. Relevant extracts are quoted below:\n\u201cCould LNG explode if there was a collision at sea or in the Haven? Or could it explode for any other reason?\nThe "}
+{"target": "the Irkutsk Region", "prompt": "10.  From 23 February to 27 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-38/1 of Irkutsk and from 17 July to 3 August 2008 he was transferred to penitentiary medical facility LIU-27 in "}
+{"target": "the Middle East", "prompt": "11.  The supporters signed a declaration. The declarations were then collected and handed over in large numbers to parliaments, administrative bodies and courts. The content of the largely identical declarations was as follows:\n\u201cSelf declaration (Selbsterkl\u00e4rung)\n\u201cI also am a follower of the PKK\u201d (\u201cAuch ich bin ein PKK'ler\u201d)\nAs the Kurdish people has been denied its basic right to life, it has had no choice but to take up arms. After twenty years of war, our national leader, Abdullah \u00d6calan, has initiated a strategic change. For two years the PKK has been using exclusively political means to fight for a peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish question. On the basis of this new strategy the Workers' Party of Kurdistan (PKK) is undergoing a global reformation. Strongly determined to find a solution, it has developed its political activities against all resistance without leaving the framework of legality.\nAlthough the Kurdish question emerged geographically in "}
+{"target": "the Eastern Ukraine", "prompt": "46.  The Government submitted that they were not in a position to provide a description of the material conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the Lugansk SIZO given that, following the outbreak of the armed conflict in "}
+{"target": "Upper Tulse Hill", "prompt": "112.  There were three allegations against Commander Dick:\n\u201c54. ... First, ... that [she] failed to ensure that the block on Scotia Road was kept under careful surveillance control and that tactics were employed to ensure that all suspects could be identified and stopped before reaching a bus stop. As it happens, the nearest bus stop was on "}
+{"target": "Hvasser", "prompt": "36.  On the other hand, under Article 253 of the Penal Code, which required only a simple majority, the High Court declared the following two statements, published respectively on the front page and on page 3 of the 8 June 2000 issue (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above), null and void:\n\u201cPermanent residence requirements: In the worst\u2013case scenario [H.K.] may be forced to sell her property at "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "42.  On 14 October 2004 the prosecutor\u2019s office instituted disciplinary proceedings against two officers of the SBU for their negligence towards the applicant\u2019s son. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant\u2019s son had not been formally arrested (\u0437\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0439) but had been kept at the SBU\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "38.  The relevant parts of the Annex to Recommendation No. R (2000) 4 read as follows:\n\u201cGuiding Principles for an Education Policy for Romani/Gypsy Children in Europe\u201d 1.  Educational policies for Romani/Gypsy children should be accompanied by the necessary means and flexible structures to reflect the diversity of the Roma/Gypsy population in "}
+{"target": "the Ust-Labinsk District", "prompt": "8.  On 28 January 2016 the Ust-Labinskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region allowed her claim. The court held as follows:\n\u201c... [the applicant] disseminated untrue statements about Ms F. which damaged her honour, dignity and reputation, because these statements referred to unethical behaviour on her part...\nThe court has established that the defendant used abusive and obscene language in his video ..., therefore [the applicant] intended to humiliate Ms F. and damage her reputation.\n... Ms F., the head of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "36.  By a letter dated 2 February 2004, the Institute of Education for People of Greek Origin and Intercultural Education had informed the representative of the Greek Helsinki Monitor that eighteen schools attended only by \u201cGypsy children\u201d had been operation in Greece during the 2002-2003 school year. 1.  The Committee of Ministers\nThe Recommendation no. R (2000) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member-states on the education of Roma children in "}
+{"target": "the Sughd Region", "prompt": "10.  According to the applicant, in 2006 he accompanied the President of Tajikistan on an official visit to Iran and Turkey. During the trip a relative of the President of Tajikistan demanded that the applicant transfer title to one of his plants to him. The applicant agreed out of fear. In August 2006 the same person again demanded on behalf of the President that the applicant transfer title to another plant owned by him. The applicant submits that following his refusal to do so, the authorities began to interfere with his business and threatened him with reprisals. On 27 September 2006 the applicant survived an assassination attempt allegedly planned by the authorities. The next day the residents of the town of Isfara in "}
+{"target": "Elshitsa", "prompt": "23.  In his application the applicant also requested the court to stay, as an interim measure, the enforcement of the impugned decision, as failure to do so could frustrate the purpose of the proceedings and cause irreparable harm to the environment, thus infringing the right of "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District", "prompt": "25.  On 3 May 2000 the town prosecutor\u2019s office opened criminal case no. 12583 in connection with the publication of the article \u201cFreedom or death\u201d in Novaya Gazeta concerning the mass murder of civilians on 19 February 2000 by the 205th brigade of the Russian military forces in the Katayama (also spelt Katoyama) settlement in "}
+{"target": "Kentron district", "prompt": "19.  On 24 January 2011, pursuant to the applicant\u2019s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no. 1785-A, the Mayor of Yerevan informed her of the changes in legislation concerning land and reminded the applicant that she had to conclude the land-lease agreement with "}
+{"target": "Earth", "prompt": "29.  The report of 24 December 2008 had been prepared by a panel of \u201cspecialists\u201d consisting of a philologist, a psychologist and a doctor of philosophy in religious studies. They had made the following finding:\n\u201cThe book \u2018The Tenth Word: The Resurrection and the Hereafter\u2019 by Said Nursi submitted for expert review is ideological literature addressed to a wide audience. The gist of the book is propaganda about the exceptional nature, superiority or deficiency of persons on the basis of their attitude to religion.\nThe text under review aims to arouse feelings of aversion, anger, enmity and discord against non-believers.\nThe book substantiates and justifies extremist activity.\u201d\nThat finding was based, among other things, on the fact that the book contained military metaphors which, according to the specialists, could incline the reader to see the reality through the prism of the conditions of a military camp, a military ground and potential military actions. The specialists also noted that the value of such a world-view was stressed by positive epithets. The specialist report cited the following expressions:\n\u201cListen, this state is a military ground; an exhibition of wonderful royal art;\n The military camp becomes like a lavish colourful blossoming garden on the "}
+{"target": "Upper Ajaria", "prompt": "100.  In the 1080s Ajaria, part of the Bagratid Kingdom known as the \u201cKingdom of the Georgians\u201d, was laid to waste by Seljuk invaders from the South. In the 1570s it was invaded by the Ottoman Empire. The sanjaks (districts) of "}
+{"target": "Kursk", "prompt": "69.  By a decision of 30 October 2000 the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 20102 suspended the proceedings in case no. 14/33/0429-2000. The decision restated the facts of the incident and listed the investigative actions that had been conducted, in the same manner as this had been stated in the decision of 2 October 2000. It went on to say the following:\n\u201cA witness questioned in the course of the investigation, Lieutenant Colonel K., the head of the headquarters of the aircraft division of a [deleted] military unit, confirmed the fact of the attack on the Niva vehicle by helicopters of a [deleted] separate helicopter squadron in the vicinity of the village of Arshty. It follows from Lieutenant Colonel K.\u2019s statement that at present the [deleted] separate helicopter squadron had been transferred from the territory of the Chechen Republic to the place of its permanent station in the city of [deleted].\nTaking into account that the alleged perpetrator has not been identified, despite all the measures taken, that all the investigative measures which could have been carried out within the territory of the Chechen Republic have been taken and that the personnel of the [deleted] separate helicopter squadron have left for the place of their permanent station in the town of [deleted] ... the investigation should be carried out [at that place] in the town of [deleted].\nThe decision thus ordered that the criminal proceedings be suspended, as it was impossible to establish the identity of those responsible, and that the case file be transmitted to the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the "}
+{"target": "Zamay-Yurt", "prompt": "50.  On various dates in April and May 2005 the investigators obtained saliva and blood samples from Mr A. and the first applicant for genetic expert evaluation and a DNA comparison with the blood on the clothes found in "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martan", "prompt": "68.  On 28 December 2009 the investigators again questioned Mr M.T. who reiterated his previously given statement concerning the Priora vehicle and its registration number and stressed that he did not know anyone from either Zakan-Yurt or the "}
+{"target": "Khoroshevskiy", "prompt": "18.  According to the second applicant, she arrived at Oktyabrskaya metro station at 4 p.m. on 6 May 2012 to take part in the peaceful demonstration at Bolotnaya Square. She passed Yakimanka Street with other participants, but on approaching the square found the entrance blocked. Around 6.30 p.m. the police started to break the crowd up into groups and push them. Two police officers grabbed her hands and pushed her towards the police van. She did not breach public order and had not taken part in any acts of violence prior to her arrest. At around 9.05 p.m. the second applicant was brought to "}
+{"target": "Ajarian", "prompt": "38.  The applicant was committed to stand trial in the Ajarian High Court, where he denied all guilt. He maintained that this second prosecution was the result of a conspiracy to frame him. He denied ever having had any links with Mr David Assanidze or his associates, who prior to their arrest had been living as outlaws in the "}
+{"target": "Land A", "prompt": "20.  The Constitutional Court considered that there was no doubt that the Freeport was established in the public interest namely the economic development of the country and therefore the taking of Land A was Convention compatible. As to compensation in respect of "}
+{"target": "Shalinskiy district", "prompt": "57.  On 24 July 2002 the Russian Government submitted to the Court a response to the request for information. They cited a report by the Directorate of the General Prosecutor Office for the Southern Federal Circuit, according to which on 17 June 2002 the applicant had filed a report with the Shali District Prosecutor's Office stating that \u201ca group of unidentified armed men\u201d had forcibly removed her husband on 2 June 2002. On 28 June 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated by the district prosecutor under Article 126 \u00a7 2 (a) of the Penal Code. At the same time, the Government denied that the applicant's husband had been detained by the authorities. The Government submitted:\n\u201cBefore the initiation of this criminal case, in the course of examination and initial investigative actions no facts that Mr Said-Magomed Imakayev was detained by servicemen of Federal Forces were obtained. Mr Said-Magomed Imakayev was not conveyed to law machinery bodies or institutions of Penalty Execution System and he is not being kept there now. Moreover, law machinery bodies do not have grounds for his detention. ...\n"}
+{"target": "Vasili", "prompt": "13.  Properties of applicant no. 1, Mr Constantinos G. Lordos:\n(1) Kyrenia, Livera, Fyrades-Tsounni, Plot No. 1, Sheet/Plan: 5/54, Area: 47:2:335m\u00b2 Use: Land, Share: 1/15;\n(2) Famagusta, Egkomi, Salamina, Plot No. 56/1, Sheet/Plan: 24/42, Area: 0:8:900m\u00b2, Use: Land, Share: 1/12;\n(3) Famagusta, Trikomo, Finikoudia/Leivadia, Plot Nos. 209, 211, 199/1, Sheet/Plan: 15/43, Area: 0:3:213, 0:1:894, 1:3:409, Use: Land, Share: 1/3, 1/3, \u00bd respectively;\n(4) Famagusta, Trikomo, Pervolia Trikomou/Kokkines, Plot No. 140/1, Sheet/Plan: 15/43, Area: 1:6:92, Use: Land, Share: 1/3;\n(5) Famagusta, "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "102.  The report analyses a series of events, such as murders carried out under orders, the killings of well-known figures or supporters of the Kurds and deliberate acts by a group of \u201cinformants\u201d supposedly serving the State, and concludes that there was a connection between the fight to eradicate terrorism in the region and the underground relations that formed as a result, particularly in the drug-trafficking sphere. The Report made reference to an individual Mahmut Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, also known as Ahmet Demir, \u201cthe Terminator\u201d or \u201cYe\u015fil\u201d detailing his involvement in unlawful acts in the south-east and his links with the M\u0130T:\n\u201cThe bombing of the newspaper \u00d6zg\u00fcr G\u00fcndem in \u0130stanbul, the killing of Beh\u00e7et Cant\u00fcrk, .... the trillion credits of the banks are in reality the extension of diverse aspects of the action in Ankara. ... The beginning of the Susurluk action might be hidden in a sentence of the Prime Minister at that time, Tansu \u00c7iller. \u201cThe list with the names of the businessmen helping the PKK is in our possession.\u201d she said. The executions began afterwards. Who decided the executions? It was inevitable that a deterioration would occur and that personal interests would replace the national interests, and in fact they did. This report perceives the Susurluk incident in that manner. (page 8) \nSince the struggle in the region <of eastern and south-eastern "}
+{"target": "the Kad\u0131k\u00f6y District", "prompt": "7.  The arrest report, dated 2 August 1996 and signed by the applicant, stated, that the police had received information that the applicant would meet with another member of the DHKP-C at an address in "}
+{"target": "Pionerskaya", "prompt": "19.  In a letter of 29 May 2000 the Vladivostok Administration informed the Administration of the Sovetskiy District that the water level in the Pionerskoye reservoir was close to critical and that some of it would have to be evacuated. However, the "}
+{"target": "the Leskenskiy District", "prompt": "26.  The son of the fourth applicant, Albert Askarbiyevich Zhekamukhov, was found to have taken part in the attack of 13 October 2005 and subsequently to have escaped from Nalchik and gone into hiding. He was located in the village of Anzorey in "}
+{"target": "the Kolba\u015f\u0131 village", "prompt": "44.  Referring to the statements of the villagers, gendarme officers, the relevant military reports and documents, the investigator concluded that the applicant's allegation that her house had been destroyed by the security forces did not reflect the true circumstances of the case. He found that the village was in fact raided by the PKK on the night of 29 December 1993. However, it was clear from the testimonies of the villagers that the applicant's house was not destroyed that day. From the evidence before him, the investigator found that the applicant had in fact stayed in the village until April 1994, when the villagers evacuated D\u00fczcealan to escape the pressure from PKK members. The applicant sold her cow to a certain Ramazan G\u00f6k\u00e7e from "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "39.  According to the Government, the investigators had on numerous occasions sent queries to various State bodies. In particular, on 19 November 2002 the investigator in charge had requested information concerning Vakhid Musikhanov's whereabouts from the Urus-Martan Division of the Federal Security Service, the military commander's office of "}
+{"target": "the Central District of Yerevan", "prompt": "6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of "}
+{"target": "Golopristansky District", "prompt": "13.  The same day the Hryvnia newspaper published an article entitled \u2018Volnaya Ukraina is bleeding\u2019 (\u2018B\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0430\u0435\u0442 \u043a\u0440\u043e\u0432\u044c\u044e\u2019) about the incident of 23 May 2000 and about problems with power cuts caused by the theft of electric power cables for scrap metal. The article described the applicant\u2019s version of events, in which he stated that the victims had been trying to steal metal parts from an electricity transformer and he had warned them and then fired at their motorcycle with his shotgun. They had fired back with a rifle and he had fired two shots in their direction. The article continued as follows:\n\u201cThe investigation is not able to confirm that there was an EXCHANGE OF FIRE near the sub-station. The Prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Premises", "prompt": "8.  The applicant wrote numerous letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Baku City Executive Authority, the Ombudsman's Office, and other public authorities, complaining of unlawful occupation of the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "39.  On 11 March 2003 officer B. of the United Group Alignment (UGA) informed the Shalinskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office that he had no information concerning the apprehension of the applicants\u2019 relatives. Furthermore, Captain L. had never served with the Interior Ministry troops deployed in "}
+{"target": "Z-river", "prompt": "21.  In a further article on the same page, under the heading \u201cThey want to know where I am\u201d, the paper mentioned the name of the street where the applicant lived (Y), that of his neighbourhood (Z), and that of the company where he worked. The article rendered a statement by the applicant maintaining his innocence and informing that the police had wanted to know his whereabouts but had let him in peace. Next to the article appeared a photograph of the applicant seen from behind, at a relatively long distance, on his way down towards the "}
+{"target": "Caucasus", "prompt": "17.  On 11 January 2011 the Federal Asylum Office rejected the applicant\u2019s subsequent asylum request as res judicata. It established the applicant\u2019s identity and reiterated the proceedings in his respect. In the context of the applicant\u2019s private and family life in Austria, the Federal Asylum Office referred to his mother, wife and children, confirming that they were all recognised refugees in Austria and citing their file numbers. Indicating various country reports, inter alia by the German Federal Foreign Office of 2010, the United States Department of State Report on Russia of 2010, the Office for Foreigners (Poland), CEDOCA, the Documentation and Research Centre of the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (Belgium) and the country of origin information available to the Federal Asylum Office, it noted that the general security situation and the protection of human rights in the north "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "15.  On 28 October 2004 the daily newspaper Halka ve Olaylara Terc\u00fcman published an article by N.K.Z. on the subject of the report on minority and cultural rights. In the article, the author stated the following:\n\u201cThese people should not be considered as liberal intellectuals. Some of them may be bona fide liberals. But their ringleaders are nothing less than traitors ...; there are no two ways about it: the Turkish nation, the Turkishness of Turkey and the Republic of Turkey are facing all-out treason ...; if [the country\u2019s Turkish majority] begins to growl, shout and roar, the traitors will find no hiding or breathing place ...; you obscurantists (karanl\u0131k\u00e7\u0131lar) who present yourselves as liberal intellectuals ..., you can stick your phoney minorities up your "}
+{"target": "Palestine", "prompt": "14.  In a judgment of 14 June 2006 the court excluded the documents obtained through the international letter of request and sentenced S.A. to nine years\u2019 imprisonment. It took the view, in the light of statements by the Director of the World Organisation against Torture, a member of the French section of Amnesty International and the Secretary of the International Federation of Human Rights, called by S.A. as witnesses, and who were unanimous as to the almost systematic use of torture by the Syrian security bodies (since a military decree of 1963), that it was \u201clikely that the statements made by S.A. in Syria, to the Palestine Section, had been given under torture, and that his confession had thus been obtained by this method\u201d. The court continued as follows:\n\u201cMoreover, in his report on his mission to Damascus for the execution of his international letter of request of 1 April 2004 ..., M.B., investigating judge (First Vice-President) in charge of the investigation, specified that at the first working meeting with Syrian intelligence officials, he was told that S.A. \u2018had already been questioned on 30 April and 2 May 2004\u2019 and that \u2018his interviews were continuing on the basis of the list of questions contained in the international letter of request and additional questions which he [M.B.] wanted to be put, particularly in the light of the answers already recorded\u2019.\nHowever, the judge stressed that he had \u2018not been allowed to participate in the questioning of S.A. but only to follow it in real time\u2019. On 4 and 5 May the questioning thus continued under the same conditions as the day before.\nFor his part, S.A. emphasised that his entire interrogation had taken place without the French investigating judge being present.\nWhen presented to that judge on 17 June 2004 he indicated that he was \u2018tired\u2019, that he \u2018wished to see a doctor immediately\u2019, and that he was \u2018worried about his wife and daughter\u2019. He subsequently described his conditions of detention in Syria and the torture to which he had been subjected during the interrogation.\nAs a result, the French investigating judge was not able to exercise any real control over the conditions in which S.A. was interrogated in Syria, even though he was being held in the \u2018"}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 June 1993, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "29.  The court further observed that the advertisements had had a purely commercial purpose and had not been intended to contribute to any public debate concerning religion or religious symbols. Referring to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in M\u00fcller and Others v. Switzerland (24 May 1988, \u00a7 35, Series A no. 133) and Otto\u2011Preminger\u2011Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, \u00a7 50, Series A no. 295\u2011A), it stated that it was not possible to discern throughout "}
+{"target": "Urus\u2011Martan", "prompt": "40.  In the morning the applicants went to the Urus\u2011Martan district military commander\u2019s office, where the FSB officer, Mr. S.G., told them that Mr Rustam Makayev would be questioned and released in two hours. On the same day the applicants complained of the abduction to the "}
+{"target": "sub-Saharan Africa", "prompt": "54.  During the course of the new round of proceedings, the IAP ordered an expert report, as suggested by the Administrative Court. In a report dated 19 May 2012, as well as during the hearing of 21 June 2012, the expert in question, Dr L., confirmed that according to his findings, Y.C. had been a sickle cell trait carrier. He added that this was the case in respect of 30% of the population of countries in "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "63.  The investigation sent dozens of requests and collected various pieces of information relating to the participation of military units of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior in operations in the "}
+{"target": "the North Sea", "prompt": "66.  He experienced neurological symptoms on a saturated dive in 1985 and dizziness and nausea in several subsequent dives. On a number of occasions he had been exposed to life-threatening incidents while diving in "}
+{"target": "TRNC", "prompt": "24.  The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter. The trial judge noted the following:\n(i) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the \u201cTRNC\u201d;\n(ii) some of the accused had fainted during the trial and had been taken to hospital and excused from attending the hearing;\n(iii) the public prosecutor called 7 witnesses, whose statements were translated into Greek for the accused\u2019s benefit;\n(iv) the witnesses (mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration) declared that the accused had illegally entered the \u201c"}
+{"target": "Gulistan", "prompt": "54.  The parties have submitted extensive documentary material in support of their respective positions. The following paragraphs contain a short description of the main items of evidence.\n(a)  The applicant\n(i)  Map of "}
+{"target": "Batman Stream", "prompt": "8.  While the criminal proceedings were pending, the first applicant requested the determination of evidence from the Batman Magistrates\u2019 Court into the incident which led to A.O.\u2019s death. Two expert reports were issued following the scene investigation, conducted by the Batman Magistrates\u2019 Court on 8 July 2005. According to the expert reports, it was stated that the uncontrolled sand draining from "}
+{"target": "Silesia", "prompt": "31.  On 2 July 1997 the Governor of Katowice lodged an appeal with the Katowice Court of Appeal (S\u0105d Apelacyjny), asking that the first-instance decision be quashed, that the case be remitted to the court of first instance, and that expert evidence be obtained in order to determine the meaning of the terms \u201cnation\u201d and \u201cnational minority\u201d. In his appeal, he alleged that the court of first instance had violated sections 1(1) and 2 of the Law on associations and unspecified provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant grounds of the appeal read as follows:\n\u201c[The court of first instance] formally recognised and legally sanctioned the existence of a distinct Silesian nation constituting a 'Silesian national minority'.\nIn our opinion, such an important and unprecedented ruling, which is of international significance, could not and should not be given without defining the concepts of 'nation' and 'national minority'. The Regional Court, leaving this issue aside \u2013 merely because of certain statutory time-limits \u2013 simplified the proceedings in an unacceptable manner. This led, in itself, to a failure on the part of the court to establish all the circumstances relevant to the outcome of the case and, furthermore, provided a sufficient basis for this appeal.\nThe appellant admits that Polish law does not define the terms 'nation' and 'national minority'. This, however, does not justify the conclusion of the Regional Court that 'the nationality of an individual is a matter of personal choice'.\nThe appellant does not contest the right of a person to decide freely to belong to a national minority; however, a precondition for making such a choice is the existence of a 'nation' with which that person identifies himself.\nThe decision appealed against proclaims the opinion that the subjective feelings of the person concerned suffice for the purposes of creating a 'nation' or a 'nationality'. Having regard to the potential social repercussions of such an approach, it is not possible to agree with it.\nIn these circumstances, prior to making any decision on the registration of the 'Union of People of Silesian Nationality', it is necessary to determine whether a 'Silesian nation' exists \u2013 a distinct, non-Polish nation \u2013 and whether it is admissible in law to create a 'Silesian national minority'.\nIn the appellant's opinion, there are no objective arguments in favour of the finding that a distinct Silesian nation exists. In case of doubt, ... this question should be resolved by obtaining evidence from experts.\nIn the contested decision, the lower court focused in principle on determining whether the aims of the association and the means of accomplishing those aims were lawful. ... The appellant does not contest the majority of these aims; it must be said that such activities as restoring Silesian culture, promoting knowledge of "}
+{"target": "\u0417\u0430\u043f\u0430\u0434\u043d\u0430\u044f", "prompt": "109.  The Government enclosed with their observations an excerpt from the order of the head of the Joined Headquarters of the \u201cWestern Zone\u201d, dated 10 May 2000 and entitled \u201cOn the creation of a permanent commission on the verification of the lawfulness of the use of motor transport in the area of the counterterrorist operation\u201d (\u0432\u044b\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0438\u0437 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044f \u041e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0428\u0442\u0430\u0431\u0430 \u0437\u043e\u043d\u044b \u00ab"}
+{"target": "Kakhovka", "prompt": "9.  According to the documents on file, on 9 December 2002 the applicant was examined by B., a medical specialist of the Odessa holding facility for vagrants, who noted that he had no bodily injuries. Subsequently (on 14 December 2002) the applicant was taken to "}
+{"target": "the Achkhoy-Martan District", "prompt": "56.  On 29 June 2003 the inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office requested information concerning the Khadzhialiyev brothers from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. In reply they were informed that the criminal police had no information capable of compromising Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev. On the same date the inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office requested the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny to establish which law enforcement agencies had carried out special operations in "}
+{"target": "the North West", "prompt": "81.  In response to the applicants\u2019 allegation that their detention after 10 April was unlawful because it was on the basis of information solely derived from closed hearings, the judge emphasised that only part of the hearing on 10 April was closed and that the hearing on 15 April was entirely open. He considered that the applicants were being provided with sufficient information during this period to justify their continuing detention. He therefore viewed this part of the claim for judicial review as \u201cfundamentally flawed\u201d. He noted that counsel for the applicants repeatedly asserted that the basis for the applicants\u2019 detention had never been explained to them, without ever attempting to engage with or address the contents of the various documents which had been provided to them. The judge continued:\n\u201c98.  ... [I]t is plain from all that material that the allegations being made, and the questions being asked, were becoming more and more specific as the days passed, and that by the end of the 13 day period of detention, the claimants were each aware that they were being detained on suspicion of being involved, with other named co\u2011conspirators, to cause imminent bomb explosions at certain specified public locations in "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy district", "prompt": "57.  Witness B., an employee of the district administration, stated in July 2000 that at about 8.30 \u2013 8.45 a.m. on 3 June 2000 he was walking past the Leninskiy VOVD building and heard shooting nearby. Then he saw policemen running from the VOVD building towards the noise. About 200 metres away he noted a group of men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclava masks, armed with sub-machine guns and portable grenade-launchers. The policemen from the VOVD, also armed with machine-guns, were standing across from them. The witness approached the armed men and produced his identity card; one of the masked men, the senior member of the group, told him that they were conducting a special operation and would call later at the "}
+{"target": "Pionerskoye", "prompt": "107.  The court thus attributed responsibility for the events of 7 August 2001 to all three defendants, stating that they should have foreseen the adverse consequences and prevented them, but failed to do so. It stated that the defendants\u2019 fault in the damage caused by the flooding of residential buildings situated in the vicinity of the "}
+{"target": "the Veikou Estate", "prompt": "11.  However, in a document of the Athens Forestry Commission of 16 November 1968 on city planning, it was stated that half the area concerned was agricultural and the other half scrubland covered by bushes and just five pine trees. The Forestry Commission expressed the opinion that the area had never been forest land and could not be reafforested, since the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 1934 excluded from the scope of reafforestation barren land or parcels owned by individuals. The Forestry Commission concluded that the city development plan could be extended to the area concerned. Two previous documents of the Ministry of Agriculture, dated 3 December 1948 and 11 September 1949, and an expert report concerning "}
+{"target": "State", "prompt": "22.  As regards the risk of the applicants absconding, in the decisions dated 5 May, 8 June, 30 July and 10 September 2009, the Skopje Court of Appeal stated, inter alia:\n\u201c... The court considers that, as evident from the case-file, the circumstances of the concrete criminal act, taken in connection with the nature, type, gravity and the manner in which the criminal offences were committed ... faced with the possibility to be sentenced to imprisonment and the severity of (this penalty) suggest that there is a risk of the accused of absconding in order to avoid eventual criminal responsibility for the criminal offences in question ...\nIn this connection the court neither accepts nor does it consider that the allegations of the accused that they have family; that they are parents with a permanent residence [in the respondent "}
+{"target": "Danube", "prompt": "20.  The head of the Ministry's Central Finance Department, I.H., testified that the person authorised to acknowledge the debt on behalf of the Ministry had indeed been the head of its Central Finance Department before the action was brought and the head of its Legal Department afterwards. He also testified that the Split Regional Finance Department's request for payment of daily allowances for demining work had been deemed invalid by a letter of 29 October 1998 because the Decision of the Minister of Defence of 18 September 1995 applied only to the "}
+{"target": "the Kirovskiy District", "prompt": "25.  On 31 July 2003 the Regional Court examined the applicant\u2019s appeal against his conviction. It found that the evidence on which the judgment was based contained a number of discrepancies which had not been resolved by the trial court and that the failure to summon witnesses for the applicant properly had undermined the adversarial nature of the trial. It also held that the applicant\u2019s allegations that his self-incriminating statements had been obtained under duress had not been thoroughly examined; that the police officers\u2019 statements did not constitute sufficient evidence of their proper conduct; and that the applicant\u2019s counsel\u2019s complaint to the prosecutor\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Ordzhonikidzevskiy District", "prompt": "10.  In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor reopened the criminal proceedings against the second applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17 November 1998 the investigator at the "}
+{"target": "Nemrut Mountain", "prompt": "6.  On 22 April 1994 Kamuran Alican, \u00c7etin Alican and Ilhami Alican took their animals out to graze. When the animals returned to the village without the children, the villagers launched a search party and informed the military nearby; the Van 6th Armoured Brigade Barracks. A search was also unsuccessfully conducted within the military confines. The next day, the dead bodies of \u00c7etin Alican and Ilhami Alican were found in a wheat field between the army barracks and "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "12.  The order was based on a classified proposal of 27 January 2006. The proposal, an excerpt of which was provided by the Government in the proceedings before the Court, stated that the first applicant had been subjected to surveillance in connection with information that three persons of Arab origin who had no identification documents and had contacts with representatives of Palestinian and Lebanese extremist organisations from southern Lebanon were residing in Burgas. The proposal also stated that in 2002 the first applicant had organised a drug trafficking channel from Brazil through western "}
+{"target": "the Bug River", "prompt": "11.  Following agreements concluded between the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) and the former Soviet Socialist Republics of Ukraine (on 9 September 1944), Belarus (on 9 September 1944) and Lithuania (on 22 September 1944) (\u201cthe Republican Agreements\u201d \u2013 \u201cumowy republika\u0144skie\u201d), the Polish State took upon itself the obligation to compensate persons who were \u201crepatriated\u201d from the \u201cterritories beyond "}
+{"target": "Gazi", "prompt": "59.  On 2 April 1998 the court heard the statements of three interveners, Menev\u015fe Poyraz, Haydar Kopal and \u015eaziment \u015eim\u015fek, none of whom had been eye-witnesses to the incident. They all requested the court to punish those responsible for the killing of their relatives. The same day, the court heard evidence from \u00d6zlem Tun\u00e7 and Mahmut Ya\u011f\u0131z. In her statement \u00d6zlem Tun\u00e7 submitted that she was living in the "}
+{"target": "North Sea", "prompt": "59.  Mr Nyg\u00e5rd worked as a North Sea diver from 1987-94. He carried out more than 200 air dives and saturation dives totalling approximately 200 days. He experienced numerous accidents and near-accidents as a "}
+{"target": "the Kar-Kar River", "prompt": "12.  One of the topics discussed in \u201cThe Karabakh Diary\u201d concerned the Khojaly massacre of 26 February 1992. Discussing this topic, the applicant made certain statements which could be construed as differing from the commonly accepted version of the Khojaly events according to which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians had been killed by the Armenian armed forces, with the reported assistance of the Russian (formerly Soviet) 366th Motorised Rifle Regiment, during their assault on the town of Khojaly in the course of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Specifically, the article contained the following passages:\n\u201cHaving seen Khojaly, I could not hide my astonishment. This Azerbaijani town, which had been razed to the ground, has been completely reconstructed and converted into a town called Ivanovka, named after an Armenian general who had actively participated in the occupation of Khojaly. The Khojaly tragedy and the deep wounds inflicted on our soul by the Armenian expansionism on this long-suffering Azerbaijani land permeated all my meetings in Askeran [a town in Nagorno-Karabakh close to Khojaly]. How so? Can it be true that nothing human is left in these people? However, for the sake of fairness I will admit that several years ago I met some refugees from Khojaly, temporarily settled in Naftalan, who openly confessed to me that, on the eve of the large-scale offensive of the Russian and Armenian troops on Khojaly, the town had been encircled [by those troops]. And even several days prior to the attack, the Armenians had been continuously warning the population about the planned operation through loudspeakers and suggesting that the civilians abandon the town and escape from the encirclement through a humanitarian corridor along "}
+{"target": "the Penza Region", "prompt": "38.  On 24 October 2011, in the course of an identity check conducted by the police, the applicant failed to present any documents that would authorise his stay in Russia. On the same date the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza found him guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of a breach of immigration regulations, fined him with RUB 3,000 and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. The court also ordered the applicant\u2019s placement in custody until his removal and noted that the decision could be appealed against within ten days after its announcement. In the decision the court noted the particular circumstances in which the offence had been committed and further stated as follows:\n\u201cIn order to determine the type ... of administrative penalty, the judge takes into account the concrete circumstances of the offence ... committed, [the applicant\u2019s] financial and family situation, his personality, [the fact that] in 2011 he was found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of regulations on foreign nationals\u2019 stay in the Russian Federation, and, furthermore, that from 10 August 2009 to 11 March 2011 he was living in "}
+{"target": "Upper Silesia", "prompt": "25.  On 13 March 1997 the applicants filed a pleading in reply to those arguments. They asserted that the fact that the majority of Poles failed to recognise the existence of a Silesian nation did not mean that there was no such nation. They cited various scientific publications and went on to explain that the fact that the Silesians formed a distinct group had already been acknowledged at the end of the First World War; moreover, the Silesians had always sought to preserve their identity and had always formed a distinct group, regardless of whether "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "29.  On 26 December 2003 the second applicant complained to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 04062 that his son had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms in several vehicles. He pointed out that when the abductors had been stopped at the GAI station, one of them had produced a special permit which had allowed the cars to pass without being checked. The second applicant also stated that he had managed to find out that Bashir Mutsolgov had been abducted by officers of the Ingushetia department of the FSB, the Chechnya department of the FSB and the Regional Department of the FSB in "}
+{"target": "the Kaunas City District", "prompt": "20.  Upon the initiative and consent of the applicant\u2019s adoptive father, on 30 June 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital for treatment. The applicant complained that she had been treated against her will. A letter by the hospital indicates that the applicant\u2019s adoptive father had asked the hospital staff to ensure that her contacts with D.G. were limited on the ground that the latter had had a negative influence on the applicant. However, on 3 September 2004 the prosecutor for "}
+{"target": "the Ilmenau", "prompt": "17.  Between the end of the hearing of the applicant by the L\u00fcneburg Regional Court on 7 November 2008 at around 3 p.m. and its decision at 9.15 p.m. on that day, the applicant essentially stayed in the office area of the L\u00fcneburg Police Station. She went outside for a walk on the banks of "}
+{"target": "the Atlantic Ocean", "prompt": "19.  On 31 December 2008 the pre-trial investigation was discontinued by the prosecutor for a second time. The prosecutor held that no crime had taken place and that the applicant\u2019s husband had died of a heart attack, when \u2018the ship was on a voyage in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "11.  On the same day the armed men apprehended two of the first applicant's nephews, Abdula and Artur; they were released a few hours later and returned home. Abdula and Artur told the applicants that following their arrest they had been brought to the premises of the military commander's office of "}
+{"target": "the Arctic Surveyor", "prompt": "21.  From the age of sixteen Mr Vilnes worked as a seaman for periods, pursued studies in mechanics and underwent secondary education and served as a marine soldier in the army until 1974. During the latter period he worked as a diver. From 20 May to 9 September 1975 Mr Vilnes was employed by the diving company ThreeX Diving Ltd., where he first worked as a diver and then as a diving team leader. Thereafter, he pursued further education in Switzerland. For a period, he took on diving jobs in parallel to studying.\n(i)  Incidents at "}
+{"target": "Yakkasarayskiy", "prompt": "92.  On 12 February 2015 K. questioned one of the police officers who had arrested the applicant, Mr Kh., as a witness. The interview was in Russian. The answer to the question about the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s arrest reads as follows:\n\u201cOn 14 June 2014 at about 7.30 a.m. in the "}
+{"target": "Prutets", "prompt": "18.  On 5 May 2003 the Regional Urban Development and Architecture Department (\u201cthe Urban Development Department\u201d) informed Yaremche and Tatariv Councils that the area near the applicant\u2019s house was not suitable for construction of the cemetery as it did not respect a 300-metre wide health protection zone that would protect the residential buildings and a 50-metre wide water protection zone to protect the "}
+{"target": "Kal\u0131", "prompt": "51.  According to the eye-witness accounts of events on 23 October given by the applicants Ahmet Ayder and Nadir Doman and the witnesses T\u00fcrkan, Tahir and Bedriye Ekmek\u00e7i, Huri Bi\u00e7er and Leyla Ayder, soldiers came to the "}
+{"target": "the Volgograd Region", "prompt": "16.  This application was lodged on 28 January 2011 by Aleksandr Vitalyevich Bgantsev, who was born in 1958 and lives in Volgograd. The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Lepilina, a lawyer practising in "}
+{"target": "Mesker-Yurt", "prompt": "52.  On 22 January 2004 Mr S.Kh., a resident of Starye Atagi, was questioned as a witness. He stated that in February 2002 there had been an armed clash between the federal troops and insurgents in his village. The federal servicemen had also carried out a special \u201csweeping\u201d operation, in the course of which his son and the three Nasukhanov brothers and their cousin had been arrested. The detainees had been brought to the mill where the military unit had been stationed. At the request of the local authorities the servicemen had released his son and Vakha Nasukhanov. The two Nasukhanov brothers and their cousin, as well as twelve other residents of Starye Atagi, had not been released and their fate had been unknown. Two or three days later, after the special operation in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "535.  All the applicants were charged generally with \u201cbeing subsidiary persons of an illegal organisation\u201d, i.e. the PKK. Specific allegations relating to this charge were set out in each case, ranging from providing free or cheap legal representation to PKK members, acting as couriers, handling weapons and drugs, making financial donations, organising propaganda, etc. In the case of \u0130mam \u015eahin, it was alleged, inter alia, that he had \u201cprepared documentation showing the PKK as innocent, stating that the incidents in the region occurred with the support of the State, belittling the State and ...that [he had] faxed these to "}
+{"target": "Nazran", "prompt": "110.  The first applicant was questioned on 10 September 2002 and 19 February 2009. On 9 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. She corroborated the third applicant\u2019s statements and added that on 21 August 2002 she had been in "}
+{"target": "the Val d\u2019Oise", "prompt": "28.  The Court of Appeal first found that the defendants\u2019 occupation of the land breached the land-use plan, which was automatically enforceable, and responded as follows to the arguments raised:\n\u201cWhile the right to housing is a constitutional principle, and while Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention ... guarantee respect for each person\u2019s private and family life and protect everyone from inhuman and degrading treatment, these superior principles have not in this particular case been impaired, as the municipality\u2019s action had a legal basis derived from compliance with regulations that are indiscriminately binding on everyone, thus sufficing to establish the public interest that is necessary for the exercise of such action, giving rise to adversarial proceedings at first instance and on appeal, and as the enforcement of a court decision given with due regard for defence rights cannot constitute the alleged degrading and inhuman treatment.\nThe long duration of the occupation does not create rights, neither does the tolerance, however lengthy, of such occupation in breach of the provisions of the municipality\u2019s land-use plan. It is therefore pointless for certain appellants to rely on the schooling of their children, which is not necessarily undermined, or on the irrelevant fact that they hold relocation record books (carnets de circulation), which do not exempt them from complying with the regulations.\nIt is equally pointless for the appellants to allege bad faith on the part of the municipality or that is has breached its statutory obligations under the Besson Act.\nIt transpires from a letter from the prefecture of "}
+{"target": "Island", "prompt": "40.  On the same date the neurosurgeon Dr Vallejo Lopez wrote the following statement (original in English):\n\u201cMr Alexander Matthew [sic], with Lumbalgia and Radicular pain at the level of L5-S1 (Lumbar Discal Hernia S5-S1) is under medical treatment with Physical Therapy, but his condition is not so good, specially the aspect of the pain. Considering the situation of the patient like prisoner (K.I.A. Aruba) it is very difficult to give guarantee that the medical treatment and Physical Therapy treatment are going in the normal direction.\nMr Matthew has indication for surgical procedure, but this indication at the present is not so clear, because of the abnormal situation of the patient. I suggest to have a second opinion with another Neurosurgeon and then it will be possible to define this difficult case.\nConsidering that Aruba has only one Neurosurgeon, we have to explore the needs to get a second opinion with the Neurosurgeon that periodically is visiting the "}
+{"target": "Kurgan Region", "prompt": "47.  In parallel to these proceedings, on 13 June 2002 the district prosecutor\u2019s office ruled not to charge Mr. S.K. and Mr. A.I. with incitement to racially motivated hatred on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act. On 26 June 2002 that decision was quashed by the "}
+{"target": "the Western Zone", "prompt": "74.  On 26 October 2001 the investigator questioned Major-General Yakov Nedobitko, who had headed the operation in Katyr-Yurt. He testified that at the relevant time he had headed a division of Interior Ministry troops which belonged to the Western Zone Alignment, headed by Major-General Vladimir Shamanov. The situation in the zone of their responsibility in early February 2000 was very difficult, because large groups of fighters were trying to break through from Grozny, via the plain, to mountains in the south of Chechnya. At the end of January 2000 the OC of the Western Zone Alignment issued an operation order to destroy these groups before they joined up with their supporters in the mountains. He further stated:\n\u201cFrom Shamanov I learnt that a large group of fighters, having escaped from Lermontov-Yurt, had entered Katyr-Yurt. Shamanov ordered me to conduct a special operation in Katyr-Yurt in order to detect and destroy the fighters.\nI drew up a plan of the special operation, which defined units of isolation, units of search, rules of fire in case of enemy fire, positions of ... roadblocks... Two roadblocks were envisaged \u2013 one at the exit towards Achkhoy-Martan, another \u2013 towards Valerik. ... The involvement of aviation was foreseen should the situation deteriorate. The artillery actions were planned ... in advance in order to target the possible bandit groups' retreat routes and the lines of arrival of reserves to assist the besieged groups. The artillery were only to be involved in the event of enemy fire against the search groups.\nThis plan was drawn up the night before the operation. On the evening of the same day Shamanov called me to the command headquarters of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "67.  On 20 July 2007 the applicants' lawyer Mr M.A. submitted to the SRJI a written statement concerning his study of the investigation file in case no. 61144. In this letter he described the following:\n\u201c... the criminal case file comprises one volume. The case was opened on 30 October 2002 ... Makka Dolsayeva was granted victim status and questioned. Kursolt Dolsayev was also questioned. No other investigative measures were taken. The investigation forwarded information requests to law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya asking whether the latter had apprehended the Dolsayev brothers; according to the responses, the brothers had not been apprehended [by the law-enforcement agencies].\nOn 30 December 2002 [the prosecutor's office] decided to suspend the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators; the investigator's decision stated that all possible investigative measures in the absence of anyone to be charged with the crime had been taken.\n... the crime scene examination was not conducted. Therefore it is possible to conclude that from the very beginning the investigation in the criminal case led to a dead-end; one could not possibly talk about its effectiveness.\nFor instance, in their witness statements Kursolt and Makka Dolsayev stated that after the abduction they had seen tyre marks of military vehicles on the ground; however, the investigation did not find that it was necessary to examine the crime scene [although] traces of the criminals or any other evidence left [by the culprits] could have been discovered there ...\nThe investigation did not question all the witnesses to the crime. [The applicants'] neighbours were questioned only in August 2003.\n... on 20 April 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed owing to 'the lack of response to several information requests forwarded to law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya'.\n... on 20 May 2003 the decision to suspend the criminal investigation was taken.\nOn 6 August 2003 the investigation was resumed.\nA plan of operational-investigative measures was drawn up on 6 August 2003. According to the prosecutor's office, the investigation's main theory was the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers by servicemen of federal forces. To verify this theory, [the investigation] issued the order 'to conduct by 18 August 2003 an expert evaluation of the objects collected from the crime scene'. However, it should be recalled that the crime scene examination had not been conducted and, consequently, no objects had been collected from the scene. The investigative orders listed in the plan of operational-investigative measures had not been carried out.\nThe investigation in the criminal case was suspended on 6 September 2003.\nOn 4 April 2005 the investigation was resumed.\nOrders concerning 'verification of the operations conducted by the servicemen of the Urus-Martan FSB and servicemen of the "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya", "prompt": "99.  On 29 November 2004 the Primorskiy Regional Court (\u201cthe Regional Court\u201d) upheld on appeal the judgment delivered in the second applicant\u2019s case. It confirmed that the Vladivostok city authorities had had no obligation to clear "}
+{"target": "Jaghori", "prompt": "11.  When the applicant was asked why he had left Afghanistan, he stated that his family had sent him away so he could live a safer life. His father had died in Afghanistan six years earlier. His mother lived with the applicant and his three young siblings in the "}
+{"target": "Katranc\u0131 Bay", "prompt": "10.  On 20 January 2004 the other co-accused, Y.A., who had allegedly killed \u0130.G. according to the applicant\u2019s statement, was arrested. In his statement to the police, made in the presence of his lawyer, Y.A. stated that on the day of the incident, before meeting \u0130.G. to go to "}
+{"target": "Ezine", "prompt": "5.  On 26 July 1978 the applicant brought an action before the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Court of First Instance against her stepmother, Ms S.C. and her stepbrother, Mr L.C. (hereinafter all three referred to as \u201cthe parties\u201d) and requested the annulment of their title deeds to several plots of land in the "}
+{"target": "Urus\u2011Martan", "prompt": "11.  On 20 April 2000, during the daytime, Mr Nazyrov and his friend, Mr Said-Selim Aguyev, were at the applicant\u2019s house in Gekhi when a group of about thirty to forty armed servicemen from the Police Special Task Unit (\u041e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f (\u041e\u041c\u041e\u041d)) (hereinafter \u201cthe OMON\u201d) comprised of servicemen from the Perm Region arrived at the settlement in several vehicles. Some of them were wearing balaclavas. They cordoned off the area and ordered the residents to stay inside. About fifteen servicemen broke into the applicant\u2019s house and searched it. Then they beat up the applicant\u2019s brother and his friend, pulled their T-shirts over their heads, put them into UAZ-type minivans and took them to the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "77.  Lastly, the court considered that, in respect of Article 3 of the Constitution regarding the principle of equality, the relevant legislation did not create an unreasonable discrimination, given that homosexual unions could not be considered equivalent to marriage. Even Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not require full equality between homosexual unions and marriages between a man and a woman, as this was a matter of Parliamentary discretion to be regulated by national law, as evidenced by the different approaches existing in "}
+{"target": "Drin", "prompt": "23.  On 6 May 2014 the Vare\u0161 Social Work Centre informed the Visoko Municipal Court that it considered that the applicant\u2019s continued placement in Drin was in his best interest for reasons of social protection.\n 24.  The applicant had not yet been released from "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "7.  The day after, on 24 November 2006, the police again questioned A.M., after which they lodged a criminal complaint against him with the Zadar Municipal State Attorney\u2019s Office (Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u Zadru). On the same day, at the request of the police, the investigating judge of the Zadar County Court (\u017dupanijski sud u Zadru), Mr B.B., issued a warrant for police to search through the camera used by A.M. and through Narodni List\u2019s computers with a view to finding photographs of Ms Z.S.-K. During the search, which was carried out on the same day between 2.45 p.m. and 4.05 p.m. on the applicant company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Novopushkinskiy Park", "prompt": "31.  Having received the above reply, the organisers submitted a notice with a view to holding other events on the same date and time as the march for which permission had been refused. They informed the prefect of the Moscow Central Administrative Circuit of their intention to hold a picket in front of the Moscow mayor's office at Tverskaya Square and another one in "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "12.  Then the second applicant went to the fourth applicant's house and told her Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. The second and the fourth applicants immediately went to the town centre, where they met the first applicant. In the late afternoon all of them managed to speak to the deputy head of the Urus-Martan district administration, Mr L.M., who told them that Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been taken to the \u201c"}
+{"target": "Vyborgskiy", "prompt": "9.  Between July 2001 and May 2003 the first applicant took up temporary residence in the Admiralteyskiy district of St. Petersburg. In January 2004 he obtained a new temporary residence permit in the "}
+{"target": "Gudermes", "prompt": "91.  The investigators questioned a number of applicants and other relatives of the victims. The first applicant was questioned and granted victim status on 25 December 2002. She gave statements relating to the kidnapping of her son, Magomed Shakhgiriyev, and the subsequent finding of his body in the "}
+{"target": "Latin America", "prompt": "7.  In 2007 the police and the State Attorney\u2019s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: \u201cthe OSCOC\u201d) investigated allegations of possible drug trafficking between "}
+{"target": "sub-Saharan Africa", "prompt": "13.  The applicants were then transferred to Nador police station, where they requested medical assistance. Their request was refused. They were subsequently taken, together with other individuals who had been returned in similar circumstances, to Fez, some 300 km from Nador, where they were left to fend for themselves. The applicants stated that between 75 and 80 migrants from "}
+{"target": "Kirov", "prompt": "42.  On 24 December 2012 the District Court gave judgment in X\u2019s case, after examining it in accelerated proceedings, without an examination of evidence. The court found X guilty of dissipating Kirovles\u2019 assets (Article 160 \u00a7 4 of the Criminal Code) and handed him a four-year suspended sentence with three years\u2019 parole. The judgment indicated that X had conspired with two others, \u201cN.\u201d and \u201cO.\u201d and contained, in particular, the following findings:\n\u201c... at the end of December 2008 [to the] beginning of January 2009...the Governor of the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus Region", "prompt": "36.  According to a reply from the deputy head of CP, that authority had not carried out any special operations in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004; Luiza Mutayeva had not been taken to any penal institutions in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "59.  On 10 November 2009 the investigators questioned the applicant\u2019s relative, Mr M.A., who stated that he had witnessed the abduction. His statement concerning its circumstances was similar to the one given by the applicant and Abdul-Yazit\u2019s wife, Ms El.Yu. In addition, he stated that the abductors had told the applicant that they were from the FSB and that the abductors had driven three Priora cars with tinted windows and without registration numbers. The witness and his relatives thought that Abdul-Yazit Askhabov had been arrested by ROVD officers and, therefore, immediately went to the Shali ROVD premises. They were told to come back in the morning. At about 9 a.m. on 5 August 2009 M.A. and the applicant returned to the ROVD, where they were told that Abdul-Yazit Askhabov had been neither arrested by their officers nor detained on their "}
+{"target": "the Malgobek IVS", "prompt": "84.  As can be seen from the statements collected in January 2008 from the applicant and his father, some time in 2001 police officer Musa Kh. had been charged with false imprisonment and abuse of power in relation to the taking of Suleyman Tsechoyev from "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy district", "prompt": "15.  On the way back, after having picked up Mr Visadi Samrailov, the three men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained. Mr Alikhan Sultygov, Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the "}
+{"target": "Pirin", "prompt": "26.  As to the other ground for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional, incompatibility with Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution, the court pointed to a number of specific instances in which members of the applicant party and its predecessor organisations had engaged in conduct prohibited under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution:\n\u2013  A meeting on 20 April 1991 at the Rozhen Monastery. At this meeting a declaration had been adopted, demanding full cultural, economic and political autonomy of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "72.  On 26 June 2009 the applicants commenced two sets of judicial review proceedings. In one (\u201cthe first action\u201d), they sought to challenge the deportation orders. That action does not form the basis of their application to this Court. The other (\u201cthe second action\u201d) was lodged against five defendants: (1) Greater Manchester Police (\u201cGMP\u201d); (2) West Yorkshire Police (\u201cWYP\u201d); (3) the City of Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court; (4) Manchester Magistrates\u2019 Court; and (5) the Home Secretary. In their claim form, the applicants sought to challenge the legality of their treatment between 8 and 21 April. They contended in particular that their rights under Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 4 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been breached because they had not been provided with sufficient information at the time of arrest or detention as to the nature of the allegations against them; and because of the closed procedure permitted in hearing applications for warrants of further detention. They further argued that the searches of their homes were unlawful because the search warrants had been granted in terms that were too wide; because the terms of the warrants had been breached in that although the police had permission to undertake a search on one occasion they had actually occupied the "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "165.  In February 2003 the head of the criminal police department in Khankala, Mr Zhizhin, informed the town prosecutor\u2019s office that Mr Temergeriyev had not been taken to the criminal police department in Khankala, since there were no detention facilities there. In February 2003 the head of the operational group for the prison system of the Ministry of Justice in "}
+{"target": "the Komunarskyy District of Zaporizhzhya", "prompt": "25.  On 10 June 2008 the Komunarskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (\u201cthe District Court\u201d) terminated the proceedings against R. as time-barred. It further noted that the civil claim was to be considered in the course of separate civil proceedings. On the same date the District Court issued a separate ruling informing the Prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "71.  In the Government\u2019s submission, this report stated that because of the exceptional meteorological conditions on 7 August 2001, when the actual rainfall exceeded several times the amount forecast, it had not been possible to avoid a sudden large-scale evacuation of water from the Pionerskoye reservoir. According to the Government, the report further stated that the actions of the Water Company on the date in question had been in compliance with relevant regulations and correct, and in particular the water release regime chosen by the Water Company on that day had been close to optimal. According to the report, on 7 August 2001 between 12 noon and 2 p.m. the evacuation of water remained at its maximum rate of 167 cubic metres per second. In the Government\u2019s submission, if the Pionerskoye reservoir had not existed, rainwater would have flooded to the mouth of "}
+{"target": "the North-West District", "prompt": "200.  Mr Shchekin presented two reports: one referring to the personal income-tax evasion charge and the other in relation to the corporate tax evasion charge. Both reports were collected by the defence on 10 January 2005. In his report on the company-tax evasion charges Mr Shchekin explained that it was common and accepted practice for taxes to be paid for by promissory notes in 1999; he relied in particular upon a letter of December 1999 from the Finance Minister and the First Deputy Minister of Taxes and the decision of the Federal Commercial Court of 24 December 2001. Mr Shchekin further explained that the trading companies had entered into lawful agreements with the local administration for taxes to be paid by way of promissory notes. Mr Shchekin also explained that in his opinion there was no basis for characterising the trading companies as sham companies. He indicated that the question of where the oil products traded by those companies were produced and kept was irrelevant for granting them the tax cuts. In support he referred to the decision of the Federal Commercial Court for "}
+{"target": "the Kentron District", "prompt": "13.  On the same date the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal reviewed the applicant\u2019s conviction, finding that:\n\u201c[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for attending an unauthorised demonstration in "}
+{"target": "Zaychar Street", "prompt": "17.  Having been notified about the incident, between 9.15 p.m. and 9.28 p.m. on 5 June 1997 an on\u2011duty investigator from the Sofia Investigation Service inspected the scene of the shooting and the cell in which Mr Karandja had been kept. He drew a sketch and took photographs, but did not try to identify the distance between Mr Karandja and Chief Sergeant G.P. at the time of the shooting. He seized: (a) a spent cartridge found at an unspecified location in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "78.  In his statement, Constantin Gheorghe confirmed that Gabriel had been kept in a ward under constant police surveillance. Although he did not see Gabriel during his stay in the hospital, he accompanied Nela Carabulea and Dumitru Dinu and he heard Gabriel call out \u201cThey killed me!\u201d He witnessed Nela Carabulea and Dumitru Dinu come out of Gabriel's ward and tell him how Gabriel had complained that he had been tortured by the police under Captain U.'s command. He saw Gabriel's body after he had died. There were bruises on the legs and face, under the chin and on the genitals. 2.  As the mobility of the population increases throughout "}
+{"target": "the Volga Region", "prompt": "19.  The court held that all of the above statements were incompatible with the Constitution. The court stated, inter alia, the following: \n\u201c...the Ulyanovsk Regional Organisation of the People\u2019s Democratic Party Vatan openly calls for violation of the integrity of Russia, for violent alteration of the foundations  of constitutional governance and for the creation of an Islamic State in "}
+{"target": "\u2018Veseli Brijeg\u2019", "prompt": "9.  On 3 March 2006 S.\u0160. gave his evidence before an investigating judge of the Bjelovar County Court (\u017dupanijski sud u Bjelovaru). He said that he had overheard conversations between the applicant and M.G. in which they had discussed the murder of three persons of which M.G. had been accused and which had revealed that the applicant had been an accomplice in these crimes. The relevant part of the written record of his statement reads:\n\u201cOwing to health problems I was placed in Zagreb Prison Hospital between 23 November 2005 and 13 January 2006. ... The day after I had been admitted to the Hospital, M.G. arrived and was placed in the same room. His bed was next to mine. ...\nAbout five to six days after that Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 was placed in the same room. ... His bed was next to the one occupied by M.G. so that M.G. was between the two of us. When Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 came into the room he exchanged greetings with M.G. and their conversation gave me the impression that they had known each other for years. ... M.G. and Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 had secret conversations for days. They sat on their beds and talked and since my bed was next to theirs, although they were talking in lowered voices, I could hear what they were saying. I heard Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 saying that he had prospered from that money and that his business was going well, and I heard M.G. saying: \u2018We did it all well, only I made a mistake by placing the money into a container\u2019, but he did not explain what container. They also mentioned that about 960,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) had been found in the house, some in foreign currency, and some in HRK. I heard Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 saying that he had been afraid to go to the border crossing between Stara Gradi\u0161ka and Bosanska Gradi\u0161ka and that in the end he had crossed [the State border] in Davor, and he also mentioned that he had been accompanied by a woman, but I could not understand whether it had been his wife or the wife of M.G.\nI also heard Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 telling M.G. that he had had to walk around in Bosnia for a whole day, in Banja Luka, in order to send a signal from a mobile telephone to Bjelovar, [which would show] that M.G. had been in Bosnia.. Nedjeljko Ajdari\u0107 also mentioned that he had gone to a hill known as "}
+{"target": "Asans\u00f6r", "prompt": "10.  On 7 January 1995 following a heavy rain, rocks fell on house no. 113. On 11 January 1995 the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and prepared a report. The report concluded that eleven houses located in the "}
+{"target": "Principality", "prompt": "40.  Following the appeal by the Prince, the Court of Appeal ordered the magazine not to republish or allow to be published a photograph which had appeared in the 4 May 2005 issue of Bunte, showing the claimant in a moment of intimacy with Ms Coste. However, it considered that the issue of a male heir to the prince of Monaco \u2013 a constitutional hereditary monarchy \u2013 was of decisive importance, and that the interest taken in this question not only by the citizens of Monaco but also by many persons who lived outside the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "31.  On 27 November 2007 the investigators questioned police officer G.O., who made a statement about the events similar to that given by his colleague, sergeant I.S. (see paragraph 27 above). In addition he stated that he and his colleagues had been providing security for the hotel\u2019s residents, including the Deputy Ministers of the Interior Selivanov and Seliverstov, who were in residence there at the time. At about 8 p.m. on 23 November 2007 a duty officer from the Ministry of the Interior had arrived at the hotel and told them that a Deputy Minister of the Interior had ordered the security team to leave the hotel and go to the Ministry of the Interior building. The witness had refused to do so, as there had been no orders from his superior officers to this effect. Then, about two hours later, the Deputy Minister of the Interior in charge of the borders, Mr A. Kh., had phoned the hotel and ordered the police security group to go to the Ministry of the Interior to secure its "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "9.  On 9 December 2005, at a ceremony to mark the start of work on the Baltic Sea gas pipeline (\u201cOstseepipeline\u201d), it was announced that Mr Schr\u00f6der had been appointed chairman of the supervisory board of the German-Russian consortium NEGP (Konsortium Nordeurop\u00e4ische Gaspipeline). The aim of the consortium, which had its registered office in Switzerland and was controlled by the Russian company Gazprom, was to build a gas pipeline to supply Russian gas to western "}
+{"target": "the Security Area", "prompt": "37.  The parties to the present case agreed that approximately 1,000 Russian servicemen were stationed in Transdniestria to guard the arms store. In addition, the parties agreed that there were approximately 1,125 Russian soldiers stationed in "}
+{"target": "Dicle", "prompt": "152.  Halise Acar stated that on the day in question her husband Mehmet Salim Acar and their son \u0130hsan had left in the morning to work in a field close to the neighbouring village of Sar\u0131toprak. Around noon, her son had come running home, telling her that his father had been taken away in a car without licence plates. He also told her that there had been two men in the car. Halise Acar further stated that this Renault taxi had already been seen several times in the village. Her daughter had told her that she had seen her father in that car on the "}
+{"target": "Shevchenkivskyy District", "prompt": "33.  On 16 May 2007 the prosecutors rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, finding that there was no evidence that the first applicant\u2019s bruises had been inflicted by police officers. The prosecutors\u2019 decision was principally based on the statements of the police officers who had taken part in the first applicant\u2019s arrest and those who had been in contact with him afterwards. Those police officers stated that the first applicant had not been subjected to \u201cphysical or psychological coercion\u201d and that he had not raised any complaints in that regard on 14 or 15 October 2005. They also argued that after his arrest on 14 October 2005 and until his placement in a cell at the "}
+{"target": "Mozdokskaya", "prompt": "80.  S.L., the spouse of Nura Luluyeva, stated that he had learnt from his wife\u2019s relative that between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. on 3 June 2000 his wife and two other women had been apprehended by masked servicemen in "}
+{"target": "the Occupied Territories", "prompt": "46.  Human Rights Watch notes in its 2004 report \u201cCreating Enemies of the State. Religious Persecution in Uzbekistan\u201d:\n\u201cHizb ut-Tahrir renounces violence as a means to achieve reestablishment of the Caliphate. However, it does not reject the use of violence during armed conflicts already under way and in which the group regards Muslims as struggling against oppressors, such as Palestinian violence against Israeli occupation. Its literature denounces secularism and Western-style democracy. Its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements have led the government of Germany to ban it ... Some in the diplomatic community, in particular the U.S. government, consider Hizb ut-Tahrir to be a political organization and therefore argue that imprisoned Hizb ut-Tahrir members are not victims of religious persecution. But religion and politics are inseparable in Hizb ut-Tahrir\u2019s ideology and activities ... Even if one accepts that there is a political component to Hizb ut-Tahrir\u2019s ideology, methods, and goals, this does not vitiate the right of that group\u2019s members to be protected from religion-based persecution ...\nHizb ut-Tahrir\u2019s designation as a nonviolent organization has been contested. Hizb ut-Tahrir literature does not renounce violence in armed struggles already under way \u2013in Israel and "}
+{"target": "Zakan-Yurt", "prompt": "23.  On 7 July 2009 in reply to the applicant\u2019s detailed request on the progress of the investigation, the investigators informed him that they had neither yet interviewed the traffic policemen from the "}
+{"target": "the Central Administrative District", "prompt": "59.  On 15 July 2005 the applicant appealed against that decision to the City Court through the district court. On an unspecified date the court returned the applicant\u2019s complaint and stated that since no investigation was pending in respect of him in "}
+{"target": "the Ob River", "prompt": "344.  The distance between Moscow and Kharp is over 3,300 km by road. According to the Government, Kharp township had a direct railway connection with Moscow. Several trains ran on that line, including \u201cPolar Arrow\u201d, a \u201chigh-class train. That train had all necessary amenities, including two-bed compartments in \u201ceconomy\u201d and \u201cbusiness\u201d class, services for children and a restaurant. Further, Moscow had a direct air connection with Salekhard, a nearby town. It was possible to get to Kharp from Salekhard by train or by car, through the town of Labytnangy and across "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "56.  On 5 November 2009 the investigators drew up a plan of steps to be taken in the criminal investigation. The document stated, amongst other things:\n\u201c... the following hypotheses concerning the abduction are in the process of being checked out: 1.  The disappearance of A.-Ya. Askhabov is related to his arrest as a result of a special operation conducted by representatives of federal power structures; 2.  The victim [Abdul-Yazit Askhabov] was the target of a crime committed by other persons for other motives.\nIn connection with the above, it is necessary to do the following: 2.  examine the registration log of detainees in the temporary detention unit (the IVS) of the Shali ROVD, identify and question the IVS officers who were on duty on the night of 4-5 August 2009 and question the head of the IVS about the possible detention of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov on their "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "104.  A report of 30 April 2003 gave the results of the examination of the register of military actions of the aircraft of the United Group Alignment (\u0436\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0430\u043b \u0431\u043e\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0430\u0432\u0438\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u041e\u0413\u0412) for the period from 29 September 1999 to 20 January 2000. According to the report, on 19 October 1999 two entries had been made in the register; they concerned two attacks by federal military helicopters against illegal fighters who had been located about forty kilometres from "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martanovskiy", "prompt": "37.  On 20 May 2005 the military commander of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the abduction of her sons by armed men in camouflage uniforms to the military commander\u2019s office of the "}
+{"target": "Danube", "prompt": "6.  Mr Popov is an heir of Mr M. and Mr Chonin is an heir of Ms F. Mr Popov is entitled to one eighth of the inheritance of Mr M., and Mr Chonin to one ninth of the inheritance of Ms F. The applicants\u2019 two predecessors were co-owners of an afforested island in the "}
+{"target": "the Balakhinskiy District", "prompt": "30.  On 12 May 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Sovetskiy District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim, having found as follows:\n\u201cFrom the criminal case file no. 69727 it is evident that on 27 April 2004 the police performed an operative drill concerning [the applicant] on the basis of [the police] order of 21 April 2004. It was carried out in order to check [the applicant\u2019s potential] involvement in the offence. During the operative drill the applicant was put into a car and taken to a forest in "}
+{"target": "the Comoro Islands", "prompt": "48.  The Aliens and Immigration Office contacted the French Embassy in Cyprus for the purpose of establishing whether the applicant was a French citizen. The Embassy informed them that they would first talk to him on the phone and then, if he was indeed a French citizen, proceed to issue a travel document. They suspected, however, that he was from "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "24.  Shortly thereafter, at about 3 or 4 p.m. on 25 October 2003 the servicemen put a black plastic bag over the applicant's head, plastered his eyes with adhesive tape and took him outside the building. Then they placed him in a car, put on some loud music and drove for around forty or fifty minutes. Despite the music, the applicant was able to hear that the car was moving through busy streets. He also heard the servicemen talking over their walkie-talkies. During the ride they told the applicant that they were going to shoot him. According to the applicant, the car was moving in the direction of the Minutka Square or "}
+{"target": "the Oktyabrskiy District", "prompt": "45.  The decision further referred to statements from a number of witnesses, including the applicant\u2019s daughter and daughter-in-law, the applicant\u2019s two neighbours and Movsar Musitov, all of whom had given a similar description of the events of 12 May 2001. The decision also stated that FSB officer T. had been questioned on 10 July and 22 October 2001 and FSB officer M. had been questioned on 16 July 2001 and 23 October 2002. They both testified that on 12 May 2001 in the vicinity of the \u201cNeftyanik\u201d market in Grozny they had apprehended three men, including Isa Kaplanov and Ruslan Sadulayev, for insulting local residents with swearwords, had taken them to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and had left the detainees there. The next day they had found out that the detainees had been released. Officer T. stated that he had drawn up a report on the detention of the three men, whilst officer M. submitted that he did not remember whether he had drawn up any reports. The decision further stated that the fact of the apprehension on 12 May 2001 of the applicant\u2019s relatives and Movsar Musitov had been confirmed by the head of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD in a letter of 8 June 2001 and by the acting head of the Chechen Department of the FSB in a letter of 12 August 2001. The decision continued that on 14 May 2001 an investigator of the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office had examined the register of persons held in the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and had found out that the names of the applicant\u2019s son, son-in-law and Movsar Musitov had not been listed among those detained there. The decision also referred to the statement of B., who between 12 April and 23 July 2001 had been seconded to Chechnya as the head of the police of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD. B. had stated that on a date which he could not remember FSB officers had delivered four or five persons, who, as claimed by those officers, had been detained during a \u201csweeping-up\u201d operation in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "20.  The prosecutor questioned R., the secretary of the TEC, who explained that all the material requested by the applicant on 31 October 2004 had been posted on the information stand on the TEC\u2019s premises on the same day or the next day. It was also noted that the Presidential Elections Act did not provide for the possibility of receiving information about detailed voting results for each polling station. R. also submitted that the applicant \u201chad shouted out loud remarks about \u2018wrong decisions\u2019 of the TEC and had wandered round the TEC\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "10.  Some time later a number of armed men arrived in two armoured personnel carriers. According to the witnesses, they were servicemen of the Russian armed forces. Without any prior warning the servicemen opened indiscriminate fire across the field. The witnesses hid so that they could observe the events in safety. The servicemen also fired at the applicant\u2019s husband and Mr D. Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov was killed on the spot. Then the servicemen crossed the river and shot Mr D. They dropped the two dead bodies in the river, got in the armoured personnel carriers and drove away in the direction of "}
+{"target": "the Tambov Region", "prompt": "17.  In response to a further complaint made by the applicant about the conditions of his detention at the correctional colony, the regional prosecutor\u2019s office conducted another inquiry and on 11 November 2009 informed the applicant of its results as follows:\n\u201cIt was established in the course of the inquiry, that as regards certain dormitories, the administration of correctional colony no. IK-1 in "}
+{"target": "Aegean", "prompt": "38.  By a decision of 29 September 2010 the Commission held that the applicant\u2019s objection to its initial findings of 16 September 2010 (see paragraph 29 above) was not in accordance with the information available, and that consequently he did not fulfil the additional requirement for holding public office. The decision was based on the applicant\u2019s personal record, and contains a list of twenty-two documents. It summarised the contents of the documents and stated that the applicant had begun collaborating in 1964 and had been deregistered in 1983, that he had provided information on students whose activities were monitored by the security service for political reasons and that, as evident from the two payment receipts, he had in 1965 been paid for the collaboration. The relevant part of the Commission\u2019s decision reads as follows:\n\u201c... From the data available in the personal record compiled by the [secret police of the SFRY] it was established that in the rubric \u2018collaboration relationship\u2019 it is stated that [the applicant] is a collaborator of the [secret police] recruited on the ground of compromising material. It was further established that [the applicant] started his collaboration with the [secret police] as early as 1964 as a high-school student who, when it was proposed to him that he be registered in the collaborators\u2019 network, stated that \u2018he gladly accepted the collaboration and would do anything for the service\u2019, and that he was allocated a pseudonym under which he later delivered all the information to the [secret police]. In 1965 he officially became a collaborator of the [secret police]. In the documentation, in ten reports drafted by the Internal Affairs Unit in Strumica, on a number of pages, [the applicant] under his pseudonym appears as a source giving information about his schoolmates, which [information] was used by the [secret police] as operational material on the activities of high-school youth in Strumica. From four reports, it is apparent that also later on, as a student in Skopje, he gave information about students of various faculties, of which in the personal record there are five reports concerning a number of individuals whom the [secret police] monitored and had information that they were dissatisfied with the authorities in view of their weak interest in the situation of the Macedonians in the "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "31.  On 10 August 2009 the investigators asked the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior to inform them of the outcome of a criminal case against a relative of the deceased, Mr D. Abdurzakarov (also spelt Abdurzakov), in connection with the murder of FSB servicemen and police officers in 2000. The relevant parts of the request stated as follows:\n\u201c... The criminal case ... contains information about the involvement of officers of the Chechnya FSB stationed in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "129.  On 5 July 2004, in response to a request from the investigator of the district prosecutor\u2019s office in charge of criminal case no. 61004, the NGO Memorial stated that, according to their figures, between December 1999 and March 2004, 205 residents of the "}
+{"target": "Punta Perotti", "prompt": "18.  In the same judgment, finding that the development plans were materially in breach of Law no. 47/1985 and illegal, the Bari District Court ordered, in accordance with section 19 of that Law, the confiscation of all the developed land at "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "6.  At the material time Avtury village was under the full control of Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were situated on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The military commander\u2019s office was located in the village. The applicants, Isa Aygumov and other relatives lived at 13 Naberezhnaya Street (in the submitted documents the address was also stated as 11 Naberezhnaya Street) in Avtury, in the "}
+{"target": "the Shali district", "prompt": "44.  On 27 November 2002 the district prosecutor\u2019s office sent requests for information to the ROVD, the department of the FSB of the Shali district, a military prosecutor\u2019s office, the military commander of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "10.  Nevertheless, no practical action was taken until two years later, because of an escalation in criminal activities in Ulucanlar between 1 January and 1 August 1998, including one murder involving the use of a firearm, one murder by stabbing, one case of arson, one attempted escape, one case of hostage-taking of prison officers and four cases of infliction of serious bodily harm.\nOn 7 August 1998 the CDGA alerted the authorities (by letter, HRK no.: 0621-3094-98/ ASY\u015e [7476]) to the risks arising from the aforementioned situation, which, it said, had robbed the prison staff of all their authority. According to the CDGA, although security outside the prison premises was duly guaranteed by the gendarmerie, \u201cit was only a matter of time before the volcano inside the building erupted\u201d.\nHaving received that information, the Governor drew the attention of the Justice and Interior Ministers and the prosecutor\u2019s office to the following findings, which he considered called for urgent action:\n\u2013  Ulucanlar is an old prison which no longer meets current standards, and its structure encourages prison breaks via tunnels, given that the prison premises, and in particular the living areas, contain vegetation and trees blocking the prison guards\u2019 view, which facilitates the digging of such tunnels and concealment of the earth extracted;\n\u2013  the passages between dormitories run through the living areas, thus hampering any necessary intervention by the guards; the fact that the dormitories are adjacent to each other promotes the hierarchisation of the prisoners, ideological indoctrination, racketeering and all modes of communication with the outside;\n\u2013  under pressure exerted by leftist prisoners, the prison doctors use dietary pretexts to bring all kinds of foodstuffs and medicines into the prison; the prison staff are also unscrupulous; some of them act as messengers and smugglers; and the prison guards can only inspect the dormitories if the prisoners authorise it;\n\u2013  the leftist prisoners post up ideological placards around the living areas; the doors to the dormitories and living areas are left open between presence checks, the prisoners are free to move around the premises as they wish, including the female dormitory, and they even stand guard over various parts of the prison;\n\u2013  it is common knowledge that the prisoners in Ulucanlar have weapons, mobile telephones, shovels, picks, iron bars, cudgels and stones, ready to be used during riots; during the most recent searches, three handguns, two mobile phones and five SIM cards were discovered on the "}
+{"target": "Urus Martan", "prompt": "28.  On 23 June 2004 Amnesty International issued a media briefing entitled \u201cRussian Federation: Chechen Republic \u2013 \u2018Normalization\u2019 in whose eyes?\u201d. The paper referred to Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov\u2019s disappearance as follows:\n\u201cOn 30 December 2002, an armoured personnel carrier (APC) in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "5.  By decision of 9 May 2003, which became final and binding on 4 September 2003, the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u201cthe Chamber\u201d) found that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) had discriminated against the applicant in its enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. In order to remedy the situation it ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure the relocation of public schools housed in the Archdiocese High School building in Travnik, and to reinstate the applicant in the "}
+{"target": "the Urus\u2011Martan District", "prompt": "46.  On 8 May 2003 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the third applicant that investigative measures were being taken in order to establish whether servicemen of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB deployed in "}
+{"target": "the River Dnipro", "prompt": "13.  Having been informed of the alleged hijacking, Os., the First Deputy of the Dniprovskyy district police office, issued appropriate instructions to four police officers and placed them at various posts. In particular, police officer K. was placed, together with a traffic police officer, Ko., in the vicinity of the Antonovskyy Bridge over "}
+{"target": "Herblay", "prompt": "40. The applicants can be divided into three groups:\n(i)  Families rehoused in social housing\nFour families were relocated in social housing between March and July 2008 further to the MOUS agreement of 12 November 2007 (see paragraph 37 above): Solange Lef\u00e8vre, Catherine Lef\u00e8vre and her three children, Sandrine Plumerez and her five children, and Sabrina Lef\u00e8vre, her partner (not an applicant) and her three children.\n(ii)  Families remaining in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "36.  On 16 October 2008 the County Administrative Court rejected the request. It stated that Draupner was the subject of a tax audit and that all electronic or paper documents linked to the company\u2019s business found on its "}
+{"target": "the Tender Comet", "prompt": "141.  Mr Vilnes appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining that the Norwegian authorities had given prior approval to diving operations carried out from the vessels (1) Arctic Surveyor and (2) Tender Comet, (3) had authorised dispensation from the requirements regarding the maximum length of the umbilical used in a diving operation from "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "9.  At the relevant time the applicant was the publisher and editor in chief of the weekly Domino efekt. In 1994 and 1995 the weekly published three articles which concerned civil proceedings for defamation pending before the Slovakian courts. The proceedings were between Mr Slobodn\u00edk, a Minister who became later a Member of Parliament, and Mr Feldek, a poet and publicist who had published a statement alleging, inter alia, that Mr Slobodn\u00edk had a fascist past. The relevant parts of the articles, which were not written by the applicant, read as follows. 1.  Article published on 1 April 1994\n\u201cQuo vadis, Slovakian justice? (A shameful judgment delivered by the Supreme Court)\nWhen the Bratislava City Court put an end to the first round of the judicial dispute between Mr Slobodn\u00edk and Mr Feldek dismissing the former minister\u2019s action for protection of his personality rights, voices could be heard alleging that the outcome of the appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court would be different. They argued that [the Supreme Court] judges were \u2018different\u2019. Those views came true and Slovakia faces further ridicule at the international level. The Supreme Court chamber presided over by [judge \u0160. - the article mentioned the full name of the judge] did not disappoint.\nA tragicomic farce\nThe Slovakian poet and writer \u013dubom\u00edr Feldek (who opted for Czech nationality in the meantime) stated in 1992 that Mr Du\u0161an Slobodn\u00edk, who had just become the Minister of Culture of the Slovak Republic, should not exercise the post of a minister in a democratic state as he had a fascist past... The statement was based on facts which were generally known: during World War II Slobodn\u00edk had been a member of the Hlinka Youth and he had participated in a terrorist course in Sekule organised under the auspices of that organisation. Several participants in that course (it should be mentioned that Du\u0161an Slobodn\u00edk was not among them) had been later involved in the killing of the inhabitants of [a] village...\nFeldek, who never alleged that Slobodn\u00edk was a murderer or a criminal ... expressed the view of a citizen of a free society who considered that a person who had belonged to the Hlinka Youth and who had been close to people who later killed members of the civilian population, should not be a minister of a democratic state. Nothing more and nothing less...\n[Instead of retiring from the post] Slobodn\u00edk filed an action for protection of his personality rights and thus gave rise to a case which, in a certain way, is tragicomic... [and in the course of which Mr Slobodn\u00edk] failed to show that he had not been a member of the Hlinka Youth and that he had not participated in the course in Sekule. [Mr Slobodn\u00edk] thus failed to disprove the facts on the basis of which Feldek had declared that he had a fascist past. We simply recall that a decree by President Bene\u0161 of 1945 provided that the Hlinka Youth was to be considered as a fascist organisation.\nStrange reasoning\nThe Bratislava City Court took all the above facts into account and ... dismissed the action of Slobodn\u00edk. [The City Court judge] ...thus established the very best case-law for the newly born democracy and warned every politician that his or her past may and even must be the object of an increased interest by the public.\nAt the hearing held on 22 March 1994 [the Supreme Court] judge \u0160. took the opposite approach in that he ordered Feldek to pay 200,000 Slovakian korunas [SKK] to Slobodn\u00edk and to apologise to the latter [in the press]... Thus [judge \u0160.] warned all citizens of the Slovak Republic that, should they come to the conclusion that the moral profile of a politician is incompatible with the exercise of the public function entrusted to him or her, they had better keep quiet.\n[Judge \u0160.] also showed the strength of his spirit when giving reasons for the judgment. 1. Hlinka Youth ... was, in principle, a very good organisation which had been abused by politicians, 2. Feldek not only caused damage to Slobodn\u00edk, but also to the whole of Slovakia, the Prime Minister, the Movement for a Democractic Slovakia, the Government and the Parliament, ... 4. the post-war retribution decrees enacted in Czechoslovakia were the result of a conspiracy between President Bene\u0161 and the communists.\n[Judge \u0160.] revises history\n...\n[It should be recalled that] the Czechoslovak legal rules on retribution, of which the decrees by President Bene\u0161 form a part, were adopted in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes established in London on 20 October 1943. They were further based on the ... agreement on the establishment of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 and the Report on the Berlin Conference held in Potsdam... Such retribution rules were adopted by practically all European states which had been occupied by Nazi Germany during the war and which had to take a position with respect to collaborators and traitors.\nThe words which [judge \u0160.] used in order to justify his judgment directly call in question the attitude which, after World War II, the democratic states in "}
+{"target": "Far East", "prompt": "5.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently serving a twenty-five year prison sentence for armed robbery of Ms L., murder of Ms L. and for attempted murder of a policeman during his arrest. He was convicted in 2003 (the conviction was amended in 2004) and began serving his sentence in penal colony FBU IK-5, and then in colonies FBU IK-13 and FBU IK-8, all situated in the Russian "}
+{"target": "Pionerskaya", "prompt": "18.  Also, in a letter of 16 September 1999 the Administration of the Sovetskiy District urged the head of the council of horticultural cooperatives to instruct the cooperatives\u2019 members to engage in an effort to clean up the "}
+{"target": "the North-Caucasus Region", "prompt": "82.  It is unclear which authority issued the second document, a seven-page undated report. The report states that on 30 December 2002 \u201cunidentified armed persons\u201d apprehended Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and seven other men, put them in two APCs and brought them to the \u201cterritory of one of the military units of the Khankala garrison\u201d. It further states:\n\u201cThe case materials reveal the following:\nAt about 5 p.m. on 30 December 2003 a group of the Chechen Department of the FSB carrying out operational and search activities in connection with the explosion of the House of the Chechen Government arrived at check-point no. 18. Around eight persons arrived in white Gazel and green UAZ vehicles. A slender, not tall woman of thirty or thirty-five years of age with the rank of major of the FSB was in charge of them. The group also included a third-rank captain named Dzhaguba ... [The members of the group] were accompanied by two APCs, which then drove away to a distance of 1 km. Information concerning suspicious persons was radio-transmitted from the check-point to military servicemen in the APCs.\nAt first the kidnapped were brought to the building in the city centre... possibly to one of the FSB units, where they were not interrogated. Then they were driven to Khankala, to utility buildings of the military intelligence department of the FSB in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "20.  In support of their application the applicants submitted a number of documents, including the following: witness statements provided by the first applicant on 20 May 2003, 13 July 2003 and on an unspecified date; witness statements provided by the second applicant on 20 May 2003 and on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants' neighbour Mr S.A., provided on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants' neighbour Mr A.S., provided on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants' relative Ms Z.G., provided on 20 May 2003; four character references for Beslan Dolsayev, provided by the Zavodskoy ROVD, the Urus-Martan ROVD and the Martan-Chu village administration on 25 July 2002 and on unspecified dates; a copy of the newspaper announcement introducing a curfew in the "}
+{"target": "Spetses", "prompt": "15.  Subsequently, the Piraeus Court of Appeal applied the above rule and found that it was proved from the testimonies of the witnesses put forward by the municipality of Spetses that the disputed land had been freely used by local people from 1866 to 1946 and had thus become public. It concluded that, independently of the question whether the disputed land was included in the applicants\u2019 title deeds, it had become land \u201cfor public use\u201d, and thus part of the municipality\u2019s property. Furthermore, it considered that the fact that the land in issue did not appear as public property in the official planning charts of the island of "}
+{"target": "Kurgan", "prompt": "52.  In June 2005 Mr E., a police officer in 1999, made a written statement (see also paragraphs 15 and 31 above) according to which he had arrested the first applicant in May 1999 and brought him to the Organised Crime Unit for questioning. No physical force had been used against him. Mr E. stated that he might have convoyed the second applicant from "}
+{"target": "Pen-Er-Men", "prompt": "20.  On 9 March 1994 the Prefect of Morbihan rejected the applicants' mother's request but maintained his initial offer of an occupancy agreement subject to conditions:\n\u201cYou have asked me to consider the possibility of having the dyke built on maritime public property that you occupy at "}
+{"target": "the North-Caucasian Region", "prompt": "14.  On 15 December 2002 the investigating authorities sent requests to the Shali department of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Shali District Military Commander, the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116, the deputy commander of the UGA, the first deputy head of the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior [\u0412\u041e\u0413\u041e \u0438 \u041f \u041c\u0412\u0414 \u2013 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432 \u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u041c\u0412\u0414], and the commander of the interior troops of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "the Balakhinskiy District", "prompt": "22.  On 16 August 2004 the Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s complaint. The refusal reads as follows:\n\u201cOn 27 April 2004 [the applicant] contacted the Prosecutor\u2019s Office, demanding the criminal prosecution of S and members of his personal security service who at about 10 a.m. on 27 April 2004 kidnapped him from a bus stop on Svoboba Square. He was forced into a [car] and driven to a forest close to Dubravniy where he was beaten for two to three hours. The kidnappers beat him and made threats to his life. They told [the applicant] to confess and to prepare a written statement in which [it is stated that the applicant], D.A. and D.M. were guilty of attempting to murder S. [The applicant] repeated [this] during his examination as a witness and during a crime scene reconstruction. However, during the crime scene reconstruction he could not point to the exact place where he had been beaten by the kidnappers.\nAccording to the applicant, after this incident, at 8.30 p.m. on 27 April 2004 he went to [a hospital] where doctors diagnosed contusion of the right kidney, brain contusion, bruising of the soft tissue of the face and limbs, blood in the urine, subarachnoid haemorrhage, fracture of the right ninth rib.\nHowever the preliminary investigation established that on 27 April 2004 [police officers] had performed an operative drill involving the applicant on the basis of an order of 21 April 2004 issued by the Deputy Head of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Department of the Interior in order to assess the applicant\u2019s involvement in S.\u2019s attempted murder. In the course of the operative drill the applicant was driven to a forest in "}
+{"target": "the Lipetsk Region", "prompt": "7.  The applicant arrived in Russia in July 2000 and resided in the town of Michurinsk in the Tambov Region. It appears that until mid-2003 he returned to Uzbekistan for several short periods of time. In 2004 he was convicted by a Russian court and sentenced to six months\u2019 imprisonment for having used a false migration card. After his release, in October 2004 he moved to Usman, a provincial town in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "13.  On 26 November 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant company\u2019s action (see paragraph 11 above). It noted at the outset that the applicant company was not allowed to introduce new facts and evidence in the judicial review proceedings and that they would not be taken into consideration. The court emphasised that although the applicant company had contested the facts as established by the Office (see paragraph 10 above), it had not challenged the fact that the officers could not immediately after their arrival at the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Mesker-Yurt", "prompt": "62.  On 9 July 2009 an official of the investigating unit requested his hierarchical superiors to extend the term of the investigation in case no. 59054. The request read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201cBetween 12 and 19 February 2002 in the village of Starye Atagi of the Groznenskiy District unidentified military servicemen and officers of law-enforcement agencies [who were] using APCs, UAZ and Ural vehicles were carrying out special operations for the identification of members of illegal armed groups. At about 9.30 [a.m.] on 14 February 2002 a shoot out started between unidentified servicemen and unidentified insurgents. After the shooting, unidentified servicemen kidnapped M. Nasukhanov, born in 1980, M. Nasukhanov, born in 1981, and R. Nasukhanov, born in 1965, from the houses at 32 and 34 Nuradilov Street.\nAt about 12 noon on 18 February 2002 ... the dead bodies of M. Nasukhanov, born in 1980, M. Nasukhanov, born in 1981, and R. Nasukhanov, born in 1965, were discovered in ... "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "15.  The applicant attempted to obtain compensation from the military authorities and lodged complaints with various law-enforcement and administrative authorities in Chechnya, describing in detail the seizure of the vehicle on 14 December 1999, alleging that it had been used by the military unit stationed at the village of Avtury, in the "}
+{"target": "the Kursk Region", "prompt": "56.  The applicant, who was questioned in the course of the inspection conducted by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office, submitted that during his placement in remand prison IZ-32/1 State agents tortured him with an immersion heater, beat him and forcibly injected drugs into his veins, seeking to force him to withdraw his complaints concerning Lgov correctional colony OX-30/3 and the application to the Court. When he could no longer bear the torture he submitted to the pressure and wrote statements to the Court, the ombudsman, the prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "5.  The applicants\u2019 seventeen close relatives were members of an outlawed organisation in Turkey, namely the Maoist Communist Party (hereinafter \u201cthe MKP\u201d). On various dates since the 1970s criminal proceedings had been brought against the relatives for membership of a number of outlawed organisations and for carrying out activities on behalf of those organisations. They had spent various periods of time in prisons, and after their release some of them had left Turkey and settled in different countries in "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "15.  In a letter of 7 June 1999 Mr L., the head of the authority in charge of the Pionerskoye reservoir \u2013 the State-owned enterprise \u201cSouth Primorskiy Region Water-and-sewage Authority\u201d (\u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u0435 \u00ab\u0412\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e-\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u044e\u0433\u0430 \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0440\u044c\u044f\u00bb, \u201cthe Water Company\u201d) \u2013 warned the acting head of the Vladivostok Administration that the channel of "}
+{"target": "the Kurchaloyevskiy District", "prompt": "17.  On 14 February 2002 the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Chechen Republic informed the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic (\u201cthe town court\u201d) of the following:\n\u201cAt about 10 a.m. on 25 October 2000, in the course of a special operation, unidentified servicemen of the federal armed forces arrested Aslanbek Khamidov at 11 Tolstoy Street, the village of Alleroy, "}
+{"target": "Straits", "prompt": "28.  The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the questions posed by the Istanbul State Security Court in two letters of 13 and 26 December 1991. The letters stated:\n\u201c... as there is no \u2018state of war\u2019 between Turkey and any other country, including the Greek Cypriot Administration, it is obvious that the seizure of the ship cannot be based on Articles 5 and 6 of the Montreux Convention. In fact, ships carrying the flag of the Greek Cypriot Administration have always traversed the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus Region", "prompt": "7.  On 6 August 2001 the Tula Garrison Military Court granted the applicant\u2019s claim. The court established that from 24 March 2000 to 4 November 2000 the applicant had performed military service in the North Caucasus Region and from 24 March 2000 to 1 May 2000 participated in the military operations in that region. The court found that the applicant was entitled to monetary compensation and the failure to pay it to him in good time constituted a violation of his rights. In its analysis the domestic court referred, inter alia, to the Law on the Status of Military Servicemen (see paragraph 19 below) which provides for entitlement of certain categories of military servicemen to additional monetary compensation, and to Decree of the Federal Government of 20 August 1999 no. 930-54 establishing the amounts of compensation due to military personnel of different ranks for their participation in the military operations on the territory of Dagestan. The court ordered the commander of the military unit concerned to pay the applicant remuneration for his participation in the military operations between 24 March and 1 May 2000 and pecuniary benefits for his service in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "23.  On 3 July 2007 the Ordu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s objection on the following grounds:\n\u201cThe case concerns the dismissal of the [applicant,], who worked as a caretaker, on the basis of the allegations that he harassed [X.] on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "43.  He concluded (at paragraphs 43 to 46):\n\u201cThe law gives an owner of land the right to obtain possession against a trespasser. But the owner, if the occupier has his home on the land in question, cannot obtain possession other than through proceedings in court. The court has to satisfy itself as to the owner's rights but can in making an order for possession pay regard to the personal circumstances of the occupier. Statute circumscribes the court's powers in certain cases ... and in others does not do so. In cases such as the present and Kay, the court simply has a discretion whether to suspend the order for possession for a short period.\nIt follows that I would accept that the question whether a decision of a public authority is 'reasonable' post-Doherty goes beyond the question whether it is rational. I would also accept that a public authority should take account of the personal circumstances of the occupier known to it, but it does not follow from this that there will ever be circumstances in which it will be unreasonable to seek possession against trespassers in situations similar to those in Kay. Those situations may make it unreasonable not to allow a period of time to bring the possession order sought into effect but that is something which the court oversees and which the law allows for.\n...\nOught we to remit in this case? In my view it would, just as in Kay, not be appropriate to do so. To echo the words of Lord Bingham in Kay, it is clear that under domestic property law the appellants have no right to occupy their respective "}
+{"target": "the Southern Region", "prompt": "17.  On 24 February 2012, sometime before the vessel anchored in the port of Mykolayiv, a non-governmental organisation \u201cFaith, Hope, Love\u201d, which at the time was based in Odesa and assisted refugees and asylum\u2011seekers under a contract with the UNHCR, contacted the head of the Border Control Service in "}
+{"target": "the North Sea", "prompt": "146.  The salient point in the assessment was whether there was a sufficient link between the State and the harmful activity. Since the point of departure in Norwegian law was that only the owner or proprietor of the relevant activity could be held liable, and since in this case the State was not the owner or proprietor of the diving businesses, the decisive matter would be whether other sufficient links existed. In this context the Supreme Court thoroughly examined in turn the various arguments advanced by the claimants to establish the existence of such a link, observing notably the following:\n(a)  While section 2 (1) of the Continental Shelf Act provided that the right to submarine natural resources was vested in the State, the provision was intended to clarify or confirm Norwegian jurisdiction over the continental shelf and had little weight in the context of the law of torts. The State had not elected to carry out petroleum activities on its own, but had left this task to others, under State control. When petroleum was extracted from the seabed, the ownership of the oil and gas passed to the licensee. The operations took place on behalf of the oil companies, who bore the risks attached, and not of the State. The fact that the State was the original licensee was thus of lesser importance.\n(b)  The State\u2019s wide-ranging control over oil activities had limited weight in an assessment related to the law of torts. The State had not carried out test drilling for oil, had not carried out petroleum production under its own auspices, and had not directly been an employer or a principal in the diving activities. Its general control thus gave little guidance as regards the question of liability for this activity. If viewed independently, the control argument would otherwise lead to the State being held strictly liable for all damages in connection with oil activities in "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "40.  At the parliamentary session of 29 June 2001, Mr R\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc Kaz\u0131m Y\u00fccelen, the then Minister of the Interior, reported on the return to village and rehabilitation project. He noted that the project was being implemented in east-and south-east "}
+{"target": "Kiasma", "prompt": "22.  The applicant claimed that the line of policemen surrounding the cordon was extremely tight and multi-layered. The visibility from outside the cordon to inside was practically non-existent. The police minibuses and detention buses also impeded visibility. At 7.15 p.m. the police started to set up a second, wider cordon and fenced off the whole immediate downtown area. It was not possible to see the "}
+{"target": "the Gudermes District", "prompt": "90.  On 4 March 2001 the seventh applicant and three other relatives went to the Emercom premises to identify the bodies. The bodies were in an advanced stage of decomposition and the relatives could only identify them by earrings and clothes. The body of Raisa Gakayeva was also identified by a gold tooth. On the same date the relatives transported the bodies to "}
+{"target": "Lake Ohrid", "prompt": "5.  In 1957 several plots of land (agricultural land at the time) were expropriated from the applicants\u2019 legal predecessors. The present cases concern restitution proceedings in which the applicants sought that the plots of land, which, at present, form part of a campsite on the shore of "}
+{"target": "the 1st District of Bucharest", "prompt": "57.  At the request of the Court, on 7 March 2011 the Government produced the statement of the prosecutor V.D., responsible for the proceedings brought against the applicant. Dated 17 January 2011, the relevant parts read as follows:\n\u201cAfter having consulted \u2018the records\u2019 of the file on the criminal investigation, I wish to clarify the following:\n- The following \u2018f\u0103ptuitori\u2019 [\u2018alleged perpetrators\u2019 or \u2018suspects\u2019, at a stage prior to the opening of proceedings against them], officers of police section no. 5, were summoned on the aforementioned date [16 July 2003] by a written request sent to the head of police of "}
+{"target": "Kurdistan", "prompt": "6.  On 31 May 1995 an article titled \u201cThe International Atat\u00fcrk Peace Award\u201d (\u201cUluslararas\u0131 Atat\u00fcrk Bar\u0131\u015f \u00d6d\u00fcl\u00fc\u201d) was printed by the applicant in the daily Yeni Politika newspaper. On the same day the newspaper was seized by security forces upon the order of the Istanbul public prosecutor at the printing office, before being distributed. \nThe impugned article read:\n\u201cPeace, just like freedom, is a sacred creation of human consciousness and desire. This treasure deserves constant struggle, sincerity, alertness and solidarity for it. Peace, just like freedom, requires sacrifice and effort.\n It is certain that all peoples of the world understood the value and meaning of keeping peace better after the two world wars whose pain will continue to horrify the human consciousness for centuries. The rise of the anti-war movements, both at the national and international level, is the reflection of this consciousness. In fact, history has proven that for a permanent peace it is essential that an end be put to all forms of exploitation and discrimination and that the social system rest on the foundations of tolerance, mutual respect for rights, justice and the rule of law. This undisputable principle is also the only guarantee for today, both nationally and internationally.\nNowadays, peace movements in many countries, in addition to their own peace efforts in their countries, monitor the events out of their countries like a radar device and try to offer solidarity with people who fight for peace and freedom. In order to realize this purpose, national committees are being set up and the peace efforts of individuals and institutions are supported with annual peace awards. These committees\u2019 decisions are generally taken after meticulous inquiries concerning the nominees. Among these awards, the Nobel Peace Prize is the most distinguished one.\nAs it is known, in the recent years the Republic of Turkey, having been influenced by the above-mentioned activities, introduced the International Atat\u00fcrk Peace Award. By doing this, the statesmen, who have stripped concepts like freedom, equality, democracy, justice and law of their substance and who believe that they have succeeded in deceiving their own people and the international community with poor caricatures of those concepts, likewise have diluted and distorted the concept of peace.\nFirst of all, those who cannot establish democracy in all the institutions and regulations of their country, those who ignore human rights and who want to destroy all values of the people with racist and ravaging policies should not have the right to use a high concept like peace, insincerely, for their political purposes. Which country, where people are tortured and killed in custody, made to \u201cdisappear\u201d, shot in the middle of a street; where villages and towns are evacuated, forests are burned down, gives a peace award? No. Nobody has the right to pollute the concept of peace and no one should.\nIt is known that the roots of the increasingly dirty war in Turkey today go back to the first years of the Republic. And who is responsible for the period between 1925 and 1938 when the identity and rights of the Kurdish people were denied and the experiments of brutal genocide were put into practice? Who is the architect of the policies of the Republic of Turkey which aimed at denying and exterminating Kurds from history? What is it, if not hypocrisy, to pronounce the name of the person who is the godfather of today\u2019s dirty war together with the word \u2018peace\u2019 and to organize a peace prize in his name? No!...No!... No one should have the right to abuse a mighty concept like peace in such a way. In fact the reason for which Nelson Mandela, who became a symbol by fighting against racist discrimination in South Africa, refused to accept the International Atat\u00fcrk Peace Award is this hypocrisy and the inhuman policies pursued against the Kurds.\nA committee consisting, inter alia, of state officials gave the International Atat\u00fcrk Peace Award of 1995 to the Red Crescent on 19 May. As its name suggests, it is an international prize. Does not the fact that by giving the prize to a national institution and not to a peace defender outside Turkey, thereby, trying to avoid the risk of being rejected as it was the case with Mandela, demonstrates the helplessness and loss of credibility of the state? Is it not the Red Crescent which ignores the Kurdish villagers who were forced to live in plastic tents in urban shanty towns after their villages have been burned down,  distributing candies to Kurdish children who were forced to shout \u201cHow happy I am that I am a Turk\u201d by soldiers during the occupation of Southern "}
+{"target": "Schengen", "prompt": "6.  On 1 April 2001 the Cluj Military Security Department started secretly monitoring the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations on the basis of an order issued by the Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office attached to the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor\u2019s Office (\u201cthe Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office\u201d). The surveillance order issued by the Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office was based on Law no. 51/1991 on national security (\u201cthe National Security Act\u201d). The applicants were suspected of being part of a network trafficking in "}
+{"target": "Central Asia", "prompt": "31.  On 16 April 2013 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant\u2019s appeal against the extradition order. The court heard Ms Ryabinina, the applicant\u2019s representative before the Court, as a witness, and refused to examine a number of pieces of evidence adduced by the applicant in relation to his arguments regarding the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan, in particular a number of reports from international organisations. By a judgment of the same date, the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order in the following terms:\n\u201c... The applicant\u2019s arguments relating to persecution by the Kyrgyz authorities on the grounds of his nationality were examined and dismissed by the decision of 22 October 2012 concerning his application for refugee status.\nThe above decision was upheld by the now final judgment of 18 February 2013 ... This court dismisses the argument concerning the issuing of the extradition order before the examination of the refusal to grant refugee status. As is clear from the materials concerning the extradition check procedure, [the applicant] lodged an application for refugee status after his arrest in Russia. Judicial review proceedings in respect of a refusal to grant such status do not impede the issuing of an extradition order ...\nThe Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of Kyrgyzstan guarantees that [the applicant] would be given all opportunities to defend himself, including legal assistance; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment... In addition, the requesting country guarantees that following [the applicant\u2019s] extradition Russian diplomatic officers would be afforded an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility in order to be satisfied that his rights are being respected, [and] that the principles of the equality of arms and the adversarial nature of court proceedings are being respected... The court dismisses as unfounded the arguments relating to inability for [the applicant to undergo] a medical examination or [have] confidential meetings with diplomatic officers ...\nIt follows from Ms Ryabinina\u2019s witness statement that she has not visited Kyrgyzstan since 2006 and was not present during the events of June 2010. Her knowledge of the current situation in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "61.  The applicants then conducted their own investigation into the abduction. Their acquaintance, Mr N. E., informed them that Mr Ramzan Shaipov had been taken to the FSB station in Avtury upon the order of Mr G., an FSB officer, also known as \u2018Terek\u2019. Afterwards, Mr Ramzan Shaipov had been transferred to an FSB station in Stariye Atagi headed by an FSB officer nicknamed \u2018Piton\u2019. Both FSB departments acknowledged Mr Ramzan Shaipov\u2019s detention on their "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "12.  Later that day, at the request of the applicant\u2019s mother, the general practitioner of the neighbouring village, Dr C.S., came to the applicant\u2019s house and examined him. Since she had apparently been told only about chest complaints, she did not examine the applicant\u2019s legs or feet. She did not identify any marks indicating external injury on the applicant but found that his ribs were sore and suggested that he go to hospital if he wished to obtain a medical certificate recording his injuries. Dr C.S. herself did not produce a medical report on the "}
+{"target": "Spna", "prompt": "33.  Mr Nerwayi claimed the following during the press conference:\n\u201cI was in Amadia town when reports came to me that the Turkish army had attacked the Spna area and the Bawrki area at 4.30 a.m.\nPast experience with the Turkish army has taught us that, wherever they go, they assault poor people. As an example, before the current incident two of our citizens were on their way back to Hemzeki village. The Turkish soldiers arrested them. After assaulting and beating them, killing one and wounding the other. I reported this incident to the Turkish army commander and asked him to keep us informed about their operations, so that we can ask the villagers to leave their villages before the operations to avoid civilian casualties.\nI heard about the Turkish army operation in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "34.  On 2 December 2005 the local social welfare centre informed the court that Z.J. was not complying with judgment of 23 July 2004 as she had not been bringing the applicant\u2019s son to the scheduled meetings on the centre\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "28.  The articles also emphasized that the Government\u2019s public declarations, which appeared to allow displaced villagers to return to their villages, were unreliable. Whenever villagers had attempted to do so, they were physically denied access to their villages.\n(c)  The report of 14 January 1998 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly\u2019s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken in order to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east "}
+{"target": "Vedeno", "prompt": "6.  On 13 August 2003 Said-Emin Sambiyev and his colleague Mr V.M. were in a taxi going from the village of Ulus-Kert to the village of Makkhety. Their vehicle was stopped in the village of Tevzan (in the submitted documents the place was also referred to as Tevzani and Kirov\u2011Yurt), in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "90.  The applicant continued with his business and was paying rent until the late 1990s, when he started experiencing financial difficulties. Since he could no longer pay the rent, he lost the right to remain in the "}
+{"target": "Taganskiy district", "prompt": "9.  According to the applicant, on 6 May 2012 she participated in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square. She conducted herself peacefully and did not take part in any acts of violence prior to her arrest. At 6 p.m. she was arrested by the police and at around 9 p.m. was taken to "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "8.  On the evening of 23 October 2002 a group of terrorists belonging to the Chechen separatist movement (over 40 people), led by Mr B., armed with machine-guns and explosives, took hostages in the \u201cDubrovka\u201d theatre in Moscow (also known as the \u201cNord-Ost\u201d theatre, from the name of a musical comedy which was formerly performed there). For three days more than nine hundred people were held at gunpoint in the theatre\u2019s auditorium. In addition, the theatre building was booby-trapped and eighteen suicide bombers were positioned in the hall among the hostages. Another group of terrorists occupied the theatre\u2019s administrative "}
+{"target": "the Ferghana Valley", "prompt": "109.  In its 2011 annual report released in May of the same year, Amnesty International states as follows:\n\u201cCounter-terror and security\nClosed trials started in January of nearly 70 defendants charged in relation to attacks in "}
+{"target": "South America", "prompt": "7.  It appears that simultaneously another investigation was in progress on the side of the Hungarian authorities who suspected that the applicant and his Hungarian common-law wife were involved in a drug trafficking network operating between Spain, Hungary and "}
+{"target": "Ayios Kassianos", "prompt": "22.  On 24 July 1989 the applicant was released. At the time of her release she was examined by UN doctors, who took some notes, and then transferred to southern Cyprus. On 28 July 1989 she made a statement to Limassol police and was also examined by a Government doctor at Limassol Hospital. The applicant produced a medical report issued on that same day by Dr. Charalambos Michael, a medical officer. This document reads as follows:\n\u201cOn 28.7.1989 and at approximately 23.00 hours I was requested by the Limassol District Police to examine Mrs Despo Andreou Papi from Famagusta and presently living at 16 Chrysanthou Mylona Street in Limassol.\nMrs Papi alleges that on 19.7.1989 she was hit (kicks, fists and use of police baton) on various parts of her body by Turkish pseudo-policemen in the area of "}
+{"target": "the Vostochniy District", "prompt": "17.  The Interior Department of the Altayskiy Region conducted an internal inquiry into the incident. Having inspected the scene of the incident and having questioned the police officers involved, it established the following facts:\n- Mr T. and other police officers believed that Mr Sh. was armed as they had heard a gunshot and witnesses had stated that he had fired at them;\n- Mr Sh. had been aggressive and apparently drunk;\n- the residents of the block of flats prevented Mr T. from searching Mr Sh. and, by retaining the police officers, gave him an opportunity to escape to his flat;\n- Mr T. called the police station of "}
+{"target": "Urals", "prompt": "27.  On 6 September 2003 the Communist Party of the Russian Federation submitted its federal roll of candidates to the State Duma elections. On 13 October 2003 the roll was registered by the Central Election Commission. The second applicant was candidate no. 5 in the "}
+{"target": "Zelenogradskiy", "prompt": "15.  On 9 November 2001 investigator M. ordered the applicant\u2019s continued detention. The investigator referred to the \u201cgravity of the crime committed by Mr Mogilat\u201d and the risk that he would flee the investigation or trial. The prosecutor of the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "22.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants visited various law enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District but received no information on Vakha Abdurzakov\u2019s detention. On the same day they lodged written complaints with the prosecutor\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Pi\u015fta", "prompt": "63.  The witness, the head village guard from Boyunlu, heard over the radio that his brother and others who were chopping wood had been fired at by terrorists. They immediately informed the local gendarme station by radio. The clash was at the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "21.  On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, the applicants applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the administrative authorities and to public figures. The first applicant went to look at unidentified bodies found in "}
+{"target": "East Anatolia", "prompt": "32.  The books in question, published in 1991 and 1992, were as follows:\n- \u201cState terror in the Middle East\u201d (\u201cOrtado\u011fu'da devlet ter\u00f6r\u00fc\u201d);\n- \u201cThe compulsory settlement of Kurds\u201d (\u201cK\u00fcrtlerin mecburi iskan\u0131\u201d);\n- \u201cInterstate colony: Kurdistan\u201d (\u201cDevletleraras\u0131 s\u00f6m\u00fcrge: K\u00fcrdistan\u201d);\n- \u201cA thesis of Turkish history, the sun-language theory and the Kurdish problem\u201d (\u201cT\u00fcrk tarihi tezi, G\u00fcne\u015f-dil teorisi ve k\u00fcrt sorunu\u201d);\n- \u201cA letter to UNESCO\u201d (\u201cUNESCO'ya mektup\u201d);\n- \u201cThe demolition of the police stations in our minds, trial periods and becoming free\u201d (\u201cZihinlerimizdeki karakollar\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcre\u00e7leri ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme\u201d);\n- \u201cThe scientific method\u201d (\u201cBilimsel Metod\u201d);\n- \u201cThe system of "}
+{"target": "Mazie Bati", "prompt": "23.  Approximately a week before the events of 27 May 1944, the applicant and all the men in his platoon had received a summons from their commanding officer. He had informed them that an ad hoc military court composed of members of the detachment had delivered judgment against the inhabitants of "}
+{"target": "Khmelnytsky region", "prompt": "77.  The Order established the special units within the Prison Department. It remained in force until 8 September 2003, when a new Prison Department Order, no. 163, \u201cOn the establishment of special units within the system for the enforcement of criminal sentences, approval of their composition and regulations on them\u201d was adopted (it was subsequently annulled on 10 October 2005 by Order no. 167). It envisaged the creation of an inter-regional special unit for action in extraordinary circumstances within the Zhytomyr Regional Department for the Enforcement of Sentences. This unit's scope of territorial jurisdiction extended to "}
+{"target": "the Baltic Sea", "prompt": "12.  The applicant complained to a court. He submitted that, lacking a travel document, he was unable to return to Russia from Kazakhstan or go to the Kaliningrad Region, which is the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania on "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "105.  The court further noted that the defendants had not adduced any evidence confirming that the Pionerskaya river was regional property and that there was any separation of powers between the regional and municipal authorities concerning the maintenance of "}
+{"target": "Division 6", "prompt": "15.  According to the Government the applicant was admitted to the medical infirmary of the prison at 4.15 p.m. on 12 July 2013 and a referral to the emergency department of the state hospital was made at 5 p.m. The referral note issued by the doctor indicated that the applicant had swelling in the face, a bruise on one loin, and severe swelling with limited movement in his right ankle. At an unspecified time on the same day he was provided with a pair of crutches by the prison medical infirmary. On the same day he was also admitted to hospital and returned to cell 8 in Division 6 on 14 July 2013. The case summary drawn up on 14 July \u2013 before his discharge \u2011 and submitted to the Court showed that all the medical investigations had been concluded and the results received prior to his discharge from hospital. According to the case summary the ankle x\u2011ray revealed a fracture and there was subluxation of the right foot; there was a head injury, specifically a fracture of the orbit and of the maxillary sinus; there were no signs of injury or fluid collection in the internal organs; an ophthalmic review had been carried out and the patient had been discharged from that department as well as from the orthopaedic ward where he had undergone tests and treatment for his bone injuries. The summary also showed that the applicant had to use crutches and to avoid bearing weight for the two weeks leading up to his outpatient appointment, after which he still would not be able to bear weight fully. It ordered a change of dressing to be undertaken within three days and prescribed appropriate medicines. Records also showed that a nurse had visited "}
+{"target": "Site", "prompt": "11.  By a licence agreement dated 22 October 1998, Leeds City Council (\u201cthe Council\u201d) granted the applicant and his wife a contractual licence to occupy plot no. 35 at Cottingley Springs caravan site in Leeds. The licence in Clause 12 required the applicant as occupier to comply with the Site Regulations, while Clause 18 stated:\n\u201cNo nuisance is to be caused by the occupier, his guests, nor any member of his family to any other person, including employees of the Council, the occupiers of any other plots on the "}
+{"target": "the Mersin District", "prompt": "15.  On 10 May 2001, after visiting the site, the court-appointed panel of experts (hereafter panel no. 2) submitted its report. With regard to those features and factors which had a bearing on the property's value, it reached the following conclusions:\n\u201cThe property in question is located in the Camicedit neighbourhood, within the territory of Tarsus, in "}
+{"target": "North Sea", "prompt": "9.  After the adoption of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, the Norwegian Government proclaimed in a Royal Decree of 31 May 1963 Norwegian sovereignty over the sea floor and the ground beneath it outside Norway. This was followed up by the 1963 Act on the Exploration and Exploitation of Sub-Sea Natural Resources \u2013 the Continental Shelf Act 1963 (kontinentalsokkelloven). Drilling in the "}
+{"target": "Marum", "prompt": "13.  On 21 December 1989 practically all the other joint owners of the two estates brought proceedings against the applicant in the District Court (tingsr\u00e4tten) of S\u00f6dra Roslag, requesting that she be ordered to remove the new house on "}
+{"target": "the Baltic Sea", "prompt": "13.  In its edition of 12 December 2005 Bild published a front-page article with the headline: \u201cWhat does he really earn from the pipeline project? Schr\u00f6der must reveal his Russian salary.\u201d On page 2 of the newspaper, under the headline \u201cRussian salary \u2013 will Schr\u00f6der earn more than a million a year?\u201d the article read as follows:\n\u201cThe ex-Chancellor and Russian gas: there is growing outrage among all political parties. For Schr\u00f6der is to head the supervisory board of a business seeking to build a four-billion-euro gas pipeline through "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "31.  On 12 March 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicant's case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:\nThe Refugee Appeals Board observes that as her asylum motive your client has stated, inter alia, that, in case of return, she fears outrages committed by the LTTE because she left without permission. She also fears the Sri Lankan military forces. Due to the injuries incurred by her during military operations, she fears that the Sri Lankan army will suspect her of being a member of the LTTE. Moreover, your client fears that her former family-in-law, with whom she is on bad terms and who live in Sri Lanka and have good connections with the Sri Lankan military forces, have informed on her to the Sri Lankan authorities and that she will therefore be unable to enter the country without becoming an object of interest to the authorities. Her former spouse living in Denmark has her ID card, and she fears that he will travel to Sri Lanka and do something that may harm her. Finally, your client has stated that, as a single woman without family or social network, she will be unable to manage in her country of origin.\nBy decision of 13 August 2007 the Refugee Appeals Board stated, inter alia, that your client had left Sri Lanka in possession of her own national passport without problems and that she had not, prior to her departure, been subjected to outrages or the like of a nature to warrant asylum. The Board found that the fact that your client was affiliated with the LTTE as a child soldier when very young did not in itself warrant granting asylum. In that connection, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasised the length of the time passed and the fact that your client was deemed not to have made herself stand out in any way. Moreover, the Board found that the general situation for single women in Sri Lanka could not justify granting a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The Board observed that your client's problems with her former spouse were of a private law nature and therefore recommended that she seek the protection of the authorities in case of conflicts. The Board finally found that it had not been rendered probable that your client would be unable to seek the protection of the authorities and that therefore the information on her former family-in-law could not lead to a revised assessment.\nThe Refugee Appeals Board still finds that your client's fear of the LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities and the conflict with her former family-in-law do not warrant a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act.\nIn that connection, the Refugee Appeals Board refers to your client's statement during the asylum proceedings to the effect that she did not have any problems with the LTTE at any time prior to her departure, including in connection with her leaving the LTTE. On the contrary, she stated that the LTTE accepted her leaving the organisation. The Board observes that several years have passed since your client left the LTTE, and therefore the Board cannot find as a fact that former LTTE members would pursue her because she had left the country without permission from the LTTE.\nAdditionally, the Sri Lankan military forces defeated the LTTE in May 2009. Moreover, it appears from the background information available to the Board that it is hardly likely that former low-ranking members of the LTTE or persons who have previously supported the LTTE will risk reprisals from the LTTE, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009.\nThe possibility that as an ethnic Tamil from northern Sri Lanka your client risks being questioned and investigated by the authorities upon entry into her country of origin does not lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law. The individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in Colombo are young Tamils, men in particular, from northern and eastern Sri Lanka; those without ID; those not resident or employed in Colombo; and those recently returned from the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "66.  On 5 April 2007 the investigators questioned Ms R.M., the mother of Mr V.M., who stated that in the summer of 2003 her son and Said-Emin Sambiyev had been working somewhere in Mesker-Yurt and that their commander\u2019s name was Mr S.Kh. At some point later, residents of Ulus\u2011Kert had told her that her son and S.-E. Sambiyev had been detained by military servicemen. She had gone to the applicant and told her about it. Then both women had gone to Mesker-Yurt to see their sons\u2019 commander. After that the women had gone to the military unit in Khatuni, but they had not been allowed to enter its "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "33.  On 24 October 2003 the deputy head of the Achkhoy-Martan district administration wrote to the district prosecutor's office requesting that the investigators find out whether the abducted men were being detained on the "}
+{"target": "the Vake-Saburtalo District", "prompt": "7.  On an unspecified date in July 2003, photographs of four persons \u2013 the applicant, his brother, the other person accused of murder and the latter\u2019s brother \u2013 were posted on the boards of \u201cwanted persons\u201d in the police stations of "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "41.  The Government submitted that in November 2004 the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various State bodies. On an unspecified date the Ingushetia department of the FSB stated that their office had not detained Sultan Khatuyev and had no information about his whereabouts. The Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya also replied, on 7 September 2004, that their agents had not detained Sultan. Also on unspecified dates the remand centres in "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "17.  It found it established that the applicants had engaged in intensive \u201cseparatist\u201d activity under instructions from leaders of the PKK, a separatist armed gang seeking to found a Kurdish State in south-eastern and eastern Turkey. In that context it noted the following points: in the run-up to the 1991 parliamentary election the applicants had given speeches under the PKK banner at meetings where slogans had been shouted such as \u201cLong Live the PKK\u201d and \u201cStrike guerrillas strike, found Kurdistan\u201d; the applicants had provoked unrest among the population and created an atmosphere that had undermined the authority of the State; they had worn PKK colours when they were sworn in as members of the National Assembly in November 1991; at the congresses of their political parties, the HADEP and the DEP, the PKK flag had been hoisted instead of the Turkish flag and the Turkish Republic had been described as an occupier and enemy; conversations recorded between three of the four applicants and heads of clans (a\u015firet reisi) in south-eastern and eastern "}
+{"target": "Garza", "prompt": "49.  In particular, the company was to:\n\u201cdraw up a memorandum of understanding with the local authorities for monitoring the waste being treated, with a view to reducing the likelihood of an operational fault at the site ...;\nensure the buffering of the detoxification facilities ...;\nclose the open-top chambers used in the chemical and biological process and develop an exhaust ventilation and purification system ...;\nbuild a mobile, soundproof structure to cover the macerator ...;\nalter the internal sewerage system so as to separate atmospheric water from water produced by the facility;\nset up a system for monitoring the quality and quantity of water produced by the plant that flows into the "}
+{"target": "the Samara Region", "prompt": "119.  On 8 and 10 May 2004 respectively the investigation questioned Mr K.Tul. and Mr A.Tul., his elder brother. They testified that on the night of 23 November 2003 they had been sleeping in their house at no. 6 Shosseynyy Lane in Katyr-Yurt. At about 3 a.m. unknown armed men wearing masks and camouflage uniforms had broken into the house. Five or six men had woken them up. There had been a large number of unknown armed men outside. The intruders had ordered Mr K.Tul. and Mr A.Tul. to get dressed and had pulled jackets over their heads. Afterwards the men had taken them to the backyard, put them in the back of a Ural truck and driven them out of the village. The men had asked the brothers whether they had participated in illegal armed groups. The brothers had replied in the negative. Then the men had let them go. The men had not used violence against them. The brothers had not requested the prosecuting authorities to open an investigation into their abduction. On the following day Mr K.Tul., his brother and the latter's family had gone to their relatives in "}
+{"target": "Primorskiy", "prompt": "217.  On 21 October 2006 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who described in detail the circumstances surrounding the abduction. In particular, he stated that at first he had been taken by the abductors to the premises of checkpoint no. 112 manned by a Special Police Task Force from the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "16.  The judge found on the facts that the police, who were investigating serious and violent offences, had not acted with reckless indifference to the lawfulness of their acts, which element was necessary for the tort of maliciously procuring a search warrant. He held that the entry was made subject to a lawful search warrant and also under the powers of section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allowed entry without warrant where intending to arrest a person for an arrestable offence. He found that the method of forcible entry was justified as the police had foremost in their minds the potential danger from the use of firearms by the suspect robber and in particular that the sergeant had no cause to suspect that innocent people were the only ones on the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "21.  In a final judgment of 2 June 2008 (\u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 8\u20119 \u043e\u0442 2 \u044e\u043d\u0438 2008 \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 \u0417\u0421\u2011162/2007 \u0433., \u0412\u0410\u0421, \u0406\u0406\u0406 \u043e.) the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s legal challenge to the expulsion order. It held that the order had been issued by a competent authority and in due form. There had not been any material breaches of the rules of administrative procedure. It was true that the authorities had not notified the first applicant of the proceedings against him and had not given him an opportunity to make objections and representations. However, that omission had not been material, because the first applicant had had the opportunity of putting forward his arguments against expulsion in the judicial review proceedings. The fact that the expulsion order had been served on him without an interpreter was not a problem either, because there existed evidence that he understood and spoke Bulgarian. The court went on to say that on the basis of the materials adduced in the proceedings, which had in effect not been disputed by the first applicant, it considered it established that in 2002 he had taken part in the organisation of a drug trafficking channel from Brazil through western "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "18.  In their letters to the authorities the family stated the facts of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. They also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya as well as further afield in "}
+{"target": "Kurgan", "prompt": "51.  In June 2005 Mr Ya., senior officer of the Organised Crime Unit at the relevant time, made a written statement (see also paragraphs 15 and 31 above), indicating that Mr V. had named the applicants as his accomplices in a number of offences. Thereafter, the second applicant was brought from "}
+{"target": "Panteion", "prompt": "14.  On 11 June 2007, during a plenary debate in the Greek Parliament, the Deputy Minister of Finance referred to the proceedings in question, stating that certain opposition MPs had been heard by the Athens Assize Court as witnesses for the defence. In particular, he said:\n\u201cWho are these incorruptible people? The denigrators, the renowned MPs of the Socialist Party (PASOK) and former PASOK Ministers who rushed to the defence of the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "19.  This having been established, the jury had to determine what the capsules delivered to the applicant contained and whether the applicant was connected to the delivery of April 2003 intercepted by the police. The experts had stated that the capsules contained heroin. The court rejected the applicant\u2019s argument that the delivery of March 2003 concerned cannabis, given that studies showed that drug couriers were used in connection with heroin and cocaine and sometimes ecstasy, and that Turkey was considered a key transit route to "}
+{"target": "Urus\u2011Martan", "prompt": "19.  On 10 November 2000 the head of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD) provided the investigators with a statement to the effect that Ali Udayev and Ramzan Yusupov had died as a result of the explosion of a projectile of the Shmel type; that on 17 October 2000 the military units Don-100 and regiment no. 245 stationed in the vicinity of "}
+{"target": "Gekhi", "prompt": "34.  On 27 November 2000 the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office received a letter from a district prosecutor of the Penza Region informing him that on 15 November 2000 Major S. had been questioned about the operation of 8 August 2000. The transcript of this interview was enclosed. Major S. stated the following:\n\u201cFrom 18 June until 22 September 2000 I was seconded to the town of Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. ...\nIn addition to the Urus-Martan VOVD, military personnel of the troops of the interior and of the army (\u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0435 \u0438\u0437 \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0438 \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a) and the military commander's company (\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0440\u043e\u0442\u0430) also took part in the operation [on 8 August 2000]. I cannot say which particular person was in command of the operation. From our department there was the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Lieutenant-Colonel Sh. There were also three generals, whose names I do not know, and military commander G. in the vicinity of the village of Gekhi.\nActing on the instructions of the superiors of the alignment, I and a group of 30 \u2013 35 men arrived by bus and APC in Gekhi at around 11 a.m. ... About 20 men in the group were police officers, the rest were army servicemen. I was in charge of the police officers, and the [army] servicemen were under the command of an officer with the rank of captain, whose name I do not know. I do not know in which particular military units those servicemen served and at whose disposal the APC with the vehicle number 108 was.\nDuring the \u201csweeping\u201d operation we went to the courtyard of one of the houses. It was subsequently established that the house belonged to the Musayev family. ...\nI approached one of the windows and looked inside. I saw a man wearing an ammunition jacket and holding a pistol. Having seen me, the man fired ... at me. ... In response to the shots from the house, our personnel opened fire. ... [During the fight another] man came over to me and said that he lived in Moscow and was a relative of this family. ...\nOne of the soldiers threw 6 grenades into the house, but the shots from the house did not stop. Then [we] started shooting at the criminal from the APC, and only then did the fire from the house cease, but the house caught fire. ...\nOnly one man seemed to have been shooting from the house, and only one body was found inside. The soldiers put this corpse into a white car and the relative from Moscow also got into this vehicle. Then I went out and saw two cars near the house. The servicemen said that they had seized those cars. I cannot tell who ordered them to seize the cars. I did not give such an order. Besides, on the APC I noticed another detained man in a white shirt. I do not know who ordered that man to be detained. We escorted the detained men and two cars to the outskirts of Gekhi, where the command centre of the alignment was located. ... On the instructions of the superiors, the detained persons and the cars were left at the command centre. Upon my return from "}
+{"target": "Ganzenhoef", "prompt": "24.  In its judgment of 19 December 1996, following adversarial proceedings, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division quashed the Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 19 January 1996 and rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal to the Regional Court as ill-founded. Its reasoning included the following:\n\u201cThe prohibition order issued against Landvreugd is based on a decision of the appellant, dated 28 October 1993 and addressed to the Chief Superintendent of Police, which contains an instruction to the police relating to the preparation and issuing of a fourteen-day prohibition order. This instruction designates the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "17.  For Lord Mance there were two critical issues: whether the applicant's same-sex relationship was to be regarded as family life for the purpose of Article 8; and whether the child support regime impinged sufficiently on that family life for it to be said to fall within its ambit. Regarding the latter issue, his view was that the regime did, \u201cthough only just\u201d. The MASC regulations sought to avoid any unduly adverse impact on the absent parent's new relationship and to achieve a fair balance between it and the children's needs.\nAs for the first issue, the European Court of Human Rights had made it clear in May 2001 that same-sex relationships did not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life. As the applicant's appeal related to a period shortly after that decision (13 August 2001-18 February 2002), her relationship with her partner could not be regarded as a type of family life within the meaning of Article 8. He added that he had little doubt that the Strasbourg Court would see the position in 2006 as having changed very considerably, and that if the issue were to arise before it again, the applicant's relationship could very well be regarded as involving family life for the purpose of Article 8. Great change had taken place across "}
+{"target": "Nord-Ost", "prompt": "39.  On 31 January 2007 the investigators interviewed L.Ts. as a witness. She submitted that she held the post of the senior inspector with the information department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and that on an unspecified date in April 2006 she had gone, together with members of a film crew, to the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (\u201cUBOP\u201d) of the Chechen Republic. While the crew had been filming, an UBOP officer had been questioning a group of detained persons, one of whom had been Khamzat Tushayev. The latter had told the officer, among other things, about his daughter, who had participated in the "}
+{"target": "\u0130mral\u0131 Island", "prompt": "32.  In fact, the old ferry boat \u0130mral\u0131 9 was still in service but could only sail when there was little wind. The larger ferry boat, Tuzla, which the Government had promised when the previous \u00d6calan case was pending before the Grand Chamber of the Court, began operating in 2006. The Tuzla, being better suited than the \u0130mral\u0131 9 to difficult weather conditions, provides more frequent crossings between "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "6.  On 14 September 2005, with valid passports and three month visas, the applicant spouses entered Denmark, where the applicant husband, TN's sister and brother lived permanently. His three other siblings lived elsewhere in "}
+{"target": "North Caucasian", "prompt": "84.  The detention centre in Chernokozovo, where the first applicant was detained, received extensive attention from various human-rights institutions, including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), following allegations of severe ill-treatment of detainees. On 4 March 2000 the head of the CPT delegation, Mr Hajek, issued a statement to the Russian officials at the end of the visit to the "}
+{"target": "Shalinskiy", "prompt": "48.  Kh.S., interviewed as a witness on 7 November 2001, stated that on the evening of 6 November 2001 Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva had stayed at his house with his daughters. At about 6.30 a.m. on 7 November 2001 Kh.S.\u2019s daughter had told him that five armed masked men had burst into their house and had abducted Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva. Following that, Kh.S. and other residents of Serzhen-Yurt had gone to the ROVD\u2019s office and had learnt from police officers that during the night federal armed forces had conducted a special operation in the village. At about that time, a convoy of armoured vehicles had arrived from the southern outskirts of Serzhen-Yurt. The convoy had been headed by the military commander of the "}
+{"target": "the Dniester River", "prompt": "27.  As to the number of Moldovans holding a second nationality other than Romanian, this figure is also unknown. However, it appears to be considerable and it seems that Russian nationality is the second most popular, after Romanian. On 16 September 2008 the Russian Ambassador to Moldova stated in a televised interview that there were approximately 120,000 Moldovans with Russian passports on both banks of "}
+{"target": "Qasr", "prompt": "9.  The first applicant claimed that he had been politically active in Iran. He had always been interested in the Kurdish issue and had once, in 2003, been arrested and questioned by Etalat, the Iranian security forces, for being involved in a discussion on this topic. Subsequently, he had been sentenced to 12 months\u2019 imprisonment by the Mojtama Ghazani e Ghods court. He had served one month in "}
+{"target": "Pionerskoye", "prompt": "83.  In their reply of 19 September 2001 to the third and fourth applicants\u2019 complaint, the Vladivostok Administration stated that according to the information at their disposal, the human factor had played a role in the flood of 7 August 2007, as the water had not been released from the reservoir until a critical situation had emerged where a large volume of water had to be evacuated urgently to save the dam. The letter further stated that the work done by the city authorities to clear the river channel had not helped to prevent the houses and other structures from being flooded because the evacuation of water by the Water Company had been sudden and massive, with the result that even special concrete waterfronts of the dam outlet channel had been broken. The letter went on to say that the reservoir was the property of the regional authorities and therefore the Vladivostok city authorities had no power to reprimand staff of the Water Company. However, criminal proceedings had been brought in connection with the pecuniary damage suffered by residents of Vladivostok and the disruption of transport lines during the heavy rains and the evacuation of water from the "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny", "prompt": "51.  On 15 May 2004 the investigators requested that the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) provide them with the following information:\n\u201c....the investigation established the involvement in the crime [the murder of the applicant\u2019s sisters] of military servicemen from military brigade no. 205.\nAccording to the reply from the North-Caucasus Headquarters of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior to our request for information, documents concerning special operations conducted in the Chechen Republic in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 were transferred to the Central Archives of the Ministry of the Interior.\nBased on the above information, I ask you .... to identify which regiments of which military units and troops of the Ministry of the Interior carried out their service duties or were stationed between October 1999 and February 2000 inclusive in "}
+{"target": "K\u0131z\u0131lay", "prompt": "9.  On both occasions, while the president of \u201cKESK\u201d was reading out press statements, police officers warned the demonstrators that their action was contrary to the law and that they had to disperse. The demonstrators blocked the main street of the "}
+{"target": "Barassie Beach", "prompt": "8.  On 6 December 1999 members of the Central Scotland Police Underwater Search Unit discovered severed parts of a human body while on a training exercise in Loch Lomond. Further body parts were discovered on 7, 8 and 10 December 1999. On 15 December 1999 a human head was discovered at "}
+{"target": "Shatoy", "prompt": "34.  On 23 November 2009 the head of the investigations department ordered that the investigation was resumed and a number of steps were taken. In particular, his written instructions contained the following orders:\n\u201c... 3.  To question the applicant and find out the reasons why in his complaint of the abduction of 18 May 2009 to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor\u2019s office he stated that Rustam Kagirov had been abducted from home whereas in the complaint lodged with the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD of 20 May 2009 he stated that Rustam Kagirov had been abducted from the street ......\n... to question ROVD officers concerning the source of the information of Rustam Kagirov\u2019s alleged membership in illegal armed groups;\n... to examine the Priora vehicle with registration number A 720 T 95 and question its owner Mr M.T. in order to clarify whether he was implicated in the abduction;\n... 12.  To verify the information concerning Rustam Kagirov\u2019s apprehension by the policemen from the "}
+{"target": "the Far North", "prompt": "29.  It appears that at the material time the GUP was involved in the construction of socially-important objects in the Kamchatka Region. It used to be a client for construction, major overhaul and reconstruction, represented the regional administration in the respective transactions and was in receipt of the relevant budgetary funds. In particular, in 2002-2005 the company on several occasions became a client and managed funds in respect of construction projects under various Federal Targeted Programs related to housing provision, including resettlement from "}
+{"target": "sub-Saharan Africa", "prompt": "17.  Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted, and on 5 May 2005 the House of Lords unanimously dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal ([2005] UKHL 31).\nLord Nicholls of Birkenhead summarised the applicant\u2019s prognosis as follows:\n\u201c... In August 1998 [the applicant] developed a second Aids-defining illness, Kaposi\u2019s sarcoma. The CD4 cell count of a normal healthy person is over 500. Hers was down to 10.\nAs a result of modern drugs and skilled medical treatment over a lengthy period, including a prolonged course of systematic chemotherapy, the [applicant] is now much better. Her CD4 count has risen [from 10] to 414. Her condition is stable. Her doctors say that if she continues to have access to the drugs and medical facilities available in the United Kingdom she should remain well for \u2018decades\u2019. But without these drugs and facilities the prognosis is \u2018appalling\u2019: she will suffer ill health, discomfort, pain and death within a year or two. This is because the highly active antiretroviral medication she is currently receiving does not cure her disease. It does not restore her to her pre-disease state. The medication replicates the functions of her compromised immune system and protects her from the consequences of her immune deficiency while, and only while, she continues to receive it.\nThe cruel reality is that if the [applicant] returns to Uganda her ability to obtain the necessary medication is problematic. So if she returns to Uganda and cannot obtain the medical assistance she needs to keep her illness under control, her position will be similar to having a life-support machine turned off.\u201d\nLord Hope of Craighead, with whom Lord Nicholls, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe agreed, referred in detail to the Court\u2019s case-law (see paragraphs 32-41 below), and held as follows:\n\u201c... that Strasbourg has adhered throughout to two basic principles. On the one hand, the fundamental nature of the Article 3 guarantees applies irrespective of the reprehensible conduct of the applicant. ... On the other hand, aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State. For an exception to be made where expulsion is resisted on medical grounds the circumstances must be exceptional ... The question on which the Court has to concentrate is whether the present state of the applicant\u2019s health is such that, on humanitarian grounds, he ought not to be expelled unless it can [be] shown that the medical and social facilities that he so obviously needs are actually available to him in the receiving State. The only cases where this test has been found to be satisfied are D. v. the United Kingdom ... and B.B. v. France ... [T]he Strasbourg Court has been at pains in its decisions to avoid any further extension of the exceptional category of case which D. v. the United Kingdom represents.\nIt may be that the Court has not really faced up to the consequences of developments in medical techniques since the cases of D. v. the United Kingdom and B.B. v. France were decided. The position today is that HIV infections can be controlled effectively and indefinitely by the administration of retroviral drugs. In almost all cases where this treatment is being delivered successfully it will be found that at present the patient is in good health. But in almost all these cases stopping the treatment will lead in a very short time to a revival of all the symptoms from which the patient was originally suffering and to an early death. The antiretroviral treatment can be likened to a life\u2011support machine. Although the effects of terminating the treatment are not so immediate, in the longer term they are just as fatal. It appears to be somewhat disingenuous for the Court to concentrate on the applicant\u2019s state of health which, on a true analysis, is due entirely to the treatment whose continuation is so much at risk.\nBut it cannot be said that the Court is unaware of the advances of medical science in this field. All the recent cases since S.C.C. v. Sweden have demonstrated this feature. The fact that the Court appears to have been unmoved by them is due, I think, to its adherence to the principle that aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State. The way this principle was referred to and then applied in Amegnigan v. the Netherlands ... is, in my opinion, highly significant. What the Court is in effect saying it that the fact that the treatment may be beyond the reach of the applicant in the receiving State is not to be treated as an exceptional circumstance. It might be different if it could be said that it was not available there at all and that the applicant was exposed to an inevitable risk due to its complete absence. But that is increasingly unlikely to be the case in view of the amount of medical aid that is now reaching countries in the Third World, especially those in "}
+{"target": "Vedeno", "prompt": "78.  On 12 March 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Ya.Ge., who stated that in April 2004 he had been abducted from his house by unidentified men who had arrived in an UAZ vehicle. The abductors had put a mask over his head, had put him into the car, had driven for about an hour and a half and had arrived at \u201ca base\u201d. The witness had been taken to an abandoned bathhouse in the "}
+{"target": "the Kelmehmet mountains", "prompt": "125.  Also on 23 November 1995 Harun Aca, in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence, made a similar statement to the Bismil public prosecutor. In addition, Harun Aca declared that he had a document proving that he had participated in an operation conducted in "}
+{"target": "Bug River", "prompt": "34.  The statistical reports prepared by the government, in particular the Ministry for the Treasury (Ministerstwo Skarbu Pa\u0144stwa) and the Ministry for Infrastructure (Ministerstwo Infrastruktury), have to date not addressed the question of how many of the "}
+{"target": "Buivydi\u0161k\u0117s", "prompt": "62.  In June 2009 the district prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against the VCA on the grounds that no crime had been committed. The prosecutor held that the land reform in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  On 13 March 1997 around 10 a.m. the applicant, on being asked by a policeman to give evidence about his employees in connection with the proceedings against his son, stated again that he did not wish to do so and that none of his employees was currently working on the business "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy district", "prompt": "21.  Between 4 and 19 December 2000 the applicants complained about their relative's abduction to a number of local law enforcement agencies, including the department of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy district (the ROVD), the local prosecutor's office and the military commander's office of "}
+{"target": "Balkans", "prompt": "16.  On 20 April 1991 the applicant association organised a commemoration meeting at the Rozhen Monastery. The participants adopted a declaration addressed to the President and Parliament, which stated, inter alia:\n\u201c1.  Our rights as a minority, of which we have been deprived, should be guaranteed to us in accordance with the international agreements on minorities.\n[We demand:] 2.  The introduction of the [study of] the Macedonian language, history and culture in all educational institutions in Pirin Macedonia. 8.  That all Bulgarian political parties on the territory of Pirin Macedonia should be dissolved or renamed Macedonian; they should defend the national rights of the Macedonian people.\n... 14.  The complete cultural, economic and political autonomy of Pirin Macedonia and the withdrawal of the Bulgarian occupation armies from Pirin Macedonia ...\n... 16.  Should the Bulgarian government not respond positively to our demands, Ilinden shall appeal to the United Nations Organisation, the [Conference on] Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament, the Great Powers, in the interest of peace in the "}
+{"target": "the North Sea", "prompt": "139.  As regards his experience at the Arctic Surveyor, the High Court found that his decompression sickness in 1977 had most likely been caused by the facts that the diving company had used too rapid a decompression table and that there was no medical doctor who could assist him. This incident had probably been a strong contributory cause of Mr Vilnes\u2019s brain and spinal injuries. With hindsight there was plenty to contribute to the view that the diving operation should not have been authorised, and that Mr Vilnes should have received medical follow-up. Nonetheless, it was not possible to evaluate at the time of the High Court judgment whether the risk level had departed from what in 1977 had been considered justifiable in diving, in accordance with Article 121 of the Security Regulation, and the normal risk level in "}
+{"target": "the Dniester River", "prompt": "8.  Vadim Pisari lived in Pirita, a village located on the left bank of the Dniester River but controlled by the Moldovan Constitutional Authorities. Early in the morning of 1 January 2012, after an all-night New Year\u2019s Eve party with his friends at which alcoholic drinks were consumed, Vadim Pisari, accompanied by a friend \u201cpassenger\u201d, took a car belonging to another friend of theirs for a joy ride. Since the car needed urgent refuelling, they decided to drive to a petrol station located on the right bank of "}
+{"target": "the District of Kyrenia", "prompt": "8.  The applicant claimed that her former husband, Mr Ioannis Vrahimis, had been the director and shareholder of a company called Vrahimis Estate Ltd. The company owned two large plots of land located in the village of Klepini, in "}
+{"target": "the Binagadi District", "prompt": "6.  The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of 31 July 2010 at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed three other locations on the outskirts of Baku, namely, a stadium in "}
+{"target": "the Bug River", "prompt": "10.  The prosecuting authorities further argued that the purchase price, which partly comprised compensation for the property left by the applicants\u2019 legal predecessors in Trembowla, in the former Polish territories beyond "}
+{"target": "Savelovskiy District", "prompt": "24.  During the night of 6 to 7 February 2002 the applicant was arrested. According to the applicant, the police squad broke into his flat, handcuffed him, kicked him, then dragged him outside, forced him into the police car and took to the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  The City of Vienna asked the Vienna Regional Civil Court to dismiss the applicant\u2019s claim. It argued that M.K.\u2019s involuntary placement in the psychiatric institution on 19 March 2010 had been necessary as he had not been aware of his mental illness and had refused to be treated. At the time, he had been utterly confused and it had not been possible to reason with him. Because of the threat he posed to himself and others, he had repeatedly had his freedom of movement restricted whilst in hospital and had had to be medicated parenterally. On 25 March 2010 he had left the acute station without permission and went to his parents\u2019 place. When the police and the ambulance brought him back to the hospital, he had had to be sedated intravenously because of the highly psychotic state he was in. On 29 March 2010, only four days later, he escaped again from the acute station, but was apprehended by the hospital\u2019s security staff on the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "8.  Subsequently, the applicant requested seven daily and weekly newspapers to publish an identical paid advertisement for the book. The text of the proposed advertisement reads as follows:\n\u201cIt does not make for pleasant reading for [the editor-in-chief] of Gazeta Wyborcza, friends. The truth about Gazeta Wyborcza. Previously unseen documents and new witnesses. Stanis\u0142aw Remuszko, a former journalist [at the newspaper], today working freelance, has written the first ever book in Poland, "}
+{"target": "the Kur\u015funlu plain", "prompt": "13.  The village of Kur\u015funlu and the hamlet of Kaya\u015f are located in a fairly mountainous region and approximately 45 minutes\u2019 walk from each other. Close to Kur\u015funlu village and about an hour\u2019s walk from Kaya\u015f is "}
+{"target": "Proletarskoye", "prompt": "19.  On the same day the applicants found out that Russian military forces had also detained two other residents of their village, who had not been seen since. In addition, on the same morning, at the place where the vehicles had halted for twenty minutes on the night of 11 January 2003, residents of "}
+{"target": "the Vykhino District", "prompt": "8.  The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 1 June 2006 on a multiple entry business visa, valid until 27 May 2007. On 4 October 2006 immigration officers stopped the applicant on the street, checked his identity documents and brought him to the Department of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "western Europe", "prompt": "55.  On 12 March 2003 the Ojas Meditation Centre applied to the Ministry of Justice to be registered as a religious community.\nOn 29 August 2003 the Ministry of Justice rejected the application because it considered that although the Centre was on the \u201cborder between self-help psychology and religion (egzistuojantis savipagalbos psichologijos ir religijos paribyje)\u201d, it should not be treated as a religious community. Even though the Osho teachings mentioned in the Ojas Meditation Centre\u2019s by-laws were called religious, meditation there was more based on esoteric doctrines of self-improvement than on a religious practice whose main feature was connecting with God, gods or other sacred forms. The Ministry of Justice also noted that Osho movements did not have the status of a religion in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "57.  On 5 November 2009 the investigators questioned the head of the temporary detention unit of the Shali ROVD (\u201cthe IVS\u201d), officer S.E., and his colleague, officer Kh.Um., both of whom stated that Abdul\u2011Yazit Askhabov had not been detained on their "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "64.  On 7 January 2005 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the applicant as follows:\n\u201cOur department has taken steps to investigate the allegation that your son Adam Birsanov had been kidnapped by unidentified servicemen of one of the detachments of the special forces based in "}
+{"target": "territories", "prompt": "34.  The Government submitted copies of several issues of Vestnik za Makedonzite v Balgaria i Po Sveta and Makedonska poshta, pamphlets published by one of the factions linked to the applicant association, and copies of press material. These contain information, inter alia, about a \u201csecret\u201d private meeting of a faction of the applicant association held on 28 September 1997. The meeting allegedly declared that on 10 August 1998 the region of Pirin Macedonia would become \u201cpolitically, economically and culturally autonomous\u201d or independent. That was so because on that day, eighty-five years after the Bucharest Treaty of 1913, the States Parties to it were allegedly under obligation to withdraw from the \u201censlaved\u201d Macedonian "}
+{"target": "the Hohe Warte", "prompt": "6.  In its issue of 14 May 2004 Der Standard published an article in the domestic politics section under the heading \u201cGossip mongering\u201d (\u201cKolportiert\u201d). The article, which was entitled \u201cA society rumour\u201d (\u201cEin b\u00fcrgerliches Ger\u00fccht\u201d) commented on certain rumours relating to the marriage of Mr Klestil, the then Federal President. The article also appeared on the website of Der Standard. It read as follows:\n\u201cIf the stories circulating between the outlying district of D\u00f6bling and the city centre are to be believed, there is only one topic of conversation at the moment among the so\u2011called upper crust of Viennese society: the marriage of the departing presidential couple Thomas Klestil and Margot Klestil-L\u00f6ffler [bold print in the original]. Rumour has it that not only is he about to leave office, but she is about to leave him. The latter claim has of course set tongues wagging furiously in bourgeois \u2013 and not-so-bourgeois \u2013 circles. People here like nothing better than to be able to express outrage about one of their own.\nIn addition to the allegedly less-than-blissful domestic situation on "}
+{"target": "Uzem", "prompt": "26.  The relevant parts of M.N.\u2019s statement, as described in the court record, read as follows:\n\u201c(the applicant\u2019s husband) arrived at the police station and said in front of colleagues and himself (M.N.) that he had been afraid that something could happen to his children or (to the applicant), because, when she had gone to "}
+{"target": "the Leninskiy District", "prompt": "64.  At the Court's request, the Government provided the following update on the investigation, covering the period from January 2004 to August 2005:\n\u201cOn 12 January 2004 the [acting Deputy of the Chechnya Republican Prosecutor] by his decree quashed the decree to suspend the preliminary investigation in the criminal case no. 12073 of 20 January 2003 and the preliminary investigation was reopened. After reopening proceedings in the case [11 persons including the former military commandant of the Town of Grozny], were interviewed as witnesses. Moreover, a number of [actions were commissioned] to establish witnesses of the committed crime.\nOn 10 May 2005 the victim, S. S. Luluyev, was again interviewed and he stated that in the course of the search for his relatives he had been assisted by [the] officers of the [Department] of the Interior of the Leninskiy District of the Town of Grozny, [Mr K.], [Mr Yu.] and the operating officer by name of \u201cMikhail\u201d. Moreover, the search was conducted [by] an officer of the [FSB] by surname of \u201cBalandin\u201d. Mr S.S. Luluyev has learned from the above persons that the driver of the [APC] with the hull number 110 was a serviceman by name of \u201cFedyakin\u201d. Mr S.S. Luluyev did not give his consent to have the corpse of his wife exhumed. The corpse was examined earlier. The forensic medical examination established the violent nature of Mrs N.S. Luluyeva's death.\nOn 28 May 2004 the [Prosecutor's Office] of the Sverdlovsk Region [was commissioned] to interview [Mr K.] as a witness. He stated that in 2000 he had been detached to the Town of Grozny to serve as an operating officer of [the] criminal investigations department. Pursuant to the fact of abduction of Mrs N.S. Luluyeva, sisters Gakayevy and Mr Z. Tazurkayev measures had been taken with a view to establish persons who had committed the abduction. In particular, the hull number of the [APC], in which the abducted had been taken away, had been established. It turned out impossible to establish the surname of the driver of that armoured personnel vehicle. According to [the] received information special measures on Mozdokskaya Street during the indicated period of time were conducted by the Sofrino brigade of internal troops of the [...] Ministry of the Interior. During his second duty trip to the Chechen Republic in March 2001 he learned that the corpses of the abducted persons had been found and identified.\nOn 28 May 2005 the Military [Prosecutor's Office] of the Moscow Military District [was commissioned] to carry out several investigative actions to check the information that the crime had been committed by [the] servicemen of the regiment no. 245 of the Sofrino brigade of internal troops of the [...] Ministry of the Interior. According to the reply received from the commanding officer of the military unit no. 3641 (the Sofrino brigade of internal troops of the [...] Ministry of the Interior) a serviceman by surname of Fedyakin is not listed among the personnel of the unit and an [APC] with the hull number 110 is not listed among the vehicles of the unit. The military unit no. 3641 did not include regiment no. 245. The military unit comprises four operational battalions and not regiments.\nOn 8 September 2004 an inquiry concerning [the] officer of the [FSB] S. Balandin was sent to the Head of the Chechen Republican Directorate of the [FSB]. The criminal case-file was added with the reply of the Deputy Head of the Chechen Republican Directorate of the [FSB], according to which an officer S. Balandin is not listed among the personnel of the Directorate.\nThe preliminary investigation in the case was repeatedly suspended. On 15 February 2005 the [Deputy of the Chechnya Republican Prosecutor] by his decree quashed the decree to suspend the preliminary investigation. Pursuant to Section 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the directives were issued to eliminate inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness [K.], to establish women who were cleaning the territory near the commandant's office of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "20.  On 18 and 19 December 2002 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to a number of local law enforcement agencies, including the military commander's office, the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office) and the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "21.  The applicants took certain steps of their own initiative to establish their relatives\u2019 whereabouts. They found out that the two APCs that had approached the checkpoint belonged to battalion no. 348 of the Ministry of the Interior troops deployed in "}
+{"target": "the Vedenskiy District", "prompt": "59.  Meanwhile, on 22 June 2009 the investigator questioned witness S. M., chief detective of the criminal investigation department of the Vedenskiy District Department of the Interior (\u201cOVD\u201d), who stated as follows:\n\u201cWe [undertook steps] to identify those involved in the blowing up of the [UAZ vehicle] and the mortar fire which had caused [the applicant\u2019s daughter\u2019s] death ... Based on the results of the measures taken, [we] identified the individuals who had blown up the UAZ vehicle ..., but the involvement of [those individuals] in the mortar fire was not proved. In this connection we repeatedly submitted requests to the Vedenskiy District military commandant in order to establish the involvement of mortar batteries of the Russian Ministry of Defence deployed in "}
+{"target": "Siberia", "prompt": "34.  On 19 May 2004 the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow examined the Moscow Judicial Council\u2019s request. The applicant was absent from the proceedings, apparently without any valid excuse. The Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow decided that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence and that her office as a judge was to be terminated in accordance with the Law \u201cOn the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation\u201d. The decision, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n\u201cDuring her election campaign, in order to win fame and popularity with the voters, judge Kudeshkina deliberately disseminated deceptive, concocted and insulting perceptions of the judges and judicial system of the Russian Federation, degrading the authority of the judiciary and undermining the prestige of the judicial profession, in violation of the Law On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation and the Code of Honour of a Judge in the Russian Federation.\nThus, in November 2003, when meeting with [members of her] constituency, judge Kudeshkina stated that the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office exerts unprecedented pressure on judges during examination of a number of criminal cases by the Moscow City Court.\nIn the live broadcast of her interview with the radio station Ekho Moskvy on 1 December 2003, judge Kudeshkina stated that \u2018years of working in the Moscow City Court have led me to doubt the existence of independent courts in Moscow\u2019; \u2018a judge, although defined by law as an embodiment of judicial power and independent in this capacity, in fact often finds himself in a position of an ordinary clerk, a subordinate of a court president\u2019; \u2018the courts of law are used as an instrument of commercial, political or personal manipulation\u2019; \u2018if all judges keep quiet this country may soon end up in a [state of] judicial lawlessness.\u2019\nIn the interview with the newspaper Izvestiya of 4 December 2003, judge Kudeshkina stated: \u2018looking around, one is just stunned by the lawlessness. The law applies quite strictly to ordinary people, but this is not the case when it comes to persons holding important posts. But they break the law too \u2013 although they are not subject to liability\u2019; \u2018the court administration tests each judge to see how flexible he is, so that when it comes to [the allocation of cases] they know who can be entrusted with a delicate case and whom to avoid\u2019.\nIn another interview with judge Kudeshkina, published in Novaya Gazeta on 4 December 2003, she also stated that \u2018in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "32.  On 3 March 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 59054 had been suspended on 15 February 2004 for failure to identify those responsible and noted that the first applicant had the right to study non-classified documents from the case file on the district prosecutor's office's "}
+{"target": "Argun", "prompt": "29.  On 12 January 2001 the investigators forwarded a request to the Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office of military unit no. 20102, asking them to take the following steps: to identify which convoy had passed through "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "69.  On 7 June 2005 the second applicant complained to a number of State authorities, including the Minister of the Interior and the Prosecutor General. She complained that the investigators had failed to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into the abduction of her son. In her letters she described in detail the circumstances of Arbi Karimov\u2019s abduction. In particular, she stated that he had been abducted by Russian military servicemen; that the servicemen had seized a number of items of family property and identity documents; that they had threatened to blow up the applicants\u2019 house; that two other residents of the village had been abducted by the same group of servicemen; that the morning after the abduction local residents had found a corpse which had been left behind by the servicemen; that the authorities had failed to take any meaningful investigative steps; that on 15 January 2003 one of the abducted men had been released and he had told her that he had been detained on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "74.  At about 11 a.m. Mr K. B. went to the headquarters and spoke with a military colonel, who introduced himself as \u201cButov\u201d and who confirmed that Sulim Khatulov and Khamzat Alimkhanov had been apprehended by servicemen and then taken somewhere, but not to their "}
+{"target": "Argun", "prompt": "43.  On 5 May 2003 the SRJI, acting on the applicants' behalf, wrote to the Argun Prosecutor's Office, asking him for news about the investigation in criminal case no. 45031. They inquired if the investigation, which had been suspended in March 2002, had been reopened after the discovery of Mr Akhmadov's body. They also made requests for the second applicant and the person who had discovered the body to be questioned, for a forensic analysis to be ordered and for the clothes in which the body had been found to be collected from the second applicant for examination. They further inquired if any documents had been obtained relating to the operation in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "158.  By a decision of 20 October 2003 the investigator in charge ordered an examination by operative and tactical expert with a view to establishing whether there had been any shortcomings in the organisation and execution of a bomb strike in the vicinity of "}
+{"target": "Str\u00f8get", "prompt": "20.  A \u201cMemorandum on detentions in connection with the international match between Denmark and Sweden on 10 October 2009\u201d, prepared by Chief Inspector B.O., the strategic commander for the event, was submitted to the City Court. It stated that the police had received intelligence reports that hooligan groups from both countries were set on fighting each other on the match day. The risk of fighting was increased by the fact that the match would not start until 8 p.m., leaving considerable time for each group to consume alcoholic beverages beforehand. In order to prevent such clashes, the plan was to start engaging in proactive dialogue from 12 noon, when the first fans/spectators appeared, and in the event of clashes, first to arrest the instigators under section 755 of the Administration of Justice Act and charge them or, if that was not possible, to detain the instigators by virtue of section 5(3) of the Police Act. Since detention under the latter provision, as far as possible, should not exceed six hours, the memorandum specifically stated that it was preferable to avoid detaining anyone too early during the day, since they would then have to be released during or after the game, with the possibility that they would head for the city centre again and resume their involvement in brawls. At 3.41 p.m. the first big fight started between Danish and Swedish supporters at Amagertorv Square, on "}
+{"target": "Dekelia", "prompt": "30.  At 3 p.m. on 14 December 2000 the first applicant was visited by a UN inspector and a doctor. The inspector issued an incident report following the visit, the relevant parts of which read as follows:\n\u201cDuring the visit the prisoner, who is a diabetic, stated that he had no complaints in relation to how he had been treated by the TCPE [Turkish Cypriot Police Element] but that he had been assaulted i.e. punched and kicked by six civilians and had been threatened with a gun by them a short time before his arrest by the TCPE. He stated that his arrest had occurred in the "}
+{"target": "the Saya Hill", "prompt": "34.  On 13 August 1996 the transcripts of police radio communications, recorded on the day of the incident, at approximately 8.00 p.m., were drafted. The following conversations are extracts from these records:\n\u201c(20.09 a.m.)\n4032: HQ\nHQ: I am listening\n4032: there was a person carrying a plastic bag. We opened fire at him. We captured the wounded person. Now we are on our way to ...\nHQ: indicate the address\n4032: it is up "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "125.  In a witness interview of the same date Mr B., a high-ranking officer who at the relevant time had been seconded to the Chechen Republic, stated that he knew nothing about the attack of 19 October 1999 on "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "34.  The Government also submitted that the investigating authorities sent enquiries to law-enforcement bodies in the Chechen Republic and further in the Northern Caucasus. According to the replies received by the investigators, no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, he had not been arrested by any of those law\u2011enforcement agencies, nor kept in any detention centres, there was no information as to whether he had participated in illegal armed groups, he had not been found among unidentified corpses and had never applied for assistance to any medical institutions. The replies also stated that the federal forces had not conducted any special operation in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "23.  In two separate judgments of 11 August 2003, the Administrative Court of Appeal lifted some of the conditions imposed by the university. It pointed out that in the judgments of 6 February 2003 K and E had already been given the right of access to the requested documents and that the only matter under examination was the conditions of access, which could only be imposed if they were designed to remove a given risk of damage, and that a condition should be framed to restrict the recipient\u2019s right of disposal over the data. Thereafter, six conditions were set regarding K\u2019s access, including that the data was only to be used within the Swedish Research Council funded research project called \u201cThe neurological paradigm: on the establishment of a new grand theory in Sweden\u201d which K had specified before the Administrative Court of Appeal, that she was not allowed to remove copies from the "}
+{"target": "the Central District of Yerevan", "prompt": "18.  According to the record of the court hearing \u2013 drawn up in a calligraphic handwriting \u2013 the hearing was held in public with the participation of the judge, a clerk and the applicant. The judge explained the applicant\u2019s rights to her and informed her of the possibility to challenge the judge and the clerk. The applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges. She stated that she was aware of her rights and did not wish to have a lawyer. The judge read out the motion submitted by the police, seeking to impose administrative liability on the applicant. The applicant submitted that at 4.30 p.m. she had participated in a march which had taken place in "}
+{"target": "Tornio River", "prompt": "22.  In its decision the Supreme Administrative Court held:\n\"The Frontier Rivers Agreement between Finland and Sweden, annex B of it being the Fishing Regulation for the Tornio River fishing area, has been incorporated by law no 902/1971.\nArticle 8 of chapter 1 of the Frontier Rivers Agreement ordains that, unless there are other special provisions in the Agreement, the applicable law in each State is the law in force in that State. With regard to the above, the national Fishing Act is applicable where the Frontier Rivers Agreement does not contain special provisions on fishing.\nAccording to paragraph 116, subsection 1 of the Fishing Act, the Act and the Decree issued on the basis of the Act are applied also to waters located at the frontier of a State, unless there are provisions stating otherwise that are based on a contract with another State. Paragraph 116, subsection 2 ordains, that when an international agreement binding on Finland or the preservation of fish stocks so requires, a decree can be used to bring into force provisions regarding the fishing or catching of seafood by Finnish nationals outside Finnish waters. On the basis of subsection 3 of the same paragraph the decree may also, if an agreement referred to in subsection 2 so requires or for another reason, contain provisions regarding restrictions on catching within or outside Finnish waters.\nA subsection 2 has been added to paragraph 22 of the Fishing Regulation for the "}
+{"target": "Lice", "prompt": "84.  On 16 June 1998 the Lice chief public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution in relation to the crimes alleged to have been committed by Kas\u0131m A\u00e7\u0131k. The public prosecutor noted in his decision that, in his confession statements, Kas\u0131m A\u00e7\u0131k had not given the names of the victims, their village or the places where they had been buried. He pointed out that, according to the records of May-August 1995, no offence of abduction, murder or ill-treatment has been reported to the police, gendarmerie or judicial authorities within the district. The public prosecutor further noted that he had taken statements from fifty-one muhtars (mayors) of the villages and neighbourhoods of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "19.  On the same date the court issued a judgment allowing the claim by the Tax Administration. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:\n\u201cThe court, having heard the explanations of the parties, having examined case-file materials, considers it necessary to allow the initial claim ... and to reject the counterclaim, regard being had to the following:\nOn 16 July 1992 and 5 January 1993 respectively, Y. B., who could not understand the meaning of her actions or control them, authorised the registration of Kryvitska G.S. and Kryvitskyy Y.F. as tenants of the part of the building belonging to her ..., having thus concluded a tenancy agreement.\nOn 16 December 1998 she died, and 2/400 of the building, which had belonged to her ..., became property of the State represented by the Svyatoshynskyy District Tax Administration of Kyiv ..., which on 28 May 2002 sought protection of the owner's rights, which should not be infringed by Kryvitskyy Y.F. and Kryvitska G.S., who have occupied the "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "30.  The above-listed documents pertain to the inability of the authorities to conduct an on-site investigation into an allegation of destruction of property in Yaz\u0131\u00f6ren village in the Ovac\u0131k district on account of the lack of security in the area in question.\n(h)  The report of 9 January 1996 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly\u2019s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east "}
+{"target": "Danube", "prompt": "6.  On 9 May 2007 the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) held a demonstration in Budapest to protest against racism and hatred (hereinafter: MSZP demonstration). Simultaneously, members of Jobbik, a legally registered right-wing political party assembled in an adjacent area to express their disagreement.\nThe applicant, silently holding a so-called \u00c1rp\u00e1d-striped flag in the company of some other people, was observed by police as he stood nearby, at the steps leading to the "}
+{"target": "Lice", "prompt": "10.  The applicant was born in 1942 and is at present living in Diyarbak\u0131r, Turkey. At the time of the events giving rise to his application, the applicant was living in the \u00c7aylarba\u015f\u0131 (Dahlezeri in Kurdish) hamlet attached to T\u00fcreli village in the "}
+{"target": "Th12", "prompt": "13.  On 11 September 2001 at 5.40 p.m., the applicant was transferred to a specialist traumatology and orthopaedics hospital in R\u012bga (Traumatolo\u011fijas un ortop\u0113dijas slimn\u012bca). He told a specialist that the day before he had been fleeing from the police. Some officers had stopped him, had pulled him out of the car and had pushed him to the ground, which had led to his back making a hyperextensive movement, in other words, it had bent too far backwards. The applicant complained of lower back pain on his right side and said that he was unable to move his right leg because of the pain. Following an examination by a specialist, the applicant was diagnosed with the following: i) a hyperextension injury and contusion to the lower back; ii) a transverse process fracture (resulting from rotation or extreme lateral bending) to the L3 vertebra, iii) a compression fracture (flexion fracture pattern) to the L1 vertebra, previously fused by transperpendicular fixation surgery, the metal implant having become dislodged and screws in the "}
+{"target": "Caucasus Region", "prompt": "35.  On 28 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office requested prosecutor's offices of various levels, departments of the interior in the Chechen Republic and the Criminal Police of the Temporary Operational Group of Authorities and Departments of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the "}
+{"target": "the Stavropol Region", "prompt": "32.  On 30 April 2004 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 44662 informed the applicant, amongst other things, of the following:\n\u201c... it has been impossible to verify the arguments provided in [the applicant\u2019s] complaint about the murder of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev ... for the following reasons:\nIn 1996 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 44662 was transferred from Grozny to its current station in Buynaks, Dagestan ...\nMilitary unit no. 74814, where Major A.Z. was serving and in respect of whom the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 44662 had opened a criminal case under Article 103 of the Criminal Code (in connection with the murder of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev) on 15 March 1996, was stationed in Budennovsk in "}
+{"target": "Batoum", "prompt": "102.  Articles XI and XV of the Armistice Treaty signed on 30 October 1918 at Mudros between Great Britain and her allies, and Turkey provided:\n\u201cXI. ... Part of Trans-Caucasia has already been ordered to be evacuated by Turkish troops, the remainder to be evacuated if required by the Allies after they have studied the situation there.\u201d\n\u201cXV. ... This clause to include Allied occupation of "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "53.  On 17 and 18 October 2002 Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov, Mr Aziev, Mr Adayev and Mr Khadjiev, namely the applicants who had been extradited from Georgia to Russia on 4 October 2002, were placed in a pre-trial detention centre (\u201cSIZO\u201d) in A, a town in the Stavropol region, in "}
+{"target": "the Murmansk Region", "prompt": "16.  On 8 February and 22 March 2001 the applicant submitted his grounds of appeal to the Murmansk Regional Court. He complained, among other things, that the Town Court had failed to question S., although his testimony had contradicted Sk.\u2019s and his own accounts of the events; that he had twice requested the court to question S.; that the trial court had known that S. had been held in a detention facility in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "9.  It reads as follows[1]:\n\u201cThe nation has acquired 1,500 tobacco retailers. They have most of the dough[2]; more precisely FIDESZ\u2019s[3] pals and cronies have it. The mafia-government cannot be bothered that several thousands of petrol station keepers, grocers, newsagents or real tobacco retailers have lost their living.\nTobacco retailers have not had a significant margin, exactly 4.5 per cent. This was generally just enough to cover perhaps the overheads, although the costs of lease of the shop and the employees\u2019 wages had to be generated beyond this profit. It has been the State in any case that got the real profit through the excise tax and the VAT.\nWhat is happening now? Every twenty tobacco retailers will go bankrupt and be replaced by one, that is, instead of every twenty retailers, one will have the concentrated profit.\nHowever, the newly introduced 10 per cent profit, now due to the cronies (cs\u00f3kosoknak j\u00e1r\u00f3), will result in a situation in which the [new] \u201cnational\u201d retailers will have forty times higher profit than was usual. Forty-fold profit for the pals and the cronies! This is big-time bloody swinishness (v\u00e9rb\u0151 diszn\u00f3s\u00e1g)!\nTobacco licences are, in "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "18.  Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants and other relatives of the detained persons started to look for them. On 13 December 2000 Ruslan T. and ten other men returned to Raduzhnoye. On 17 December 2000 another five men were released. On 19 December 2000, two more men were released in the village of Gikalo. They told the applicants that they had been detained in pits in "}
+{"target": "the Shali district", "prompt": "17.  Starting on 18 December 2000, the applicant and her husband applied on numerous occasions to prosecutors of different levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the administrative authorities in Chechnya and to the Russian President's Special Envoy to the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms. The applicant submitted several copies of standard letters stating that her son had been detained by unknown military servicemen and had then disappeared, and asking for assistance and details of the investigation, submitted by her to various authorities. On her request similar letters were signed by the village council of elders and the head of administration. On 5 January 2001, at her request, a letter was sent from the office of the Head of Administration of Chechnya to the prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Thames Valley", "prompt": "97.  On 29 November 1998 an article entitled \u201cCops knew that gun was replica\u201d was published in the 'Bedfordshire on Sunday' newspaper. It was reported that a laboratory technician, Kate Bellamy, a neighbour of Michael Fitzgerald's, had informed the police at about 7.45 p.m. on the night of the incident that Michael Fitzgerald had two replica guns at his home. The Coroner was in possession of a statement made by Kate Bellamy, dated 27 February 1998. This statement, made the day after the incident, had been provided to the "}
+{"target": "Maz\u0131da\u011f\u0131 District", "prompt": "35.  As regards written evidence, the Commission had particular regard to the statements of both the applicant and his sister Mekiye \u00d6nen of 1 and 5 April 1993 (taken by the Fosfat gendarme station commander Salih Kaygusuz and by gendarme officer Cengiz Kesler of the Maz\u0131da\u011f\u0131 district gendarme station); a statement by the applicant of 9 June 1993 (taken by Mr Yekta \u00c7obano\u011flu, the public prosecutor of Maz\u0131da\u011f\u0131); an undated statement taken by Mr Sedat Aslanta\u015f of the Diyarbak\u0131r Branch of the Human Rights Association (submitted to the Commission on 18 October 1993); a statement by the applicant's sister of 6 July 1993 (taken by Yekta \u00c7obano\u011flu); statements by village guards Ali Erta\u015f and Mecit Kaya taken on 4 and 5 April 1993 (at Fosfat gendarme station by Salih Kaygusuz); a statement by Mahmut Denli (taken on 5 April 1993 by gendarme Cengiz Kesler at the "}
+{"target": "Tal-Hriereb", "prompt": "6.  On 3 August 1960 the applicants and/or their ancestors acquired the right of perpetual emphyteusis (a contract granting use of a \u201ctenement\u201d, that is, a house, apartment or other building, for a stated yearly rent or ground rent to be paid in money or in kind) over a piece of land, located within the limits of two Maltese cities, Birkirkara and Msida. This land, known as \u201c"}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "173.  During questioning on 2 and 3 July 2003 four pilots, Pog., Ab., D. and Sh., who at the material time had been seconded to the Chechen Republic and served in military unit 11731, stated that they had performed a flight in a group of four planes on 19 October 1999 to the southern mountainous area of the Chechen Republic. According to Mr Pog., the planes had been laden with aerial bombs of calibre 250 or 500 kg. The pilots also stated that the results of the bombing had been recorded by means of objective control devices \u2013 video recorders and photographic cameras \u2013 and after the flight had been given to a commanding officer. The pilots insisted that they had been instructed to launch bombs in an area situated at a distance of no less than three kilometres from any inhabited settlement and that they had never carried out any strikes on "}
+{"target": "IK-14 D.M.", "prompt": "32.  The applicant submitted to the Court the following witness statements recorded by a representative of the non-governmental organisation Committee Against Torture in Nizhniy Novgorod in February 2006:\n(i)  According to a statement by I.K., he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in unit no. 14 at IK-14, where he was informally given the task of monitoring discipline. In September 2004 the applicant, who was not a convicted prisoner like the others, was transferred to the unit. I.K. learned from B., who was high in the unofficial hierarchy of convicted prisoners in the unit, that the applicant had been transferred there so that he could be coerced into giving confession statements at the request of law\u2011enforcement officers by whatever means. The applicant had bruises under his eyes and haematomas on his head. He could hardly move on his own and was depressed. He was visited several times by officers from the ORB police unit. After the visits he had to seek others\u2019 help to get to his cell and looked very oppressed. On one occasion, after a visit, the applicant wrote a statement in which he described being tortured and beaten up during his interviews. I.K. handed the statement over to B. Later that day two convicts, A.V. and S.P., went to see the applicant and took him to a storage room. Through the thin plywood walls I.K. could clearly hear A.V. and S.P. yelling at the applicant and threatening him with physical and sexual violence if he kept complaining and refusing to write the statements which the police had asked him to give. On several other occasions I.K. heard one convict, Z., threaten the applicant with sexual violence if he refused to give statements. After the applicant had been coerced into giving several confession statements in a row he was no longer threatened and beaten up and soon left the colony. I.K. stated that he was ready to confirm his statements before the investigating authority and the courts, adding that he feared pressure from the police and the prosecutor\u2019s office.\n(ii)  According to a statement by G., he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in IK-14. In September 2004 the applicant, who was not a convicted prisoner like the others, was transferred to his unit. He had bruises under his eyes and complained of pain on both sides of his body and in his spine. On repeated occasions he was called for interviews by officers from the ORB police unit. The interviews began in the morning and lasted until evening. After the interviews the applicant was unable to move on his own and had fresh injuries, notably abrasions and bruises on his face. He explained that he had been beaten up by police officers. On one occasion three convicts, V., B. and Z., took him to a storage room. G. heard them yelling at the applicant and threatening him, demanding that he confess to some crimes and write confession statements as requested by the police officers. After that incident the applicant had several fresh bruises on his face.\n(iii)  According to statements by the applicant\u2019s wife, at the court hearing on 9 June 2004 the applicant looked very depressed. He had bruises on his head and abrasions on his wrists. When she visited him in IK-14 his face was bruised, he was dragging his leg behind him and had difficulty sitting down. He said that he was being detained with convicted prisoners in unit no. 14 and visited regularly by police officers demanding that he give confession statements in relation to serious crimes. During subsequent visits, on at least three occasions, the applicant looked like he had been beaten up, with abrasions and bruises on his face and head and bruises on his wrists. He had difficulty speaking, made long pauses and could hardly move. On one occasion, he said that he had signed several confession statements in a row as a result of torture. At one of the court hearings for the extension of his detention he complained of severe back pain.\n(iv)  According to the applicant\u2019s son, D.M., at the same hearing on 9 June 2004 the applicant looked very depressed and shocked. His face was swollen, his lips were smashed and he was walking with difficulty. He did not recognise his family. When visiting his father in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant company and the Khabarovsk Town Council concluded a remission-of-debt agreement. The Town Council undertook to pay the applicant company RUR 4,000,000 by 20 January 2005. The applicant company agreed to make a charitable contribution of the outstanding amount of RUR 1,075,963 for the purposes of town development. The agreement continued as follows:\n\u201c[The applicant company] undertakes to withdraw and not to resubmit the writ of execution no. 0009949, issued pursuant to the judgment [of 3 May 2001], and renounces all other pecuniary claims against the Khabarovsk Town Council relating to the demolition of [the applicant company's "}
+{"target": "Siberia", "prompt": "6.  In 1990 the first applicant\u2019s husband and the second applicant\u2019s father, Mr Henryk Iwaszkiewicz, born in 1929, was granted a retirement pension under a regular retirement pension scheme and on the strength of premiums which he had been paying into the centralised social insurance fund. In 1997 he requested the Zdu\u0144ska Wola Social Insurance Authority (Zak\u0142ad Ubezpiecze\u0144 Spo\u0142ecznych) to grant him a disability pension, together with so-called \u201cveteran status\u201d (\u201cuprawnienia kombatanckie\u201d - see paragraphs 17 to 21 below) since from 1940 to 1946 he had been imprisoned, together with his parents, in a labour camp in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "149.  A report of 30 April 2003 reflected the result of the examination of the register of military actions of the aircraft of the United Group Alignment (\u0436\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0430\u043b \u0431\u043e\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0430\u0432\u0438\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u041e\u0413\u0412) for the period from 29 September 1999 to 20 January 2000. According to the report, on 19 October 1999 two entries had been made in the register; they concerned two attacks by federal military helicopters against illegal fighters who had been located about forty kilometres from "}
+{"target": "the Sabail District", "prompt": "6.  The BCEA refused to authorise the demonstration of 20 October 2012 at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of Baku \uf02d the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th habitable area of "}
+{"target": "Eastern Europe", "prompt": "14.  On 23 August 1939 the Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression treaty (known as \u201cthe Molotov\u2011Ribbentrop Pact\u201d) which included an additional secret protocol whereby the parties agreed on \u201cthe question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "198.  In witness interviews of 14 May 2003 Mr A., Mr Sh. And Mr V. made statements somewhat similar to those of 13 October 2001. In particular, they stated that around late winter 2000 they and Mr Dhz. had met a convoy of an Ural vehicle and an armoured personnel carrier escorting two foreign-made cars and that Mr Dzh. had purchased the cars and taken one of them to "}
+{"target": "Luki\u0161k\u0117s", "prompt": "14.  The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the Strasbourg Court would sometimes hold that finding a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction. In the instant case, however, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the degree of the applicant\u2019s suffering called for pecuniary compensation. Moreover, the sum of LTL 3,000 was not sufficient. Yet, the Supreme Administrative Court took into account that the applicant had not lodged a claim for damages until three years after his detention in such conditions had ended, by which time the court considered that the impact on a person\u2019s emotional and physical suffering had decreased (laiko veiksnys asmens patirtas dvasines ir fizines kan\u010dias menkina, jos bl\u0117sta). The fact that the applicant had not instituted court proceedings for damages until three years after his release from the Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison led the court to the conclusion that his mental suffering (dvasin\u0117 skriauda) was not so significant. Furthermore, when detained, the applicant was nineteen to twenty years old. During the hearing before the first-instance court he had acknowledged that he was in a good state of health. Accordingly, the conditions of his detention in "}
+{"target": "Hyde Park\u2019s", "prompt": "10.  On 2 December 2005 the Chi\u015fin\u0103u Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants\u2019 action while finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application. The court considered that since other events were scheduled to take place in the park on that day, such as exhibitions, sports events, concerts and other demonstrations, "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "59. On 11 October 2001 the Georgian Supreme Court quashed the appeal court\u2019s judgment and acquitted Mr Mirian Arabidze. In its judgment, the Supreme Court considered it \u201cestablished\u201d that, on 17 October 1999, Father Basil\u2019s group had gone to the Gldani "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "24.  On 11 May 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicants, along with another co-defendant, of membership of an illegal armed group, several counts of murder, attempts on the life of law-enforcement officers and illegal possession of firearms. They were sentenced to twenty\u2011five years\u2019 imprisonment. The applicants\u2019 conviction was based on self\u2011incriminating statements given by the defendants during the pre-trial investigation in the period between September and December 2002 while they had been on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "25.  On 13 January 1995 the Ankara Principal Public Prosecutor, \u00d6zden T\u00f6n\u00fck, sent a letter to the Ankara public prosecutor\u2019s office, which was in charge of the investigation. The relevant parts of the letter read:\n\u201cThe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) interviewed prisoners in Ankara Prison who had been transferred from the anti-terrorist branch at the Security Directorate and who said that they had seen Kenan Bilgin in September 1994 in the building where remand prisoners are detained. When we spoke to them, they said that they had seen Kenan Bilgin between 13 and 25 September 1994 through an aperture in their cell-door windows when he was being taken to the toilets, to the torture room or to be photographed. The investigation reveals that the section of the premises where remand prisoners are held contains individual cells with windows in the cell door that enable police officers to communicate with the prisoners or to pass them their food and which can only be opened from the outside by the warders. The cells are aired by a ventilator attached to the ceiling and it is impossible for prisoners to see what is happening outside. Prisoners are interrogated on the floor above in an interview room that complies with European standards. The cells are not numbered but a small sheet of paper bearing the prisoner\u2019s name is attached to the cell door. Persons arrested are photographed and fingerprinted by the technical services at the Security Directorate. Between 1 January and 31 December 1994, 771 people were taken into custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Security Directorate; of these, 160 were released by the police, 574 brought before a judge and 37 transferred to other branches at the Security Directorate. Thus, with the exception of Kenan Bilgin, there had been no complaints of any disappearances of prisoners being held in custody. According to the inquiry conducted by the CPT on 16 and 17 October 1994, in an unannounced visit to the Security Directorate, there are no reports of unlawful detention on the "}
+{"target": "Hyde Park", "prompt": "14.  On 21 September 2007 the Centru District Court examined the charges against the applicants. The applicants argued that since the Municipality had failed to examine their application for authorisation before the date of the demonstration, they had the right to hold the demonstration in accordance with section 12(5) of the Assemblies Act. Moreover, they submitted that they had been told by a representative of the local authorities that the Municipality did not have time to deal with their request and that they could hold their protest as planned. The court dismissed the applicants' submissions and found that they had breached the provision of section 11(1) of the Assemblies Act by failing to submit the application within fifteen days in advance of the planned assembly. According to the court, the protest should have been held on 14 September 2007 at the earliest. Ghenadie and Oleg Brega were found guilty of organising an unauthorised demonstration and fined 800 Moldovan lei (MDL) each (approximately 48 euros (EUR)). Another "}
+{"target": "Bolotnaya", "prompt": "50.  Concerning the way the assembly of 6 May 2012 had been organised, the Expert Commission noted the following:\n\u201c... the Moscow Department of Regional Security announced on 4 May [2012] that the event would follow a similar route to the previous rally on 4 February [2012]. The participants were to assemble at Kaluzhskaya Square, set off at 4 p.m. along Bolshaya Yakimanka and Bolshaya Polyanka for a rally in Bolotnaya Square, and disperse at 7.30 p.m. The official notification of approval was issued on 4 May 2012 \u2013 just two days before the beginning of the event.\nThat same day, the [Moscow Department of the Interior] published a plan on its website indicating that all of Bolotnaya Square, including the public gardens, would be given over to the rally, while the Bolshoy Kamenny bridge would be closed to vehicles but would remain open to pedestrians. This was the same procedure [the] authorities had adopted for the two previous rallies on Bolotnaya Square on 10 December 2011 and 4 February 2012.\n...\nOn the evening of [5 May 2012], the police cordoned off the [park] of Bolotnaya Square. According to Colonel Yuri Zdorenko, who was responsible for security at the location, this was done \u2018in order to prevent the participants from setting up a camp and from [carrying out] other [illegal] acts.\u2019 [The] authorities received information [that] the protesters might attempt to establish a protest camp at the site, causing them to decide that the rally should be confined to only the "}
+{"target": "Pervolia Trikomou", "prompt": "15.  Applicant no. 6 (Mr Anastassis Georghiou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Latsia, Trikomo, plot no. 137/1/6/2, sheet/plan 15/43; use: land with trees for agriculture; share: 1/6;\n(b) Famagusta, "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "13.  On 10 December 2002 the first applicant complained about his son's abduction to the Urus-Martan Town Court and to the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (\u201cthe district prosecutor's office\u201d). In his complaint the first applicant mentioned that the armed men had told him that they belonged to the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. He also requested information on his son's whereabouts from the local administration and the military commander's office of the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "53.  The Government submitted that on unspecified dates the investigators had sent 33 queries to various State bodies requesting information as to whether these agencies had arrested or detained Bekkhan Alaudinov and whether any special operations had been conducted in respect of him. According to the responses received on various dates from the Urus-Martan ROVD, various district prosecutors\u2019 offices and district military commanders\u2019 offices in Chechnya, the military commander\u2019s office of the security zone in the "}
+{"target": "the Central Administrative District of St Petersburg", "prompt": "58.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant complained of his unlawful detention to the Dzerzhinskiy district court. On an unspecified date that court returned his complaint without examining it and stated that since no investigation was pending in respect of the applicant in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "6.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of the PKK/KADEK (Workers\u2019 Party of Kurdistan/Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress), an illegal organisation. He was in possession of a fake identity card at the time of his arrest. Subsequently, following the applicant\u2019s directions to the police, the latter conducted a house search in the presence of the applicant on the "}
+{"target": "Shali area", "prompt": "17.  On 28 August 2003 the investigators forwarded a number of requests to various prosecutors\u2019 offices in Chechnya, asking them to provide information as to whether any special operations had been carried out by military units from their districts in the "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "31.  On 19 November 2003 Memorial wrote a letter to the Military Prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus Circuit, with a copy to the Chief Military Prosecutor, asking for details of the criminal investigation into the attack on the applicant. The letter also contained a request for access to the investigation file by the applicant or her representatives. On 26 December 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor forwarded the request to the Military Prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Presnenskiy", "prompt": "13.  On 24 September 2003 the first applicant submitted his self-nomination application, for the elections to the State Duma, to the District Election Commission (DEC) of central single-mandate constituency no. 202 (in Moscow). He indicated that he was employed as \u201cthe head of the district council of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "5.  In March 2003, the journalist M. entered into a contract of employment with the C. company. The C. company was authorised under the relevant provisions of the Animal Welfare Act to perform animal experiments and to keep and breed animals (monkeys) for that purpose. During his working hours, M., using a hidden camera, produced 40 hours of film footage which documented the treatment of laboratory animals within the C. company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "242.  In particular, the court dismissed the complaint about multiple searches carried out on the basis of a single search warrant. The court held that this had been a lawful practice. Further, the court decided that the discrepancies in the report on the search in the premises of the State Property Fund in Murmansk had been the result of a typing error. In fact, the documents were seized and examined in Murmansk and not in Moscow. The court also noted that the report on the search of 9 July 2003 in Apatit\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Eastern Europe", "prompt": "6.  The applicant was a journalist and an active member of the Popular Front Party, which is one of the opposition parties. At the time of the events he wrote for the newspaper Azadliq and participated in various media projects. In particular, he was the presenter of a satellite TV show \u201cAzerbaijani Hour\u201d which was critical of the government. In 2016 the applicant was awarded that year\u2019s \u201cFree Media Awards\u201d by the Fritt Ord Foundation and ZEIT-Stiftung for independent journalism in "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "58.  In the light of the above findings, the decision concluded that prior to 4 September 2000, when no water protection zones had been established by the Primorskiy regional authorities, any town planning restrictions concerning construction activities in such zones had been inoperative, officials of the Vladivostok Adminsitration could not be said to have exceeded their powers when allocating plots of land on the banks of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "58.  On 18 December 2001 the Office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit (\u0410\u043f\u043f\u0430\u0440\u0430\u0442 \u041f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044f \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0420\u0424 \u0432 \u042e\u0436\u043d\u043e\u043c \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u043c \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0435) informed Mr Khamzayev that there had been no military actions in "}
+{"target": "Marfino", "prompt": "28.  According to the Government, in August 2013 the construction of the fourth main track of the Oktyabrskaya railway between Moscow and Khimki was completed on the land previously occupied by the garages of the GSK and was opened for circulation of the suburban electric train. In December 2014 noise-reduction barriers were installed along the Oktyabrskaya railway line in the area of the "}
+{"target": "Lice", "prompt": "22.  The applicant's wife Fatma then asked the soldiers, in Kurdish, about what had happened to her sons \u0130kram \u0130pek and Servet \u0130pek. The soldiers could not understand Kurdish, and asked what she had said. When the applicant explained that she was asking about her sons, the soldiers replied that they were in "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "52.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not informed the investigators that at the material time the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny had been under curfew which had prevented the transportation of Saidkhasan Dangayev to a local hospital. In addition, they referred to statements by unnamed witnesses who said that they had not been prevented from moving freely about the "}
+{"target": "North Karelia", "prompt": "26.  As to the applicant company\u2019s participation in the cartel, the Supreme Administrative Court held that:\n\u201c(1274)  [o]n the basis of [the three witness] statements adduced before the Market Court and the Supreme Administrative Court and the written evidence consisting of the [chart on the geographical division of the markets], it has been shown that [the applicant company] took part in the cartel, in particular in Lapland and the "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny", "prompt": "31.  On 16 June 2003 the investigators in criminal case no. 12583 requested that the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) inform them which military units had participated in the military operation in "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "92.  In a letter of 6 June 2005 the regional prosecutor\u2019s office further informed the second applicant that the authorities were currently working on a fortification project to protect Vladivostok, including the area near "}
+{"target": "the Shali district", "prompt": "185.  It appears from the case file that between 2003 and 2009 the applicants and their relatives complained to different authorities, asking for assistance in their search for Apti Dombayev. Following their complaints they were informed that the investigation was in progress and all the necessary measures were being taken to establish Apti Dombayev\u2019s whereabouts and identify the perpetrators. In particular, on 30 September 2005 the Shali district department of the interior (\u201cthe ROVD\u201d) informed the applicants that the investigation had been checking the theory that members of the special forces stationed in "}
+{"target": "Bolotnaya", "prompt": "17.  At about 5 p.m. the march approached Bolotnaya Square. The leaders found that the layout of the meeting and the placement of the police cordon did not correspond to what they had anticipated. Unlike on 4 February 2012, the park at Bolotnaya Square was excluded from the meeting venue, which was limited to "}
+{"target": "Kaforme hill", "prompt": "82.  According to their investigations, it appeared that no complaint had been made to the gendarmerie about this matter. Mehmet Safi Aranacak had been killed on 13 January 1994 fighting as a terrorist against the security forces at "}
+{"target": "the Cherkasy SIZO", "prompt": "40.  The Government challenged the trustworthiness of part of the applicant\u2019s submissions concerning restrictions on family visits and telephone calls, specifically his allegations that family visits had lasted less than two hours, that he had not been allowed to make telephone calls between 15 October 2004 and 2 November 2005, that other restrictions had been imposed on his right to make telephone calls after 2 November 2005, that only three adults and one minor child or two adults and two minor children had been allowed to visit him at any one time in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "30.  The applicants observed that in the event of an increase in the value of the property due to the investments made by the tenant, Section 25 of the ZDen gave three options to the \u201cprevious owners\u201d: (a) to request compensation instead of restitution in natura; (b) to request part ownership of the dwelling; (c) to recover the full property and reimburse the tenant. As a rule, the tenants\u2019 requests for reimbursement were examined in sets of proceedings initiated after the denationalisation proceedings, often after the year 2005. However, according to the applicants, the evaluation of the dwellings according to the relevant domestic rules was totally unrealistic, which made the evaluation of the increased value due to new investments unrealistic also. Moreover, only those investments which had increased the value of the dwelling \u2013 and not those which had kept the value of the property at the same level since its expropriation \u2013 were taken into account. The time-limit for reimbursement of investments was ten years and the parties could reach a friendly settlement on these matters. \u201cPrevious owners\u201d frequently made the reimbursement conditional upon the tenants vacating the "}
+{"target": "\u015eav\u015fat", "prompt": "42.  During these proceedings, around twenty hearings were held. As they had done previously, the accused denied any responsibility in the death of C.A., stating that they had never taken part in his interrogation. F.I stated that on the day in question he had been involved in operations in the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "6.  At the material time he was the executive director of the Russian\u2011Chechen Friendship Society (\u041e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e-\u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b), a non-governmental organisation which monitored human rights violations in the Chechen Republic and other parts of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "158.  On 9 March 2001 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that at 6.45 a.m. on 26 February 2001 a group of twenty servicemen in camouflage uniforms armed with submachine guns had arrived at their house in a military Ural lorry. Her husband had been bedridden owing to health problems caused by his previous abduction on 13 February 2001. The servicemen had forced him to go outside; one of them had gone back in and grabbed a pink blanket from the bed. Her daughter Ms Malika Ts. had followed the lorry in which her father had been driven away and had seen it go to the district military commander\u2019s office in Urus-Martan. The next day, while waiting outside the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "9.  On the night of 12 February 2001 five other inhabitants of the village of Goyty \u2013 Mr E., Mr I., Mr V. and two brothers, Mr D.M. and Mr V.M. \u2013 were abducted under similar circumstances. Later they were released and told the applicant that they had been kept together with her husband at the military commander\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Sector 3", "prompt": "28.  Still according to those reports, surveillance of dormitory no. 7 \u2013 which had been under the control of the insurgents since 2 September 1999 \u2013 was no longer possible and the persons occupying it were now in a position to instigate all kinds of actions. Furthermore, since "}
+{"target": "H\u00e4rjedalen", "prompt": "33.  As regards prescription from time immemorial and the burden and standard of proof in this respect, the Court of Appeal stated the following:\n\u201cUnder Chapter 15, section 4 of the old Land Code, the following applied to proof of prescription from time immemorial. 'If someone pleads prescription from time immemorial and fault is found with this claim, let him then show by means of old letters and writings deemed sufficient in law, or by means of credible men who have good local knowledge and can bear witness, on oath, that they neither know themselves nor have heard from others that the situation has ever been different. If he is unable to do this, the prescriptive right shall then be without force and effect.' According to the preparatory works for the 1928 Reindeer Grazing Act and the [1971] Reindeer Husbandry Act, in cases subject to dispute, the question of whether a right to winter grazing applies in a certain area is to be examined by a court on the basis of the evidence that is required under general law for proof of prescription from time immemorial (see Government Bill 1928:43, p. 71, and Government Bill 1971:51, p. 158). The burden of proof that winter grazing has taken place on the property owner's land to such an extent that the Sami villages have a right to continued winter grazing may therefore be deemed to rest with the Sami villages.\nIn this case, the Sami villages claim that a right to winter grazing based on prescription from time immemorial has come into being as Sami have been in "}
+{"target": "Shali district", "prompt": "224.  On 2 November 2006 the Shali ROVD informed the applicants that they were taking a number of investigative steps, including forwarding information requests to power structures in Chechnya, examining unidentified bodies against the ROVD\u2019s databases and checking the details of admissions to hospitals in the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "17.  According to the Government, since the beginning of the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic, the civil and military authorities had taken all necessary steps to secure the safety of civilians residing in "}
+{"target": "Kaposi", "prompt": "12.  In March 2001 a consultant physician prepared an expert report, at the request of the applicant\u2019s solicitor, which expressed the view that without continuing regular antiretroviral treatment to improve and maintain her CD4 count, and monitoring to ensure that the correct combination of drugs was used, the applicant\u2019s life expectancy would be less than one year, due to the disseminated "}
+{"target": "Velushina", "prompt": "22.  On 22 June 2006 the applicant, relying on sections 355 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (11) and 2 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (the \u201cAct\u201d, see paragraph 28 below), appealed arguing, inter alia, that on the basis of the evidence given by the migrants the trial court had established that (i) he had known that they had been illegal migrants, (ii) he had transferred them to the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "41.  Malizh Byutukayeva and other members of the family tried to escape the fighting through the exit towards Valerik. On 5 February 2000 they reached the roadblock but were not allowed to pass. The eighth applicant and other residents were advised by the servicemen to wait in three empty houses near the roadblock. On 6 February 2000 these houses were shot at from passing military vehicles, as a result of which both Malizh Byutukayeva and Avgazar Byutukayev's daughter, Malika, were wounded. The military then allowed the two women to leave the village. Other servicemen delivered them to the "}
+{"target": "Lice", "prompt": "9. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. He is the widower of the deceased Sariye Y\u0131lmaz. He introduced this application on his own behalf and on behalf of his family and deceased spouse. At the time of the events at issue the applicant was residing in the village of Bay\u0131rl\u0131 (Kar\u0131ncak) attached to the "}
+{"target": "Natura 2000", "prompt": "45.  He then referred to the legislative complexity of the situation, which involved provisions of EU law, as well as primary and secondary domestic legislation, and to the complexity of the situation that the State faced in the aftermath of the infringement judgment of the CJEU. It was not just and reasonable to impose liability in the circumstances of the case. He did not consider that the Minister had owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs in 2008. The Minister had been aware of their situation, but also of the situation of other businesses in other parts of the country which had been placed in the same predicament. Nearly 150 "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "34.  Law-enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic reported to the district prosecutor's office that Akhmed Rezvanov had not been arrested or kept in detention facilities in the Chechen Republic and that no charges had been brought against him. They also pointed out that federal forces had not carried out any special operations in "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "66.  On 4 June 2000 the Grozny Department of the Federal Security Service notified the investigation that they had no information relevant to the case. It appears that in July 2000 the headquarters of the UGA replied to the military prosecutor that no copies of the documents in question existed. On 30 July 2000 the headquarters of the Internal Troops Alliance in "}
+{"target": "the Tambov District", "prompt": "6.  The applicant is the agricultural production co-operative \u201cDimskiy\u201d (\u0441\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432 \u00ab\u0414\u0438\u043c\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u00bb), a legal entity under the Russian law, established in 1992 in the village of Novoaleksandrovka in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "19.  On 13 March 1996 the public prosecutor interviewed NCOs A.B. and F.\u00d6. A.B. explained that their commanding officer had been annoyed to see customers in a shop open at night and had asked them to leave the "}
+{"target": "the Pankisi Gorge", "prompt": "106.  On 5 and 30 November 2004 Ms Mukhashavria submitted copies of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 14 September and 11 October 2004 respectively in the cases of Mr Khashiev (Mr Elikhadjiev, Mr Mulkoyev) and Mr Baymurzayev (Mr Alkhanov). She claimed to have obtained them with the help of individuals close to the applicants. In the judgments Mr Khashiev is referred to as Elikhadjiev Rustam Usmanovich and Mr Baymurzayev as Alkhanov Khusein Mauladinovich (see paragraph 83 above). The first was cited as having been born in 1980 in Grozny and the second in 1975 in the village of Aki-Yurt in Ingushetia. During the trial Mr Khashiev alleged that he had been arrested on 16 February 2004, not at the Russian border, but on Tbilisi's Rustaveli Avenue. He had then been transferred to Essentuki (see paragraph 101 above).\nAccording to the judgments, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were part of an armed group formed in "}
+{"target": "Moda district", "prompt": "19.  According to an arrest report drawn up on 24 October 1997, police officers at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters established, on the basis of intelligence reports, the address in Istanbul\u2019s "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "118.  On 3 April 2006 the Shali Town Court partially allowed the complaint and instructed the prosecutor\u2019s office to provide the applicant\u2019s lawyer with access to the criminal case file, with the exception of documents containing state secrets. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:\n\u201c... at about 6.10 p.m. on 1 August 2003 unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with automatic weapons, with the support of armoured vehicles and a GAZ-53 automobile arrived at the crime scene and opened fire at random at the houses in Kutuzova Street ... as a result, M. Bagalayev ... was wounded in the chest ... and died on the spot ...\nOn 2 August 2003 the district prosecutor\u2019s office opened criminal case no. 22112 ... the investigation of the criminal case, without taking necessary investigative measures ... was suspended on 2 October 2003.\n[The applicant\u2019s lawyer] forwarded a number of requests and complaints to the district prosecutor\u2019s office:\n-  on 15 January 2005 he lodged a request that Mr S. Bagalayev, Ms Z. Bagalayeva and Ms R.B. be questioned and that other necessary investigative measures be taken ...\n-  on 20 May 2005 he lodged a request that the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the tailgate of the lorry be investigated ...\n-  [he asked the investigators] to find out whether the Shali military commander had given his approval to this operation involving military servicemen (on 1 August 2003 the servicemen had been stationed on the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "64.  On 16 September 2005 the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued a report on \u201cThe functioning of the democratic Institutions in Moldova\u201d. The section devoted to Transdniestria reads as follows:\n\u201c31. Major new developments have occurred during the last months which the Assembly has to follow very closely and accompany in the best possible way. 32. Following intense diplomatic contacts between Moldova and Ukraine, at the GUAM Summit in Chisinau on 22 April the Ukrainian President Yushchenko announced a 7-point initiative to settle the Transnistrian issue. ...\nThe main thrust of this new plan is to achieve a long-lasting solution through the democratisation of Transnistria. This would entail:\n\u2013 the creation of conditions for the development of democracy, civil society, and a multi-party system in Transnistria;\n\u2013 holding of free and democratic elections to the Transniestrian Supreme Soviet, monitored by the European Union, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, Russia, United States, and other democratic countries including Ukraine;\n\u2013 the transformation of the current format of peacekeeping operation into an international mission of military and civil observers under the aegis of the OSCE and the expansion of the number of Ukrainian military observers in the region;\n\u2013 admission by Transniestrian authorities of an international monitoring mission, to include Ukrainian experts, to military-industrial enterprises in the Transniestrian region;\n\u2013 a short-term OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine to verify the movement of goods and persons through the Ukrainian-Moldovan border. 33. The full text of the Ukrainian plan was presented on 16-17 May at a meeting of the representatives of the mediators and Moldova and Transnistria in Vinnitsa, Ukraine after the Ukrainian Secretary of Security Council Pyotr Poroshenko and Moldavian presidential aide Mark Tkachuk spent almost a month doing \u2018shuttle diplomacy\u2019. 35. On 10 June the Moldovan Parliament adopted a \u2018Declaration on the Ukrainian initiative of settlement of the Transnistrian conflict\u2019 as well as two appeals, on demilitarisation and on promoting the criteria of democratisation of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova .... 36. The declaration welcomed the initiative of President Yushchenko, hoping that it would become \u2018a major factor in the achievement by Moldova of its territorial and civil unity\u2019. The parliament however regretted that the Ukrainian initiative did not reflect some important principles of settlement, in the first place the withdrawal of Russian troops; demilitarisation; the principles and conditions of the region\u2019s democratisation and the establishing of a transparent and legal control over the Transnistrian segment of the Moldovan-Ukrainian border. It called for additional efforts by the international community and Ukraine in this respect. 37. The parliament also criticised a number of provisions which might \u2018infringe upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova\u2019, such as the co-participation of Transnistria in the conduct of foreign policy of the Republic of Moldova and the proposal to create the so-called conciliation committee. The Parliament insisted on resolving the conflict within the framework of the Moldovan Constitution through dialogue with a new, democratically elected, Transnistrian leadership. There are thus a number of divergences between the Ukrainian initiative and the approach to implementing it chosen by Moldova. 38. The mediators in the Transnistrian conflict (the OSCE, Russia and Ukraine) stated that the plan provided a concrete impetus toward achieving a settlement. At all of their latest meetings they called for resuming direct, continuing dialogue on resolution of the conflict. 39. More delicate is the position of Russia. It is clear that through its military and economic presence and thanks to the strong cultural and linguistic links with Transnistria, Russia would like to retain its strong influence over the territory. The press recently reported the existence of an \u2018Action plan of retaining Russian influence in the Moldova Republic\u2019, details of which are kept secret. Russia is still strongly attached to the so-called \u2018Kozak Memorandum\u2019 of 2003, which proposed to Moldova a federal solution. Moldova had nearly accepted the plan; it refused to sign it at the last moment, allegedly under Western influence. 40. Over the last months, there have been several signs of tension. For instance, on 18 February the Russian Federation State Duma adopted with a large majority a resolution requesting from the Russian government a number of economic and other sanctions against Moldova, with the exclusion of Transnistria, if the Moldovan authorities did not change their \u2018economic blockade of Transdniestria.\u2019 The sanctions included a ban on imports of Moldovan alcohol and tobacco, world market prices for exports of Russian natural gas to Moldova and visas for Moldovans entering Russia. 41. Both appeals adopted by the Moldovan parliament called on the Council of Europe for support and, concerning the democratisation of Transnistria, to engage actively in the process. During our visit in Chisinau our interlocutors repeatedly stressed the importance they attached to the expertise and experience of our organisation in this respect. The documents adopted by the Moldovan Parliament were officially submitted by its Speaker to the Monitoring Committee \u2018for examination in the framework of the Moldova\u2019s monitoring exercise\u2019 and for \u2018analysis, comments and recommendations, as well as ideas of the Parliamentary Assembly that could contribute to the democratisation of the Transnistrian region and final settlement of the conflict\u2019. 42. At the first sight, the plan should be followed closely by the Council of Europe, as the leading organisation in the field of democracy, human rights and rule of law. The Committee has therefore entrusted us with the responsibility of visiting Kiev, Moscow, Bucharest and Brussels in order to meet the main figures responsible for the Ukrainian plan and get acquainted with all its details. On the basis of this information we will make specific proposals for the Assembly to play an effective part in the plan\u2019s progress. 43. A number of questions remain about the implementation of the Ukrainian plan and the conditions set by the Moldovan parliament. However, against the background of all the failed diplomatic attempts, it has one strong advantage. It combines diplomatic efforts with specific measures for democratisation, in Transnistria but also in Moldova, which must serve as an example. The initiative also comes at the right moment, as it coincides with a major strive for democratisation and European integration in the entire region. 44. Not only Moldova, whose territorial integrity and sovereignty have been violated, but "}
+{"target": "\u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e-\u041a\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e", "prompt": "19.  During the same period the first applicant also received responses from the Ministry of the Interior, the commander of the Missile Troops and Artillery (\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0440\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0442\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a \u0438 \u0430\u0440\u0442\u0438\u043b\u043b\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0438) and the commander of the Troops of the North Caucasus Military Circuit (\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0434\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0430\u043c\u0438 "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "14.  At the time of Moldova\u2019s declaration of independence, it did not have its own army. The USSR\u2019s 14th Army, whose headquarters had been in Chi\u015fin\u0103u since 1956, remained on Moldovan territory, although from 1990 onwards equipment and personnel began to be withdrawn. In 1991 the 14th Army in Moldova was composed of several thousand soldiers, infantry units, artillery (notably an anti-aircraft missile system), armoured vehicles and aircraft (including planes and strike helicopters). It had a number of ammunition stores, including one of the largest in "}
+{"target": "Crimea", "prompt": "16.  On 17 August 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (\u201cthe Odessa Court of Appeal\u201d) rejected the applicant\u2019s appeal. The court noted, in particular, that taking into account the gravity of the charges against the applicant, together with the fact that he resided in "}
+{"target": "Maden Island", "prompt": "7.  In 1968, pursuant to Law no. 6831, the Forest Cadastral Commission conducted a boundary marking exercise (tahdit \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131) on Maden Island. The purpose of this exercise was to detect the forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map. The outcome of the evaluation was publicly announced and as no opposition was made, this decision became definitive in 1970. It was concluded that the whole of "}
+{"target": "M.S.", "prompt": "36.  At the end of 2004 the first applicant wrote to the Vice-President of the Government, enquiring about the progress of the investigation, and the latter forwarded the letter to the State Attorney. In February 2005 the Deputy State Attorney informed the applicant that in November 2004 a request for an investigation into the disappearance of "}
+{"target": "Bug River", "prompt": "30.  On 8 January 2003 the Military Property Agency issued a communiqu\u00e9, which was put on its official website[3] and which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201cThe Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 19 December 2002, declared that the provisions relating to the realisation of the "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "62.  On 9 February 2000 the second applicant travelled to Grozny. In the courtyard at 107 Neftyanaya Street she picked up several cartridges from an automatic weapon and her brother's hat. On the same day the second applicant saw five dead bodies in a nearby garage, belonging to three women and two men. A sixth person from that group, Elena G., had survived the massacre and later told the applicant, who found her in a hospital in Ingushetia, that they were shot on 19 January by soldiers from the 205th brigade from Budennovsk. She also said that she had seen Adlan Akayev and the Khashiyevs in the evening of 19 January 2000 and that they were alive. On the same day she was picked up by the Goygovs, who had come to collect their dead, and taken to Ingushetia to a hospital. On 22 February 2000 the second applicant met with Omar S., who was at the material time living in Grozny, who had heard the members of the military talking in the commendatura of the "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "14.  Since 9 November 2002 the first three applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at various levels, the President of Russia, the administrative authorities of Chechnya, the Urus-Martan military commander's office and the Urus-Martan Town Court. They have also applied in writing and visited a number of detention centres and prisons in "}
+{"target": "the Chita Region", "prompt": "36.  The court established that the group had carried out its robberies on three occasions. As regards the first episode, the court noted that on the night of 1 October 2002 the applicant and his co-accused stopped two cars belonging to and driven by Zh. and Sh., having shown them a gun. They then forced them to pay for \u201csafe passage\u201d through the territory of "}
+{"target": "the Payidar hills", "prompt": "173.  In November 1992 his commanding officer informed him that his team was to participate in an operation and briefed him and his team about their duties in it. In accordance with the instructions received from the unit commander, the witness\u2019s team started off towards the operation area. When the team reached "}
+{"target": "Baltic States", "prompt": "11.  On 23 August 1939 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), led by Joseph Stalin, signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany, led by Adolph Hitler (\u201cthe Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact\u201d). Under a secret additional protocol approved by the parties on the same date, as amended on 28 September 1939 and 10 January 1940, Lithuania and the other Baltic States were attributed to the USSR\u2019s sphere of interest in the event of a future \u201cterritorial and political rearrangement\u201d of the territories of these then independent countries. After Germany\u2019s invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 and the subsequent start of the Second World War, the USSR began exerting considerable pressure on the governments of the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "5.  In August 2001, in the tenth issue of the newspaper, an article which contained an interview with Cemil Bay\u0131k, who was one of the leaders of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), was published. The relevant parts of the interview read as follows:\n\u201cThree years have passed since the PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace process. Subsequently, the PKK withdrew its armed forces out of Turkey to maintain peace. However, the state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem.\n...\nThe case brought against our leader Abdullah \u00d6calan is a case against the Kurdish people. Therefore, it is not our Prime Minister who wishes to be tried before the European Court of Human Rights, but it is our people. The law was violated in \u0130mral\u0131 and, consequently, the death penalty imposed on \u00d6calan and on our people is not legitimate. All things considered, it is natural that our people have expectations from the European Court of Human Rights, the court of "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "20.  After that the investigators went to the former medical storehouse with the applicants and other local residents. There they collected cartridge cases left by the servicemen after the shooting and found two spots of blood, one of them containing just a few drops of blood and the other looking like a puddle of blood. The investigators from the district prosecutor's office collected the blood for forensic examination. A child from "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "38.  On 20 February 2007 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the applicant that they could not establish the truth of what had happened with the abduction of Said-Emin Sambiyev by servicemen of military unit no. 28337, as the key witness in the case, Mr V.M., had absconded to "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "23.  According to the applicant, she started looking for her husband immediately after his detention, together with relatives of Mr A. S. For some days after 18 May 2001 the applicant, with Mr A. S.\u2019s sister, went to "}
+{"target": "Central Asia", "prompt": "9.  The second article, which had the headline \u201cAddress by Maskhadov, President of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, to the European Parliament\u201d (\u00ab\u041e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0418\u0447\u043a\u0435\u0440\u0438\u044f \u041c\u0430\u0441\u0445\u0430\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u043a \u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0440\u043b\u0430\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0443\u00bb \u2013 \u201cthe second article\u201d), was published by the applicant in issue no. 2 (59) of Pravo-Zashchita for April and May 2004 and read as follows:\n\u201cOn 26 February 2004 the Parliament of the European Union adopted a declaration in which Stalin\u2019s deportation of the Chechen people on 23 February 1944 was officially recognised as an act of genocide. The European Parliament also recommended that the European Council study the plan of the Government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (the CRI) on peaceful resolution of the present military conflict [between Russia[1] and Chechnya], which I had approved.\nThe total deportation to "}
+{"target": "Lake Ohrid", "prompt": "17.  On 4 September 2009 the Administrative Court (\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0421\u0443\u0434) \u2013 which had meanwhile become competent to decide on administrative actions \u2013 dismissed the applicant\u2019s action and held that the annulment order of the Appeal Commission had been lawful. It referred to section 267 of the General Administrative Proceedings Act, sections 8(1) and 10 of the Restitution Act, sections 1 and 2 of the Protection of Lakes Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran Act, as well as sections 2, 69(4) and 70 of the Waters Act (see paragraphs 39, 40, and 42-44 below) and relied on the fact that the land in question was part of the shoreline. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:\n\u201cIn the court\u2019s opinion, in deciding the present case, the [Appeal Commission] acted correctly when it declared null and void the final restitution order, in accordance with section 267(1)(3) of the Administrative Proceedings Act, under which a decision whose enforcement is not possible shall be declared null and void. In relation to this, the court emphasises that this provision does not concern only the factual, but also the legal impossibility of enforcement ...\n... In view of the above-cited statutory provisions, it is undisputed that "}
+{"target": "Monte Albertia", "prompt": "34.  The Supreme Court held that the evidence set out below, subsequent to the date of entry into force of the LOPP, showed that the applicant political parties were instruments of ETA\u2019s terrorist strategy.\n\u2013  On 3 July 2002 Batasuna had refused to appoint representatives to the Basque parliamentary committee responsible for the situation and needs of victims of terrorism, as it considered it to be \u201cpolitical, manipulated and biased\u201d.\n\u2013  On 3 July 2002, reacting to the decision of central investigating judge no. 5 at the Audiencia Nacional by which Batasuna had been declared civilly liable for damage caused by street violence (kale borroka), A.O., the spokesperson for that organisation, had exhorted the Basque people to respond \u201cenergetically to this new attack\u201d and had criticised the decision for having provoked a \u201cserious and anti-democratic situation\u201d.\n\u2013  On 7 July 2002, during a commemoration of the 1936 battle of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "40.  Outline Planning Decision \u2013 Part 4 contained an explanatory memorandum setting out the need for the Betuweroute, as perceived by the government, and giving reasons for the choices made. It was stated that Rotterdam, the Netherlands\u2019 main port, and Schiphol Airport, now served most of the European continent and that the increase in the volume of transport could not be absorbed by inland waterway traffic alone. Moreover, much of the European hinterland could not be reached by water. Road traffic could not be the only alternative, as it was relatively expensive, uneconomical over long distances and environmentally unfriendly. Furthermore, in much of eastern "}
+{"target": "Cudi mountain", "prompt": "12.  According to a report prepared on 20 January 2005 by twenty-six soldiers who had taken part in the incident, at about 6.00 p.m. on 19 January 2005 special police teams who had observed with their night vision cameras nine or ten persons in an area near "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "6.  In 2007 there was a public debate in the print and televised media in Iceland on whether the regulations pertaining to strip clubs should be made stricter or whether such clubs should be banned. In June 2007 a magazine named \u00cdsafold published an article discussing the links between such clubs and prostitution. It maintained that the conditions of strip club dancers originating from eastern "}
+{"target": "Valerik", "prompt": "11.  At the material time the only applicant in this case and her common-law partner Magomed Edilov, born in 1979, lived at Sheripova Street, 11 (in the submitted documents the address is also referred to as Lenina Street, 89) in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "59.  On 5 June 2006 the district prosecutor\u2019s office instituted a criminal investigation under Article 105 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder) in connection with the discovery of Murad Khachukayev\u2019s remains. The decision stated that \u201cin the course of the investigation of criminal case no. 34023 opened on 12 February 2003 in connection with the abduction of Murad Khachukayev on 5 February 2003 from the village of Goyty in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "15.  The judgment also referred to the pre-trial statements of co-defendants Mi., Mu. and Gu., which were inconsistent with their evidence at trial, one of them indicating the applicant as a person who had been on the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "459.  He had obtained books and articles praising the PKK in order to learn more about the organisation, and took them into prison for training people there. He used to write reports on incidents in the region which he faxed to Human Rights associations in "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "18.  The Government submitted in their memorial of 28 April 2004 that it had been established that on 2 March 2000 in the village of Podgornoye fighting had taken place involving servicemen of the federal forces, which had resulted in the deaths of servicemen of the OMON detachments from Sergiyev Posad. Immediately after the fighting a special operation had been conducted in Podgornoye aimed at identifying members of the illegal armed groups who had participated in the ambush. The detainees had been taken to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD, but Shakhid Baysayev was not listed among them. Nor was his name on the list of persons who had been detained by other detachments of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "Lachin", "prompt": "12.  At the time of the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an autonomous region (oblast) of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (\u201cthe Azerbaijan SSR\u201d). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at the time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (\u201cthe Armenian SSR\u201d), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, the district of "}
+{"target": "South", "prompt": "23.  On 20 November 2012 the applicant submitted the documents requested by the Attorney General\u2019s representative on 1 June 2010 (see paragraph 18 above). In particular, the applicant submitted certificates issued by the head of the local community (mukhtar) explaining that there were inconsistencies in the spelling of the applicant\u2019s aunt\u2019s name in different documents. The mukhtar explained that the latter had held Cypriot identity document no. 327090 and had been variously known as: Christallou Nikola Stavrinou, Chriystallou Nicola Stavrinon, Christallou Nicola Stavrinou, Christalla Nikola and Chrystallou Nicola, but these were one and the same person. The mukhtar further certified that she had never married and that before her death she had gifted her immovable property to her sister\u2019s daughter, the applicant (Andriani Ioannou, holder of a Cypriot identity card). In support of the mukhtar\u2019s certificates, the applicant submitted her aunt\u2019s identity documents (including a Cypriot identity document). The applicant also submitted documents showing the transfer of title from her aunt to her in respect of the plots of land in question. She also submitted documents showing that she had been allocated a Turkish Cypriot house in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "18.  The Government submitted that the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre where the applicant was detained had a capacity of 300 persons. The detainees were accommodated on three floors: the first two floors were reserved for male detainees, and the third floor for females. There were five dormitory rooms on each floor, measuring 50, 58, 69, 76 and 84 sq. m respectively. There were fifteen to twenty beds in each of the ten rooms reserved for male detainees and all rooms were sufficiently ventilated. There were also five showers and six toilets per floor, as well as a cafeteria measuring 69 sq. m, where breakfast, lunch and dinner were served daily on each floor. The detainees had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions. A doctor was present on the "}
+{"target": "Oktyabrskiy", "prompt": "19.  On 20 September 2000 the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic received the applicant\u2019s application concerning the disappearance of her husband after he had allegedly been apprehended in the "}
+{"target": "territories", "prompt": "23.  On 19 May 2003 another anonymous witness was interviewed by the Sisak County State Attorney\u2019s Office. He said that at the beginning of 1991 he joined the Croatian Army, namely the Office for the Defence of Sisak. He had been assigned to the reserve units of the Sisak County Police, headed by \u0110.B., whose Deputy was V.M. The unit the witness had joined had been headed by Ma.M. The witness named several of his colleagues. \u0110.B., V.M. and the late J.B. had made a list of persons to be arrested and brought to the First Police Station, and given orders to that effect. A.H. had almost always been present when the orders for arrests were given. The members of the reserve units had been given Serbian flags with four C-s, badges and cards allegedly issued by the Serbian Democratic Party, and certificates issued by that Party recognising contributions to its spread in the occupied "}
+{"target": "Portadown", "prompt": "12.  The Government stated that despite the efforts of the police it was not possible to identify any particular suspect. No one had witnessed the arrival of the gunmen on the night of the attack. While a Ford Cortina car had been seen moving away from the location after the attack no one was able to identify this vehicle as belonging to the gunmen or as being used by them as a getaway vehicle. Although conversations with customers in the bar had led to a photofit picture being compiled this did not lead to anyone being connected with the incident. The view of the investigating officer at the time was that extreme loyalist elements from the "}
+{"target": "Kavaja", "prompt": "6.  During the communist regime several plots of land and two shops owned by the applicants\u2019 father were confiscated by the authorities without payment of compensation. The property, measuring in total 46,000 sq. m (the land) and 150 sq. m (the shops) (\u201cthe relevant property\u201d), was situated in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "72.  On 26 March 2004 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the United Group Alignment further wrote to Mr Khamzayev that the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in connection with the attack of 19 October 1999 had been lawful and well-founded, as it had been established during the investigation that the federal aircraft had bombed fortified command points, bases and ammunition depots of the illegal armed groups rather than any residential areas of "}
+{"target": "Northern Iraq", "prompt": "18.  According to the applicants\u2019 submissions, on 28 June 2008 the national authorities once again attempted to deport them, this time to Iran. The applicants prevented their deportation by speaking Arabic and pretending not to understand Farsi. Consequently, the Iranian authorities refused to admit them to Iran. In their submissions to the Court, the Government made no mention of the purported deportation of the applicants to Iran. Instead, they noted that the applicants would be required to be deported to "}
+{"target": "Shali district", "prompt": "13.  On an unspecified date in March 2006 several persons who did not identify themselves broke into the flat occupied by the first applicant and Khamzat Tushayev and took him away. Eight days later his relatives found out that he was being held at the "}
+{"target": "the Shumen plateau", "prompt": "24.  In a judgment of 3 December 1999 the Varna Military Court convicted chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. of having negligently caused the death of Mr Nikolov by wilfully inflicting grievous bodily harm on him, contrary to Article 124 \u00a7 1 of the CC. It sentenced each of them to three years' imprisonment, suspended for five years. It also awarded the first applicant BGN 4,000, the second applicant BGN 3,000, and Mr Nikolov's son BGN 3,000, payable jointly and severally by the two officers. The court described in detail the events of 27 September 1994 and held, as relevant:\n\u201c... the act was committed negligently ... The case at hand concerns a complex offence, where the intention in respect of the lesser outcome is combined with negligence in respect of the more serious outcome, in other words, the offence was committed with both forms of mens rea ... The court is of the opinion that both of the defendants wilfully inflicted grievous bodily harm on [Mr Nikolov], which later brought about his death. The intentions must be judged through their actions. Taking into account the subjective attitude of the defendants towards their act, the court deems that their intention did not go beyond inflicting bodily harm. They merely behaved negligently in respect of the ensuing death. The objective analysis of the defendants' conduct shows that they did not foresee the imminent death of [Mr Nikolov] and neither wished nor envisaged a fatal outcome, their intention being solely to inflict bodily harm...\n...The evidence in the case suggests that no persons other than the defendants were in physical contact with [Mr Nikolov]... All the traumatic injuries which were established were inflicted at the same time, in quick succession. The evidence shows that between 2 and 2.15 p.m. on 27 September 1994 in the area of "}
+{"target": "Aegean", "prompt": "11.  The Yata\u011fan, Yenik\u00f6y and G\u00f6kova thermal power plants have been operated for many years by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and the public utility company T\u00fcrkiye Elektrik Kurumu (\u201cTEA\u015e\u201d) in Mu\u011fla, in the "}
+{"target": "Mars-20", "prompt": "37.  On 15 August 2005 the investigators questioned V.M., the police officer, who stated that he had assisted the applicants in their search for Amirkhan Alikhanov. According to the witness, he had accompanied Mr A. on 24 December 2004 when the latter had gone to various law-enforcement agencies looking for his brother. A few days after the abduction, they had received information that A.A. had participated in the abduction. Then, the witness had spoken with A.A.; the latter, having confirmed that he had been at the \u201c"}
+{"target": "the Kelmehmet", "prompt": "133.  In a certified document, dated 25 February 1996 and signed by the Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion commander Major Hur\u015fit \u0130mren, it is stated that Harun A\u00e7a, who had been serving as a village guard under the orders of the Derik gendarmerie district command since 27 May 1994, had participated in operations carried out from 19 July to 6 September 1994 by the Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion command in the \u015e\u0131rnak province and "}
+{"target": "the Br\u010dko Area 1", "prompt": "39.  Furthermore, the Constitutional Court notes that the Court of Appeal awarded non-pecuniary damages to M.S. because her reputation was affected by the untrue statements made in the impugned letter ... The Constitutional Court has already stated in its previous case-law that a person\u2019s reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity ...\n... 43.  The appellants ... failed to verify the impugned statements beforehand as was their duty. The Court of Appeal established that the appellants had damaged M.S.\u2019s reputation by making untrue allegations which caused her mental distress ...When deciding on the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage and its amount, the Court of Appeal took into account the purpose of those damages and the rule that it should not favour aspirations that were incompatible with its nature and social purpose. 44.  [T]he Constitutional Court considers that the measure imposed on the appellants in the present case was proportionate to the aim pursued ...The court further considers that the Court of Appeal did not go beyond its discretionary power in deciding on the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage ... [T]he Constitutional Court finds that the reasons the Court of Appeal gave were \u2018relevant\u2019 and \u2018sufficient\u2019 within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention. 45.  In view of the above, the Constitutional Court considers that the interference with the appellants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was \u2018necessary in a democratic society\u2019 and that, therefore, there has been no violation of Article II/3.h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Article 10 of the European Convention.\u201d 35.  According to the minutes of a meeting of the Management Board of the BD\u2019s radio station dated 9 May 2003, there were two candidates for the post of the radio\u2019s director, one of whom was M.S. The Management Board decided to extend the mandate of the acting director of the radio given that \u201cdue to political pressure and repeated voting\u201d no decision could be made in respect of either of the candidates.\nII.  1995 GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT FOR PEACE IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (\u201cTHE DAYTON AGREEMENT\u201d) 36.  The Dayton Agreement, initialled at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton (the United States of America) on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris (France) on 14 December 1995, was the culmination of some forty-four months of intermittent negotiations under the auspices of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia and the Contact Group. It entered into force on the latter date and contains twelve annexes. 37.  Annex 2 of the Agreement concerns the Agreement on Inter-Entity Boundary Line and Related Issues. The relevant part of this Annex reads as follows:\n \u201cThe Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (the \u2018Parties\u2019) have agreed as follows:\n...\nArticle V: Arbitration for "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "58.  Accordingly, for the first six months after the date when the Utena District Court decision came into effect, the applicant was to communicate with his son for no more than two hours per working day for ten days per month, in an environment to which the child was accustomed \u2013 at the child\u2019s home or the child care authority\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Eastern Georgia", "prompt": "33.  This part of the application concerns the applicant G. Makharoblishvili (listed in the appendix as no. 16). On 29 January 2001, while walking along the road between the villages of Okami and Lamiskana ("}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "167.  In a letter of 22 July 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic requested the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic to investigate the alleged involvement of officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in the theft of the applicant's property, including three foreign-made cars, as during the investigation in case no. 12088 one of the cars had been found in "}
+{"target": "Staropromislovskiy district", "prompt": "78.  On 16 and 27 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr A.D. His statements were similar to the account of the events given by the applicant in his submissions to the Court. Among other details he noted that some of the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian and that from his neighbors, who had witnessed the abduction, he had learned that the abductors had arrived in UAZ minivans. Mr A.D. alleged that the culprits had belonged to the federal forces and had apprehended him together with Mr Anzor Tangiyev on suspicion of membership in illegal armed groups. Mr A.D. stated that after his release he had been questioned about the circumstances of the abduction by police officers from the "}
+{"target": "District", "prompt": "17.  On 19 April 2000 the Tymovsk District Court inquired the Novoaltaysk Town and Tymovsk District police departments about the registered place of the applicant's residence. In May 2000 the Tymovsk District police department replied that the applicant had moved to Novoaltaysk in 1997. The "}
+{"target": "the Val d\u2019Oise", "prompt": "10.  Pursuant to the above-mentioned Law of 5 July 2000, and after the annulment of the first travellers\u2019 reception and accommodation programme by the administrative courts, a new programme was adopted in November 2004 for "}
+{"target": "Vlora", "prompt": "6.  During the communist regime several plots of land owned by the applicants\u2019 parents had been confiscated by the authorities without compensation. The property measuring in total 132 hectares was situated in the "}
+{"target": "Icaria", "prompt": "26.  Subsequently, in March 2005, the Spanish authorities authorised the applicant\u2019s return to his country of origin, where he is now living, on condition that the Greek authorities ensured his compliance with the periodic supervision to which he had been subject in Spain. The applicant is therefore required to report every two weeks to a police station on the island of "}
+{"target": "the Samara Region", "prompt": "18.  On 29 September 2008 the applicant was convicted of another drug\u2011related offence and sentenced to six years and six months\u2019 imprisonment in a high-security colony. He was sent to serve a prison sentence in correctional colony no. IK-13 in "}
+{"target": "Oryol Region", "prompt": "14.  On an unspecified date the staff lawyer of the applicant\u2019s newspaper commissioned a linguistic examination of the publication, which was carried out by a professor from Oryol State University who had a degree in language studies. His report pointed out that the publication had not referred to any police officer by name or otherwise and the blame had been placed on the state authorities as a whole and the "}
+{"target": "the Vedenskiy District", "prompt": "35.  On 30 January 2007 the acting prosecutor of the District Prosecutor\u2019s Office approached the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for assistance in obtaining information from the UGA as to whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 had belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "57.  On 14 February 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant's sister-in-law, Ms E.B. She stated that on 4 February 2003 the first applicant had come to her house and told her that at about 11 a.m. on that day the head of the Khattuni OVD and police officers had arrived at their house and asked Ramzan Babushev to repair their car. Then a group of military servicemen had arrived at their house in an APC and taken Ramzan Babushev away without providing any explanation; they had also searched the first applicant's house. After that the witness and the first applicant had gone to the checkpoint in Khattuni and asked the duty officer for news of Ramzan Babushev. They were told that he had been arrested on the order of the Vedeno military commander and that he would be transferred to Vedeno. The next day, 5 February 2003, the witness and the first applicant went to Vedeno and met the deputy military commander, who told them that Ramzan Babushev had not been delivered to their office. The Vedeno VOVD also denied that Ramzan Babushev was detained on their "}
+{"target": "Ayios Yiannis", "prompt": "13.  On 10 July 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicants had locus standi because they owned property in the area concerned. The court held that it could not review the prefect\u2019s decision no. 9468/1985 directly because the application had not been lodged within the time-limit prescribed by law. However, it could review the two building permits issued on the basis of that decision and, in the context of this review, the court was obliged to examine the constitutionality of the prefect\u2019s decision. The decision was found to have violated Article 24 of the Constitution, which protects the environment, because the redrawing of the boundaries of the settlements put in jeopardy the swamp in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "8.  As soon as the applicant had left the office, Judge M.J. drew up a regulatory offence report (administrat\u012bv\u0101 p\u0101rk\u0101puma protokols). This document, which was written entirely by hand, read as follows:\n\u201cLiep\u0101ja, 20 July 2000 11.30 a.m. Regulatory offence report prepared by Judge [M.J.] of Liep\u0101ja District Court concerning Mr Vasilijs Zaicevs ..., of ..., Liep\u0101ja. Mr Zaicevs burst into my office without permission, disturbing me at my work, and rudely demanded information to which he was not entitled, thus acting in flagrant breach of the rules [of conduct] within the precincts of a court and displaying a lack of respect.\nVasilijs Zaicevs thereby infringed Article 201-39 of the Regulatory Offences Code.\nThe offending party is unable to offer an explanation, having left the "}
+{"target": "Kal\u0131", "prompt": "55.  The Government's witnesses maintained, however, that no houses were set alight on 23 October but that houses had burned down the previous day as a result of fighting between the PKK and security forces. Yet those inhabitants of the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "121.  The indictment mentioned that Mrs \u015eahin had drawn up documents which had been faxed to human rights associations in European countries. Mrs \u015eahin acknowledged having prepared documents which colleagues in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "46.  By a decision of 12 June 2004 D.Ch. discontinued criminal proceedings against Zelimkhan Isayev in view of his death. The decision stated that on 8 May 2004 a criminal investigation had been opened in respect of A.M., who was suspected of terrorist activities and participation in illegal armed groups. The case was assigned the number 94/22. The investigation established that in October 2000 A.M., together with several persons, including Zelimkhan Isayev, had blown up several vehicles of the Russian military. On 10 May 2004 Zelimkhan Isayev was arrested and placed in the temporary detention facility of the department of the interior of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "8.  On 15 May 1998 the court asked the applicant to submit further information as regards her enforcement request and to pay a court fee. The applicant replied on 25 May 1998. In particular, she proposed that the sum in issue should be obtained by selling movable property from the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "71.  According to the Government, the investigators also requested information from various State authorities about the disappearance. On various dates these authorities, including the district offices of the FSB and the military prosecutors' office, stated that they had not detained Ruslan Magomadov or carried out a criminal investigation into his activities. Also on unspecified dates a number of the district departments of the interior in Chechnya informed the investigation that they had never detained or delivered Ruslan Magomadov to a temporary detention facility. On unspecified dates the remand centres in Chechnya and the neighbouring regions informed the investigation that the missing man had never been detained on their "}
+{"target": "the Canary Islands", "prompt": "9.  The applicants were crew members on a merchant ship named the Winner, registered in Cambodia. The ship had attracted the attention of the American, Spanish and Greek anti-drug services when the Central Office Against Illegal Drug Trafficking (l\u2019Office Central de R\u00e9pression du Trafic Illicite des Stup\u00e9fiants \u2013 \u201cthe OCRTIS\u201d), a ministerial body attached to the Central Police Directorate of the French Ministry of the Interior, requested authorisation to intercept it. The OCRTIS suspected the ship of carrying large quantities of drugs, with the intention of transferring them to speedboats off "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "12.  The Perm OMON unit was stationed on the premises of an orphanage in the vicinity of the applicant\u2019s house. At the material time, two brothers of the Kuznetsov family were in charge of the OMON unit. It appears that they were involved in the abduction as they were not wearing masks and could therefore be identified by the applicant. The following day the military commander\u2019s office accepted a food package for Mr Nazyrov, but the next day the servicemen denied that he had ever been detained on their "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "5.  On 27 November 1995 The Guardian newspaper published an article written by Jonathan Rugman entitled \u201cTurkish Islamists aim for power\u201d, based on an interview held with Mr Abdullah G\u00fcl, a Member of Parliament (\u201cMP\u201d) for Refah Partisi (\u201cthe Welfare Party\u201d) at the material time. The relevant part of the article read as follows:\n\u201cAbdullah G\u00fcl is dressed in a well-cut suit and tie. The MP may be the deputy leader of Turkey\u2019s Islamic revivalist Welfare Party, Refah, but he speaks good English and seems to have been schooled within the political traditions of the "}
+{"target": "\u041e\u0445\u0440\u0438\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0435\u0437\u0435\u0440\u043e", "prompt": "8.  On 1 September 2003 the Ohrid Restitution Commission, operating within the Ministry of Finance (\u041c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0437\u0430 \u0444\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043d\u0441\u0438\u0438 \u043d\u0430 \u0420\u0435\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0458\u0430 - \u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0414\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0441\u043e \u0441\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u041e\u0445\u0440\u0438\u0434 \u2013 \u201cthe Restitution Commission\u201d), accepted the applicant\u2019s request and ordered the restitution of the land (\u201cthe restitution decision\u201d). On the basis of documentary evidence of 30 May 2002 obtained from the Ministry of Transport and Communications (\u041c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0437\u0430 \u0422\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442 \u0438 \u0412\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438), the Restitution Commission found that no structures of public interest, but rather \u201cbeach service facilities and a leisure centre\u201d (\u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0438\u0441 \u043e\u0431\u0458\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u043b\u0430\u0436\u0430 \u0438 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u0440 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0430\u0432\u0430), were planned to be constructed on the plot in question. An expert had carried out an on-site inspection and had established that the land in question had been undeveloped building land and was part of the Ohrid lakeshore strip (\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0458\u0431\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d \u043f\u043e\u0458\u0430\u0441 \u043d\u0430 "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "42.  On 1 December 2000 the Ombudsman sent a letter to Mr Ustinov, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. The Ombudsman strongly condemned the use of derogatory terms such as \u201csect\u201d and \u201ctotalitarian sect\u201d in the documents issued by State officials. In its relevant part the letter read as follows:\n\u201c...In particular, the letter from the deputy Prosecutor General, Ye.G.Chuganov, to the Chairwoman of the Governor's Commission for Human Rights in the Chelyabinsk Region, Ye.V.Gorina, was widely distributed... It recommended using as reference material on the activity of the Jehovah's Witnesses the book An Introduction to Sectarianism by A. Dworkin, and the handbook New Destructive and Occult-Related Religious Organisations in Russia, prepared by the Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate [of the Russian Orthodox Church]...\nThe publication referred to in the letter is highly condemnatory in respect of certain faiths. It reflects the judgment of one religious organisation about others and its contents serve to prove the 'authenticity' of one religion and the 'falseness' of the other(s)...\nThe situation is further aggravated by the fact that Chuganov's letter was used in trials where it was portrayed as reflecting the official stance taken by the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia. For example, in Chelyabinsk, in the course of examination of a complaint by the local community of Jehovah's Witnesses against the Chairwoman of the regional Commission for Human Rights Ms Gorina, the latter constantly referred to Dworkin's book as a handbook recommended by the Prosecutor General's Office that contained reliable information on the activity of so-called destructive sects, including the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. This was used to justify the extremely heavy-handed conduct of the municipal authorities towards the Jehovah's Witnesses, in particular their breaking-up, with the aid of the police, of the believers' prayer meeting being held on the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "18.  In the morning of 7 November 2002 the first applicant visited the local military commander\u2019s office, the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (\u201cthe ROVD\u201d), the prosecutor\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Straits", "prompt": "14.  The Turkish coastguard and other Turkish authorities boarded and seized the vessel. Since the waters were rough at the point where the vessel was stopped, it was towed by a military boat to the Turkish port of B\u00fcy\u00fckdere. All parties to the case subsequently proceeded on the basis that the seizure of the vessel had taken place in the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "37.  On 13 December 2005 the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Assembly\u2019s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to investigate allegations of \u201cextraordinary renditions\u201d in "}
+{"target": "the Straits of Hormuz", "prompt": "10.  The indictment against the first applicant was returned by a Federal Grand Jury sitting in Connecticut on 6 October 2004. It alleges the commission of four felonies between 1997 and August 2004: conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country; and money laundering. On 28 June 2006, a similar indictment was returned against the third applicant, save that the charge of money laundering was not included. For both indictments, the material support is alleged to have been provided through a series of websites, one of whose servers was based in Connecticut. The charge of conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country is based on two allegations: first, that the websites exhorted Muslims to travel to Chechnya and Afghanistan to defend those places; and second, that classified US Navy plans relating to a US naval battle group operating in "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "37.  On 29 November 2002 Colonel S.I., the commander of military unit no. 74814, reported, in particular, that Mr Sultan Saynaroyev had been detained on 22 October 2002 by servicemen of the Regional Operative Headquarters of the FSB in "}
+{"target": "South Dobrudja", "prompt": "27.  Indeed, on 10 November 1998 judgement was delivered. The Tervel District Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that 492.3 decares of the applicant\u2019s ancestor\u2019s land had been confiscated in 1923 by the Romanian State after the Romanian occupation of the northern part of Bulgaria (the so\u2011called "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  On 17 April 1998, the applicant lodged a petition with the Malazgirt District Governor's office and asked for permission to return to his village. He explained that he was unable to sustain the living of his family in the city and that he wanted to cultivate his lands in the village. The District Governor transmitted the applicant's request to the District gendarmerie Command and also advised him to apply to the Konakkuran Gendarmerie Station. The applicant went to see the commander of the aforementioned station and told him that he had been advised to address him by the District Commander. The latter refused the applicant's request to re-settle in the village and ordered a gendarme to remove the applicant from the "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy", "prompt": "39.  On 4 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigating department that the investigation of her brother\u2019s abduction was ineffective, stating, amongst other things, the following:\n\u201c... I familiarised myself with the contents of the criminal case file as a result of which the following has been established: 1.  My brother had been detained at about 7.20 p.m. on 31 October 2009. The case file contains the list of his mobile phone connections for that day. According to that list, after the abduction, my brother\u2019s mobile telephone had received a text message while being in Argun. At that time a checkpoint had been functioning on the roads leading from Grozny to Argun. Therefore, the persons who had detained my brother had taken him or his telephone to Argun; they had passed through two checkpoints of the law enforcement agencies. However, there is nothing in the case file showing that the investigators had taken any steps in respect of the staff who had manned those checkpoints on 31 October 2009. 2.  On 31 October 2009 the persons who had detained my brother had carried out a special operation in Staraya Sunzha. From the information obtained from the local residents, they had condoned off several streets and had not allowed anyone into the sealed off area.... In addition, these persons had used at least ten vehicles ... from the case file it does not follow that the investigation took steps to verify this information. 3.  The investigators, when questioning the local residents, could have asked them not only of the vehicles used by the abductors, but also of the direction in which they had left. However, no such steps have been taken. 4.  Mr Rizvan Aziyev had been abducted by a large group of armed persons who had arrived in at least ten vehicles and cordoned off significant area in Staraya Sunzha. Every time if a member or several members of illegal armed groups resurface in Chechnya, the authorities take urgent steps to eliminate them. In my brother\u2019s case, the law-enforcement agencies had failed to take any steps to search for his abductors. They had arrived at the crime scene to inspect it several days later after the crime had been reported to them, in spite of the fact that already in about an hour after the abduction my cousin Mr A.-M.A. had informed the Leninskiy ROVD of the abduction. From this it is possible to conclude that the authorities had known that the persons who had detained my brother, had belonged to law-enforcement agencies. It also follows that the investigation in the criminal case should have questioned law\u2011enforcement officials responsible for the "}
+{"target": "Yaylatepe", "prompt": "8.  The area in question was situated to the south of an asphalt road which ran between the city of \u015e\u0131rnak and the town of Uludere. The two village guards and a team of soldiers from the nearby Milli gendarmerie station would take up positions on "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "68.  On 21 and 22 April 2011 the investigators checked the detainee registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD temporary detention ward. There was no indication that Ms Zarema Gaysanova had been detained on the "}
+{"target": "the Kuvinskiy District", "prompt": "32.  First, the case file contained two separate decisions dated 27 April 2010 by the same investigator of the Fergana Regional Department of the Interior of Uzbekistan containing contradictory information on the charges against the applicant. According to the first decision the applicant had been accused of setting up and active participation from 2000 to 2009 in a local branch of the religious extremist organisation \u201cWarriors of Islam\u201d in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "10.  Seven days later the applicants were approached by Z., an officer of the Military Commander\u2019s Office. He told them that Mr Ali Khadayev could be released against the payment of 2,000 United States dollars (USD). By 1 May 2002 they gathered the money and handed it over, following which Mr Ali Khadayev was dropped off outside their house. He was very weak since during his 11 days\u2019 detention at the Federal Security Service (FSB) of "}
+{"target": "Hvasser island", "prompt": "15.  The article stated:\n\u201cThe Tj\u00f8me Municipality is now in the process of tightening up the obligation to comply with the residence requirement in the municipality. A zero concession limit has long since been introduced. This means that year-round properties must be lived in all year.\nConfrontation\nIn the near future the technical services department of the Tj\u00f8me Municipality will approach the County Governor in order to report its suspicion that the residence requirement is not being fulfilled for a number of properties. It is then up to the County Governor to confront the owners of these properties.\nThe director of the Planning and Building Department, Mr Dag Dreyer S\u00e6ter, does not wish to comment to T\u00f8nsbergs Blad as to which properties are on the list they are sending to the County Governor. But from what T\u00f8nsbergs Blad has been given to understand, the property of Tom Vidar Rygh at Sand\u00f8sund on "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "32.  On 19 April 2010, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicants' case. It found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:\nThe Refugee Appeals Board finds that the applicants have provided new and/or extended information during the reopened proceedings, and that this gives rise to critical doubt about the credibility of the applicants' information, as there appears to be no reasonable explanation for the late appearance of the information, even in view of the information regarding the applicant husband's mental difficulties, see counsel's pleading of 19 April 2010 with exhibits. The applicant wife has thus stated that the reason why she did not inform the Refugee Appeals Board of her LTTE theatre performances in the previous asylum proceedings was that at the time she was not in possession of the photograph now submitted ... The Refugee Appeals Board finds that this is not a reasonable explanation why she did not, at the beginning of her asylum case, inform the Refugee Appeals Board of the high profile that she now invokes. The applicant wife further stated that, in connection with the arrest where her father paid a bribe for her release, she was the only one arrested and that she was to be questioned again at a different location, and that this arrest was the reason for her departure four or five days later. The Refugee Appeals Board finds that this statement contradicts her statement at the interview of 3 July 2006 as reported by the Danish Immigration Service according to which she was arrested with the sister who now lives in Denmark and that her father paid for the release without any conditions. It appears from her asylum application form that the arrest for which her father paid a bribe took place in 1998. Her departure was in March 1999. The Refugee Appeals Board finds that the applicant wife's statement appears to have been extended on essential points and it only considers it a fact that her father did social or humanitarian work in the local community in his home town ... without being a member of the LTTE, that as a member of the LTTE between 1995 and 1997, the applicant wife also did social work for the LTTE, including distribution of food and medicine, that she lived in various places after 1997, at which time she was exposed to general, brief periods of detention, and that one year prior to her departure she lived in Colombo, from where she departed using her genuine national passport. Moreover, the Refugee Appeals Board noted that the information provided by the applicant wife, that the last time she had contact with her father was in 2005, does not correspond with the information provided by the Danish Refugee Council in its letter of 11 June 2009. The Board further notes that the applicant wife's brief arrests were in the nature of general detention in which several other Tamils were detained by the authorities in connection with situations where the LTTE was considered responsible for specific actions. The applicant wife was released unconditionally every time. She stayed in Colombo for about one year with part of her family before her departure. They were registered with the authorities in Colombo. She departed using her own, genuine nationality passport. At the above interview, the applicant wife stated about her sister in the LTTE that she had been a member of the LTTE for four to five years and that she assumed that her sister was a rank-and-file member, but that she had no contact with her. This statement contradicts the information about the sister provided by the Danish Refugee Council in its letter of 11 June 2009.\nThe applicant husband stated to the Refugee Appeals Board that, contrary to what he stated in 2007, he did in fact own the garage until 1998. He further stated that LTTE left a bomb in his garage, that he hid the bomb there and that that was the reason why he chose to sell the garage ... in May 1998 for 300,000 Sri Lankan rupees. Thereafter, he stayed in various locations until October 1998 when he took up residence in or near Colombo. He did not use his own name and was not registered with the authorities, and in April 1999 he left using a false passport with his picture inserted. The Refugee Appeals Board finds that this statement contradicts the applicant husband's previous statements, including the interview report of 3 July 2006 according to which he stated that he refused to help the LTTE plant the bomb, that the LTTE had eventually left, and that the LTTE as well as people from the Sri Lankan army continued to force him to work for them, that he needed the money but that they did not pay very often, and that he eventually could not stand it and therefore sold his garage in April or May 1998, that he stayed for six months in Colombo before his departure, and that he departed lawfully using his genuine passport in which a study visa had been inserted. In its decision of 4 October 2007, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the idea that the applicant husband was the subject of a specific search at his mother's house, and on the basis of an assessment of the applicant's statement at the current Refugee Appeals Board hearing, the Refugee Appeals Board does not find that the current statement and the letter from the mother, which dates from 2007, ... [can] lead to a revised assessment. Therefore, concerning the applicant husband, the Refugee Appeals Board only considers it a fact that he sustained an injury to his hand in 1983 in connection with the assault where his father was killed, that he trained with the LTTE for three months in 1985 and subsequently left without problems to continue his education, that he probably inherited the garage from his mother's family in 1996, that he ran the garage, that he sold the garage in 1998 because both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities were pressuring him to work for them, and that thereafter he stayed in various locations, most recently for six months in Colombo before departing from the airport in Colombo in April 1999 using his own name and his own genuine passport.\n... As the applicants' statements are assessed, the Refugee Appeals Board thus deems it a conclusive fact that neither applicant stood out at all in March and April 1999. Neither of them was wanted by the Sri Lankan authorities nor did they have any specific conflicts with the authorities. Both departed lawfully. In the assessment of whether, if they were to return to Sri Lanka, including via Colombo, the applicants, who are ethnic Tamils from northern Sri Lanka, would risk persecution or assault as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act, including treatment as covered by Article 3 of the ECHR, particularly because a video clip exists on YouTube of the applicant wife's younger sister who allegedly was a high-ranking so-called training master in LTTE according to the information received, the Refugee Appeals Board notes that in the sequence shown the person pointed out in the video clip - in part together with others and in part alone - is seen wearing a uniform and carrying weapons and ammunition and agitating for the LTTE's fight. The person in question speaks directly to the camera. The Board notes that there is no other information available about the applicant's younger sister apart from that provided for the case by the applicant wife herself. In this connection, it gives rise to some uncertainty with the Refugee Appeals Board that the applicant wife stated at the hearing that the last times she had contact with her parents was in 2005, but that a cousin told her in a brief telephone conversation in 2009 that the family was staying in M. According to the information from the Danish Refugee Council ...on 11 June 2009, the applicant wife stated that in April 2009 she was contacted by her father who informed her that he was with her sister, but that they would move to M as soon as possible. Even if it is considered a fact that the sister in question is the person pointed out in the video clip on YouTube, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that, in view of the applicants' insignificant profile as described above, their return would not put them at risk of persecution or assault as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act. This assessment takes into consideration that the applicants departed lawfully from Sri Lanka in 1999 and are now thirty-one and forty years old, respectively. Although the applicants are ethnic Tamils from northern Sri Lanka, neither of them has had specific conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities and cannot be considered to be wanted or having been wanted previously. In this respect, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that the circumstance that as ethnic Tamils from northern Sri Lanka the applicants may risk being questioned by authorities when entering the country does not lead to a revised assessment of the case in terms of asylum law. In this assessment, consideration has been had to the background information available to the Refugee Appeals Board, from which it appears that the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in Colombo are young Tamils, men in particular, from northern and eastern Sri Lanka: those without ID; those not resident or employed in Colombo; and those recently returned from the "}
+{"target": "Asia Minor", "prompt": "7.  In 1925 the Greek State occupied an olive grove of a total area of 3,877,000 sq. m in Chalkidiki (northern Greece) and assigned it to the Refugees\u2019 Relief Committee (\u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd) with a view to settling refugees from "}
+{"target": "the Martanka", "prompt": "159.  Ms Malika Ts. gave her statement to the investigators the same day. According to her, on 13 February 2001 her father had already been abducted and detained in a military unit stationed by the main road between Urus\u2011Martan and Tangi-Chu. Her father could not tell exactly where he had been detained since a bag had been put over his head, but he had known roughly where he was from the noise of helicopters landing nearby. On 17 February 2001 he had been thrown out of a vehicle next to "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "32.  On 16 March 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicants' case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:\n\u201c... The Refugee Appeals Board still finds that, if returned to Sri Lanka, your clients will not risk persecution or outrages as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act by the Sri Lankan authorities, including in connection with arrival at Colombo Airport. In this connection, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasises that your male client stated during the asylum proceedings that he has not been politically active or otherwise been involved in conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities or the LTTE. The Board thus emphasises that your male client appears not to stand out in any way at all as he has exclusively been the subject of money demands from the LTTE like other fishermen in Batticaloa. In that connection, the Board refers to the fact that your clients left Sri Lanka lawfully using their own Sri Lankan national passports. The Refugee Appeals Board also refers to the fact that it appears from the background material available to the Board that, in general, individuals who have previously supported the LTTE on a lower level are not of interest to the authorities. Thus, generally, only high-profile members of the LTTE who are still active and wanted, or individuals wanted for serious criminal offences are of interest to the authorities, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009, and Home Office, Report of Information Gathering Visit to Colombo, Sri Lanka 23\u2011 29 August 2009. Also against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that your clients will not be at a real risk of persecution or outrages as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act on the part of the Karuna Group or the TMVP, which are in the factual control of Batticaloa according to United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009. In that connection, the Refugee Appeals Board observes that your clients' incidents with the group took place in 2005. Likewise, on the background of the above, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that the fact that your male client's cousin has been a member of the LTTE for fifteen years cannot warrant a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act according to the background material now available. It should be noted that your male client stated at the Board hearing on 14 August 2006 about his cousin, V, that he last saw V in 2001 at his mother's sister's house and did not otherwise have any contact with him. The fact that as ethnic Tamils from eastern Sri Lanka your clients may risk being questioned and investigated by the authorities upon entry into the country does not lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law. In this assessment, consideration has been given to the background information available to the Board, from which it appears that the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in Colombo are young Tamils, men in particular, from northern and eastern Sri Lanka: those without ID; those not resident or employed in Colombo; and those recently returned from the "}
+{"target": "Corke Abbey", "prompt": "22.  Packaging from a Rayovac torch and a receipt dated 10 October 2002 were later found in the Nissan Micra when it was searched. The SCC was satisfied beyond any doubt that this packaging and receipt matched the torch found in the Transit van. It was further satisfied that the dark green Nissan Micra observed by the police at "}
+{"target": "Malyy Kamennyy", "prompt": "63.  On 24 July 2014 the Moscow City Court found Mr Udaltsov and Mr Razvozzhayev guilty of organising mass disorder on 6 May 2012. The judgment contained the following findings:\n\u201cThe witness Mr Deynichenko testified that on 4 May 2012 he had taken part in a working meeting at the Moscow Department of Regional Security... as a follow-up to the meeting a draft security plan was prepared, and all necessary agreements were reached with the organisers concerning the order of the march and meeting, the movement of the column, the stage set-up, access to the meeting venue, barriers and the exit from the stage; the [organisers] had agreed on that. The question of using the park at Bolotnaya Square was not raised because the declared number of participants was 5,000, whereas over 20,000 people could be accommodated in the open area of the square and the embankment, and [the organisers] had known that in advance. It had been discussed with them how the cordon would be placed from Malyy Kamennyy bridge to the park of Bolotnaya Square, so the organisers knew about the cordon in advance. The placement of the cordon was indicated in the [security plan]. This document was for internal use and access to it was only given to the police; the location of the forces could be changed in an emergency by the operational headquarters. The organisers did not insist on an on-the-spot visit; such visits are held at the initiative of the organisers, which had not been requested because they had known the route ... and the meeting venue ... [The witness Mr Deynichenko] had known that at the beginning of the march the event organisers, including Mr Udaltsov, had discussed between them that they were not going to turn towards the meeting venue but would stop and try to break the cordon to proceed to Bolshoy Kamennyy bridge.\n...\nThe witness N. Sharapov testified that Mr Udaltsov had known the route of the march and had not raised a question about opening up the park at Bolotnaya Square. Moreover, the park was a nature reserve with narrow lanes ... the park had been opened up previously [for a public event], as an exception, on only one occasion, on 4 February 2012, but then it was winter, it was snowing and the declared number of participants had significantly exceeded 5,000. No such exception was made for 6 May 2012.\n... according to the statement of the Moscow City Security Department, ...the meeting venue at Bolotnaya embankment could accommodate 26,660 people ...\nThe fact that no map of the assembly route or the placement of the police had been produced at the working meeting of 4 May 2012, that these questions had not been expressly discussed, ... that the event organisers present at the working meeting had not been shown any maps, was confirmed by them.\n... the court concludes that no official map had been adopted with the organisers and, in the court\u2019s opinion, [the published map] had been based on Mr Udaltsov\u2019s own interview with journalists ...\nTherefore the map presented by the defence has no official character, its provenance is unknown and therefore unreliable and it does not reflect the true route of the demonstration and the placement of the police forces.\n... the witness Mr Makhonin ... testified that on 5 May 2012 he received the [security plan] ... Before the start of the march he personally met the event organisers Ms Mityushkina, Mr Udaltsov [and] Mr Davidis and in the presence of the press and with the use of video recordings explained to them the order of the meeting and the march, warned against the breach of public order during the conduct of the event; and stressed the need to inform him personally about any possible provocations by calling the telephone number known to the organisers. He asked Mr Udaltsov about the intention to proceed towards the Kremlin and to cause mass disorder because the police had received information about it from undercover sources; Mr Udaltsov had assured him that there would be no breaches of order at the event and that they had no intention to move towards the Kremlin ... He (Mr Makhonin) arrived at Bolotnaya Square after the mass disorder had already begun ... After the mass disorder began he tried calling Mr Udaltsov on the phone but there was no reply. Mr Udaltsov did not call him ... Other event organisers had not asked him to move the cordon. Given the circumstances, Ms Mityushkina, at his request, announced the end of the meeting, and the police opened additional exits for those willing to leave. In addition to that, the police repeated through a loudspeaker the announcement about the end of the meeting ...\n... the witness Mr Zdorenko ...testified that ... following information received [from undercover sources] about the possible setting up of a camp site, at about 9 p.m. on 5 May 2012 he arrived at Bolotnaya Square and organised a search of the area including the park. The park was cordoned off and guarded ... if necessary, at the decision of the operational headquarters, the venue allocated for the meeting could be significantly extended at the expense of the park [at Bolotnaya Square]. However, there was no need for that given that there were no more than 2,500-3,000 persons on Bolotnaya Square ... [others being stopped at] Malyy Kamennyy bridge.\n...\nThe witness A. Zharkov testified that ...while the stage was being set up he had seen an unknown man smuggling four camping tents in rubbish bins.\n...\nThe witness M. Volondina testified that ... before the beginning of the march, police information came through from undercover sources that the event organisers intended to encircle the Kremlin holding hands to prevent the inauguration of the Russian President.\nThe witness M. Zubarev testified that ... he had been [officially] filming ... while Police Officer Makhonin ... explained the order ... and warned the organisers ... and asked Mr Udaltsov to inform him of any possible provocations. Mr Udaltsov stated that they would act lawfully and that he had requested the police to stop any unwanted persons from joining the public event ...\nThe witness Y. Vanyukhin testified that on 6 May 2012 ... at about 6 p.m. Mr Udaltsov, while on the way to the stage, told people around him that they were going to set up a campsite ...\n... the witness Ms Mirza testified that ... Police Officer Biryukov had asked her and [the Ombudsman] to come to "}
+{"target": "Vedeno", "prompt": "49.  On 16 December 2008 the Shali FSB replied to the investigators\u2019 information request of November 2008, stating that there was information concerning Mr Artur Ibragimov\u2019s involvement in illegal armed groups between 2003 and 2006. The relevant parts of the letter read as follows:\n\u201c... According to the information [we have gathered], from approximately the middle of 2003 [Mr Artur Ibragimov] was a member of an armed group in the "}
+{"target": "the Ve\u00efkou Estate", "prompt": "15.  In various judgments delivered during the past years the Greek courts have had the occasion to decide the property status of part of the Ve\u00efkou Estate (judgments nos. 8864/1995 of the Athens First Instance Court, 8314/1996, 9632/2000 of the Athens Court of Appeal and 1359/2002 of the Court of Cassation). The courts have recognised that a number of plots which were situated in the greater area of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "40.  On 14 September 2010 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected Draupner\u2019s appeal, but granted that of the Tax Agency. Draupner\u2019s procedural requests for an oral hearing and an inspection were rejected, but the court held a preparatory meeting with the parties to determine the continued proceedings in the case, notably the method for examining the disputed material. The court found that, due to the extremely extensive data material \u2013 more than 300,000 files and entries \u2013, it was impossible to examine each and every data file, and the Tax Agency was therefore instructed to list the documents and files it considered as part of its examination after which Draupner would have an opportunity to lodge a new request for exemption. The appellate court agreed with the County Administrative Court\u2019s assessments that the material, including the hard disk drive and the USB memory stick, had been seized on Draupner\u2019s business "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "7.  On 10 March 2010 the Oslo City Court (tingrett), finding that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion (skjellig grunn til mistanke) in respect of the charges, decided at the request of the prosecuting authority to authorise that a search be carried out at the applicant\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Samashki forest", "prompt": "71.  On 6 September 2001 the investigators questioned a woman, whose name was not submitted to the Court, identified as \u201cRaisa\u201d. She testified that on 29 October 1999, together with three other persons, she tried to leave in their car for Ingushetia through the \u201chumanitarian corridor\u201d. After they were refused permission to cross at the checkpoint, they turned back at about noon and reached Grozny safely. Later she learned that the refugees had been attacked from the air, and that many people were killed and wounded. She submitted that on the road back she had seen a group of four or five men on the edge of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "7.  On 8 October 1997 the applicants distributed four-page folded pamphlets to passers-by in front of a Nuremberg medical centre. The front page contained the following text:\n\u201c'Killing specialist' for unborn children Dr. F. [is] on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "37.  On 11 August 2005 the district prosecutor\u2019s office replied to the first applicant\u2019s query of 2 August 2005. The letter stated that the investigation in criminal case no. 20123 in connection with her son\u2019s abduction had been opened on 17 June 2003, and that although all possible measures had been taken, Isa Zaurbekov\u2019s whereabouts and the identity of the alleged perpetrators could not be established. It went on to say that a number of witnesses residing in the same block of flats where Isa Zaurbekov and the second applicant had lived had been questioned and that relevant enquiries had been sent to various State bodies in Chechnya and neighbouring regions; however, those steps had brought no positive results. The letter assured the first applicant that the search for her son was in progress and stated that she could access the file of criminal case no. 20123 at any time during working hours on the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "12.  Having learned of their relatives\u2019 disappearance, the applicants started searching for Isa and Shamil Khalidov. In an attempt to establish the whereabouts and the fate of those missing, they applied both in person and in writing to various official bodies, such as the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office, the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia, the military commander\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "43.  On 24 September 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office granted the first applicant victim status and questioned her. During the interview the first applicant did not allege that her husband had been kept at the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus", "prompt": "238.  On 2 May 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant\u2019s relative Mr A.E., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant and her husband. In addition, he stated that when he had arrived at the police station with the relatives and the head of the administration, Mr Ziyavdi Elmurzayev had not been there. On 26 April 2002 he had spoken with the local journalist Mr R.T., who had given him a copy of a report by the regional headquarters of the counter-terrorist operation in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "50.  On an unspecified date A.K. was questioned. He stated that at about 5.30 a.m. on 21 December 2004 police officers had entered his house and asked him to go with them to the ROVD. At first he had been put in an APC and then in an UAZ vehicle in which he had travelled with the policemen. Upon arrival to the ROVD he had been questioned and then released. Having returned home he had learned of Alis Zubirayev\u2019s kidnapping. He had been transferred to the ROVD on his own and had not seen Alis Zubirayev on its "}
+{"target": "Humanisten", "prompt": "19.  On 4 September 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court, unanimously, found that the Government\u2019s decision was not unlawful and confirmed it. The court held:\n\u201cAccording to section 1 of the [1988 Act] the Supreme Administrative Court must examine if the Government\u2019s decision in the case is contrary to any legal rule in the manner claimed by the applicant or as otherwise clearly appears from the circumstances of the case. ....\nAccording to Chapter 1, section 6, of the [1987 Act] land may only be used for development if it is, from a public interest point of view, suitable for its purpose. The conditions on which an examination of suitability should be carried out through the adoption of a detailed development plan - and not solely in a matter concerning a building permit or a tentative approval - are specified in Chapter 5, section 1, paragraph 1, of the [1987 Act]. Thus, according to point 2 of the aforementioned provision, a detailed development plan becomes relevant when a new single building is to be constructed, the use of which will have significant influence on its surroundings. The Government\u2019s assessment that the suitability of the intended change of the property and the development conditions within the block "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "30.  On 5 September 2003 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that further to her request a number of enquiries concerning the security raids of 23 to 24 January 2003 had been sent to the official \u201cpower structures\u201d (\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0440\u044b) of "}
+{"target": "Hyde Park", "prompt": "7.  On 23 July 2007 Hyde Park applied to the Municipal Council of Chi\u015fin\u0103u for authorisation to stage a protest on 30 August 2007 in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office against alleged acts of harassment of "}
+{"target": "Proletarskoye", "prompt": "68.  On 4 February 2005 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the second applicant that\n\u201c... as a result of the examination of the criminal case file it has been established that the case was initiated on 14 January 2003 under Article 126 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code in connection with the abduction at about 3 a.m. on 11 January 2003 in "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "9.  The applicant\u2019s article on Ms Kandi\u0107 appeared in Politika on 7 September 2003. The integral translation of the impugned article, titled \u201cThe Hague Investigator\u201d, reads as follows:\n\u201c\u2018Even my son blames me for protecting everybody but the Serbs\u2019, says the director of the Fund for Humanitarian Law.\nMs Nata\u0161a Kandi\u0107, founder and Executive Director of the Humanitarian Law Centre for Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo and Metohija, a non-governmental organisation aimed at promoting human rights for minorities, last week, again, defended herself \u2018from the Serbian patriotism surge\u2019.\nOn the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared commemoration, at the gathering of the Association of Families of Missing and Kidnapped Persons in Kosovo and Metohija organised in the centre of Belgrade, following a short argument she slapped one of the participants. After this incident the Belgrade police submitted a request for the initiation of prosecution proceedings against her, and the Association of Families of the Missing lodged a lawsuit, demanding that she pay 30,000,000 Serbian dinars (RSD) for the insult to the families of those kidnapped and killed.\nRecently our media have also reported that this \u2018prominent advocate of human rights and democratic reform in Serbia\u2019 was awarded the annual Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative Award (CEELI) from the American Bar Association on 9 August during the ABA Annual Meeting luncheon in San Francisco. Former winners of this award were Petar Stoyanov from Bulgaria, Emil Constantinescu from Romania, Vaclav Havel from the Czech Republic, Stjepan Mesi\u0107 from Croatia ...\nIt was also reported that at the beginning of May the American magazine Time published a list of thirty-six individuals dubbed the European heroes, among which was Nata\u0161a Kandi\u0107, too.\nThe Serbian campaigner for the truth on war crimes, a lonely voice of reason in Serbia or the Soros[5] mercenary, the one who was named by all the banished FRY[6] spies, has won many awards, including the Human Rights Watch Award, but none of them were awarded to her in Serbia.\nNata\u0161a Kandi\u0107 provokes stormy reactions wherever she appears. While the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "32.  On 6 March 2002 the Zavodskoy and the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny and the Grozny ROVD informed the investigators that they did not have information concerning either Khamzat Umarov\u2019s whereabouts or his detention on their "}
+{"target": "Khankala", "prompt": "53.  While being interviewed on 29 April 2006, the applicant confirmed her account of the events concerning the abduction of her husband and stated that at the end of the year 2005 a certain M.Z. had told the mother of Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev that the latter was in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "80.  At 6 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms and black bulletproof vests broke into the applicant\u2019s house at 26 Gvardeyskaya Street in Gekhi. They were of Slavic and Chechen appearance and spoke Russian and Chechen. The men were equipped with portable radio sets. One of them grabbed the applicant by the throat and threatened to kill her if she moved. The others forced Mr Vakha Dadakhayev outside, saying that they were taking him for interrogation to the "}
+{"target": "Sovetskiy district", "prompt": "8.  According to the applicant, police officer Sh. took him to an experts\u2019 room where he was photographed and fingerprinted. Then, shortly after 3 p.m., Sh. led him out of the police station from a back door in the experts\u2019 room and took him to Orsk police department no. 2 in a police car for questioning. According to the police station logbook, the applicant left the "}
+{"target": "Gozo", "prompt": "10.  However, the applicants were unable to find an apartment to rent in Malta given that, at the time, owners were reluctant to lease property to Maltese residents because of the rent laws in force. In consequence the applicants had to reside in their smaller apartment on the island of "}
+{"target": "Solyenaya Balka", "prompt": "18.  In the morning of 11 January 2003 the applicants started their search for Arbi Karimov. They spoke to a number of local residents who lived close to the route to the Staropromyslovskiy district. The residents confirmed that on the night of 11 January 2003 they had seen that some of the military vehicles had driven in the direction of Grozny while others had left in the direction of the area called "}
+{"target": "the Kursk Region", "prompt": "44.  On 11 August 2005 Ms Liptser visited the applicant in the remand prison. During her visit the applicant made the following statement:\n\u201cIn remand prison IZ-32/1 I am also subjected to pressure by officials of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences from the Kursk and Bryansk regions and their colleague from Moscow [...] They skilfully beat me without leaving any traces: they beat me on the head with books, on the face with their open palms... They are about to become residents here \u2013 they have been dealing with me for a week now from dusk till dawn. They say that I am the only one remaining. They let me make phone calls to remand prisons in Orel and Kursk, where other convicts tell me to withdraw [my complaints] and that they have already withdrawn theirs. [The officials] brought letters from others saying that I should withdraw [the complaints], refuse assistance from counsel, that \u201cthis must be done\u201d. Then they began to beat me again and to burn me with a boiler forcing me to write [the withdrawal letters]... I read [Sh.\u2019s] withdrawal of his application [before the Court] and his rejection of your services ... and a similar withdrawal written by M.\u201d\n\u201cI was forced [under torture] to write dictated statements addressed to Mr Laptev, representative of the Russian Government before the Court, Mr Lukin, Russian Ombudsman, the Prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "31.  By a final decision of 23 May 2005, the B\u00e2rlad prosecutor\u2019s office, in particular the head prosecutor R.F., dismissed M.A.\u2019s challenge as ill\u2011founded. It held that it had not been possible to take a statement from the applicant because she had been in a situation and state which prevented her from engaging in conversation as a result of psychotropic medication she had been administered, which had a negative psychopathological effect. Moreover, it would have been immoral to find that the applicant\u2019s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom given that she had been unable to express her own will because she was constantly accompanied by MISA members and was not allowed to attend meetings alone. M.A. was sixteen years older than the applicant and he had not been able to prove that he was her fianc\u00e9. He had initially informed an employee at the mayor\u2019s office that he was the applicant\u2019s boyfriend, and had stated that he was her fianc\u00e9 only after a telephone conversation with a third party, and only in order to justify his own interests in respect of the applicant. It had been natural for the applicant\u2019s parents to attempt to bring their daughter back home by any means necessary and to try to ensure her physical and emotional recovery, given that they had seen the press campaign concerning what happened to young women at the MISA "}
+{"target": "Transylvania", "prompt": "11.  The Principality of Moldavia first emerged as an independent State in 1359. Its territory covered the area between the Eastern Carpathian Mountains, the Dniester River and the Black Sea; today, this area encompasses Moldova, part of Romania and part of Ukraine. Its population spoke the same language and was of the same descent as the populations of Wallachia and "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "20.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against that decision to the Regional Court and referred to the same arguments as in their appeals against the previous detention orders. In addition, they pointed out that a number of expert reports, which were initiated after the seizure of documents on the construction company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Land\u2019s End", "prompt": "6.  The applicant adheres to a firmly held belief in the inoffensiveness of the human body. This has in turn given rise to a belief in social nudity, which he expresses by being naked in public. In 2003 he decided to walk naked from "}
+{"target": "M\u00f8lleparken", "prompt": "17.  The following comment was then made:\n\u201cCommentator: So in December 1981, shortly after X\u2019s wife disappeared and X was in prison, the Frederikshavn police were in possession of the taxi driver\u2019s statement, in which she reported that shortly after noon that Saturday she had driven behind X and his son for about a kilometre ... So X and his son were in "}
+{"target": "Kiasma-Postitalo", "prompt": "37.  On 17 December 2007 the Helsinki District Court (k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus, tingsr\u00e4tten) found the applicant guilty of contumacy towards the police under Chapter 16, section 4(1), of the Penal Code but did not impose any penalty on him.\nThe applicant stated before the District Court that he had heard the orders to disperse at around 8.30 p.m. but had understood them as applying only to the demonstrators. The court found it established that the police actions had been legal and that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them. It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not said or indicated to a police officer standing nearby at the time of the apprehension that he was a journalist. According to this police officer, this fact only became known to him when the magazine relating the events at the demonstration came out. It appeared also from the witness statement of another journalist that he and a third photographer, who had been in the sealed-off area, had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was apprehended. This last remaining journalist stated that he had taken his last photograph at 9.15 p.m. and left the area just two to three minutes before the applicant\u2019s apprehension took place. The District Court found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had manifestly applied to everyone in the crowd, which consisted of demonstrators as well as bystanders and other members of the public.\nMoreover, the District Court examined the justification of the interference of the applicant\u2019s right under Article 10 of the Convention in the following manner.\n\u201c...\nIt is disputed whether Mr Pentik\u00e4inen had, as a journalist and on the basis of his freedom of expression, the right not to obey the orders given to him by the police. He had intended to use his freedom of expression as a photographer. The police orders to disperse therefore restricted his freedom of expression. The question is whether there was a justification for this restriction.\nPursuant to Article 12 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. It includes a right to publish and distribute information without interference by the authorities. Pursuant to the Constitution, more detailed provisions on the exercise of freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. In accordance with Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the exercise of freedom of expression may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law. Pursuant to the said Article and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, three requirements must be taken into account when assessing the restrictions: (1) the restriction must be prescribed by law; (2) it must have an acceptable reason; and (3) it must be necessary in a democratic society.\nFirst of all, the District Court notes that the police have the power, in accordance with sections 18 and 19 of the Police Act, to cordon off an area and to disperse a crowd. On the strength of this power, the police gave an order to disperse to the persons remaining in the "}
+{"target": "Veikou Estate", "prompt": "17.  In various judgments over the past few years the Greek courts have been called upon to decide the property status of parts of the Veikou Estate (judgments no. 8864/1995 of the Athens Court of First Instance, no. 8314/1996 of the Athens Court of Appeal, and no. 9632/2000 of the Athens Court of Appeal). The courts have recognised that a number of plots which were situated in the greater "}
+{"target": "Ingushetia", "prompt": "20.  On 25 March 2004 the first applicant sent letters to prosecutors\u2019 offices at several levels, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Ministry of the Interior, and other federal and regional authorities, complaining about the detention of his son by persons who had used special passes to do so, and about the absence of any news from him. He submitted that several dozen people had been kidnapped in "}
+{"target": "North Caucasus Circuit", "prompt": "40.  The investigators requested information on the portable remote-control detonator from the UGA. On 7 June 2004 the head of engineer troops of the North Caucasus Circuit replied that portable remote-control detonators PM-4 No. 3144 issued in 1999 had not been supplied to the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "20.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained to the head of the Federal Migration Service\u2019s Office in Kulary, Mr I., about the abduction of their relatives. Mr I. informed them that Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev were detained in the building of the "}
+{"target": "the Bronze Soldier", "prompt": "24.  On 27 April 2007 from 9 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. the third applicant was interviewed by a prosecutor as a suspect of a serious breach of public order. The record of the interview states that the applicant explained that he and his girlfriend had gone to see what was going on around "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "7.  On 5 September 2003 the Utrecht Regional Court (rechtbank) found the applicant guilty of being a co-perpetrator of the offence of transporting a shipment of tablets containing a psychotropic substance the trade of which is illegal in all countries concerned, namely 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (\u201cMDMA\u201d for short, known in its street pill form as \u201cecstasy\u201d or \u201cXTC\u201d \u2013 the latter designation will be used in this judgment hereafter) from the Netherlands to Germany with the intention of ultimately shipping it to Australia. According to the judgment, the XTC was to be hidden in the cylinders and crankcases of motor car engines that would then be shipped to a business, H. Autosport, in Sydney, New South Wales, which company had been set up by the applicant with a view to importing engine parts from "}
+{"target": "River Khul\u2011Khulau", "prompt": "8.  On 7 June 2003 at about 5 p.m. an operational investigative group composed of officers of the Vedenskiy District Prosecutor\u2019s Office (\u201cthe District Prosecutor\u2019s Office\u201d), the Vedenskiy District Department of the Interior (\u201cROVD\u201d), the Criminal Police of the Provisional Task Force of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and the Directorate of the Federal Security Bureau for the Vedenskiy District (\u201cUFSB\u201d), were driving several vehicles along the Dyshne-Vedeno-Kharachoy road, returning from Kharachoy to the village of Vedeno. One of the vehicles of the convoy was blown up and thrown down a steep slope by the explosion into the nearby "}
+{"target": "Gekhi", "prompt": "123.   The facts of this application are based on the same events as those examined by the Court in the case of Musayeva and Others v. Russia, no.  74239/01, 26 July 2007, which concerned the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relatives as a result of a special operation conducted by federal forces in "}
+{"target": "Northern K\u00fcrdistan", "prompt": "9.  The prosecution relied on the following passages of the book:\n\u201c...S\u00fcr\u00fc (Herd)[1] depicts K\u00fcrdistan. In Yol (Road)[2] there was even a street sign showing that the film is about K\u00fcrdistan. This scene in particular was sufficient to make the Turkish fascists go mad...\u201d\n\u201c...in the meantime the revolutionary movement evolved in the country and national conscience awakened in "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District", "prompt": "8.  In December 1999 the applicant\u2019s mother and her sisters Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva moved from their flat to the basement under the pavilion situated in the courtyard of their block of flats. On 1 January 2000, owing to the intensity of a fire, Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva decided to hide in the basement of the applicant\u2019s block of flats at no. 285 (in the documents submitted the address is also stated as no. 287) in Derzhavina Street in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "63.  On 18 November 2009 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who added to her previous statement that after the abduction, on 5 and 6 August 2009, when she and her family had been waiting at the gates to the ROVD, she had seen a group of police officers leaving the "}
+{"target": "Western Europe", "prompt": "14.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years\u2019 imprisonment for being part of a criminal enterprise, together with J.G. and D.M., which had drug trafficking from Croatia to "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "38.  On 10 October 2008 the Suvorivskyy Court acquitted the first applicant once again and lifted her obligation not to leave town. The Suvorivskyy Court\u2019s reasoning was similar to that in its decision of 28 July 2005. It further stated that the police officers had had no order to prevent anybody from leaving the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Stryy", "prompt": "9.  On 16 March 1998 the Lviv Regional Court rejected the cassation appeal by the applicant and the judgment of 2 February 1998 became final. The court noted, in particular, that, as followed from the documents on file, the applicant had been absent from "}
+{"target": "the West Midlands", "prompt": "7.  Between 4 July 1998 and 1 April 1999 a series of robberies and burglaries took place in the Coventry area. As a result of their investigations, the police considered that there were some nine persons involved in the commission of these offences, including the applicant and his three co-defendants. The police had difficulty obtaining evidence against those who they thought were responsible, and therefore decided to seek authority from the Chief Constable for "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "266.  Immediately afterwards, the ninth applicant ran to the local police station and the military commander\u2019s office. Officers on duty told her that they had neither arrested anyone nor detained anyone on their "}
+{"target": "the Kostroma Region", "prompt": "9.  On 15 and 18 January 2001, whilst the pre-trial investigation into the murder and robbery was pending, the State local television company, KTRK, broadcast the Na grani (\u201cOn the Edge\u201d) programme which contained an interview with Mr T., an investigator from the prosecutor's office of "}
+{"target": "\u0130mral\u0131 island", "prompt": "24.  During late 2012 and January 2013, a peace process known as the \u201csolution process\u201d had been initiated with a view to finding a lasting, peaceful solution to the \u201cKurdish question\u201d. A series of reforms aimed at improving human rights protection were implemented. A delegation of members of parliament, including the applicant, went to "}
+{"target": "East Siberia-Pacific Ocean", "prompt": "15.  In the course of 2010 the first applicant pursued an anti\u2011corruption campaign and published a number of articles and documents exposing high ranking officials\u2019 involvement in large-scale fraud. In particular, on 16 November 2010 he published an article claiming that at least four billion US dollars of State funds had been misappropriated during the construction of the "}
+{"target": "Latin America", "prompt": "17.  On the same day the investigating judge issued a secret surveillance order with the following statement of reasons:\n\u201cBy orders under the above number secret surveillance was ordered in respect of Ante Dragojevi\u0107 (on 23 March 2007 and discontinued on 7 August 2007), and in respect of ...\nOn 17 September 2007 the OSCOC lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under Article 180 \u00a7 1 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Ante Dragojevi\u0107, B.\u017d. and M.M. for a period of two months in connection with offences proscribed under Article 173 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code, and for the discontinuation of secret surveillance in respect of N.I and an unidentified person. In their request [the OSCOC] submits that the investigation shows that there is a possibility that these individuals could contact each other again and that they could contact N.I., who travelled to "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "46.  On 5 September 2011, after his release from Jilava Prison on 23 August 2011, the applicant asked the DGSACP for permission to visit his son on a regular basis. The authorities granted his request. According to the most recent information provided by the Government on 24 January 2013, the applicant had been able to visit his son regularly, usually once every fortnight, at the DGSACP\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Nizip", "prompt": "78.  The next day he typed up a report from his notes about the corpse, which had not been identified as no identity papers had been found, although Mr \u015een\u2019s name had been written on the jacket. The Prosecutor must have been shown that. He had not been aware of Mrs \u015een\u2019s missing person report the day before. His station had not been informed of that. The abduction had taken place in "}
+{"target": "Argun channel", "prompt": "16.  The second applicant went into the courtyard and saw five military vehicles. When the vehicles started driving off the APC went first, followed by two UAZ vehicles and then two Ural vehicles. The applicants could hear that the vehicles were moving in the direction of the village centre of Goyty and then towards Grozny without stopping or slowing down at the military checkpoint on the bridge across "}
+{"target": "Nadterechniy", "prompt": "13. The applicants' relative, Mr Israil M., who was at the first applicant's house during the abduction, immediately followed the convoy of military vehicles in his VAZ car with two female relatives. On the way to Grozny the abductors' vehicles split into two groups. One of them, comprised of the APC and several UAZ cars, drove in the direction of the nearby village of Znamenskoye in the "}
+{"target": "the Region of Carinthia", "prompt": "7.  The Carinthian Regional Hospital Operating Company (Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft \u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe KABEG\u201d) is a public-law institution (Anstalt \u00f6ffentlichen Rechts) which operates five hospitals in Carinthia previously owned by "}
+{"target": "the Moscow Region", "prompt": "18.  On 5 April 2006 the applicant\u2019s premises were searched by the GPO investigators and certain documents were seized. In particular, the GPO searched a flat situated at 7, Bakinskikh Komissarov street, Moscow, and a house situated at 5, Gorki-2 village, in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "29.  On 13 June 2004 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint, accusing the mother of endangering Th.N.\u2019s moral and physical development, and of having slanderously accused him when alleging that he had given drugs to Th.N. while the child was visiting him over two weekends (see paragraph 30 below).\nOn 24 October 2005 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint against I.R., again accusing her of not allowing him to see his child, Th.N., thereby flouting the final judgment of 2002 which allowed him contact rights. The applicant also complained that, following the instructions given by I.R., the headmistress of the school attended by Th.N. had not allowed the applicant to enter the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "167.  In a witness interview of 24 April 2003 Mr A., a high-ranking military officer who at the material time had been seconded to the Chechen Republic, stated that he knew nothing of a bomb strike on "}
+{"target": "the Leninskiy District", "prompt": "69.  In a decision of 26 January 2009 the investigator in charge sought authorisation from a competent court for access to classified documents from a military archive. The decision referred to the investigation in case no. 20039 and stated that there were sufficient grounds to believe that representatives of the federal forces of Russia (servicemen, officers of security agencies or those of offices of the interior) had been involved in the Yansuyev brothers' abduction and their subsequent disappearance and that information about that special operation could be kept in one of the archives of the power structures. It went on to say that since the officers in command of the power structures, with reference to relevant regulations, had refused to submit information of a military nature stating that it was classified, it was necessary to formally order that the relevant documents containing information on the special operation of 13 February 2003 in Ioanisiani Street of "}
+{"target": "the Volgograd Region", "prompt": "26.  Magomed Soltymuradov is a trained economist. Before the hostilities started he worked in a bank. Between November 1999 and December 2001 he lived as an internally displaced person with his wife and three children in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "15.  According to the applicant and the statements of the two attesting witnesses which were appended to the application form, the search was conducted in the following manner. Upon his return home, accompanied by police officers, the applicant found his pregnant wife in a critical condition, apparently suffering a miscarriage, and his one-year-old son crying beside her. On seeing him, the applicant\u2019s wife fainted. A doctor was called and a number of female neighbours came to help. At that point the head of the police team informed the applicant that his house was to be searched, briefly showing him the relevant search warrant. The applicant alleged that attesting witnesses G.G. and M.S. were asked to participate only after the search had already begun. It appears that G.G. was a war veteran who had suffered concussion and was seriously disabled, while M.S. was seventy\u2011four years old. The search was conducted by more than ten police officers who also used two specially trained dogs. Having searched the house and not found anything, the police officers started searching the yard and the adjacent buildings. The applicant alleged that during the search of the outside "}
+{"target": "Tatra", "prompt": "21.  In September 1994 the newspaper Necenzurovan\u00e9 noviny published an article by a third person describing the applicant\u2019s case in detail. It was entitled \u201cHow the Red Plague operates in Eastern Slovakia\u201d and contained quotations from the applicant\u2019s letters. The relevant parts read as follows:\n\u201c... It is on this basis that the district prosecutor\u2019s office in Liptovsk\u00fd Mikul\u00e1\u0161 started a prosecution against [the applicant] on 2 June 1994. In order to give the reader an idea of what is possible in [Slovakia], I will quote the text which, according to public prosecutor [L.], constitutes a criminal offence. \nIn his message of 7 March 1994 addressed to the General Prosecutor in Bratislava, [the applicant] stated in respect of [public prosecutor P.] that in the criminal case of [H.] he had deliberately acted wrongly so that \u2018he could satisfy his friend [M.] from Ko\u0161ice, the former President of the Ko\u0161ice City Court whom the City Committee of the Communist Party of Slovakia had identified as a key official and who is now [H.]\u2019s lawyer, that no criminal proceedings would be brought against [H.] in Slovakia notwithstanding that sufficient evidence existed to do so ... Of course, money paid by [H.] with a view to covering up his fraudulent activity also played a role in the matter. It would therefore be worth examining in this context whether the facts do not fall under Articles 161 and 162 of the Criminal Code [which govern the offence of bribery]\u2019.    \nIn the same document [the applicant] stated: \u2018Subsequently I realised that my telephone, which was also used by my detective agency, had been tapped contrary to Article 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\u2019\nIn a letter dated 6 December 1993 and addressed to public prosecutor [P.], [the applicant] stated among other things: \u2018Since you have not succeeded, comrade prosecutor, in attaining your aims in one area, you continue energetically, in accordance with the practice of the [former] State Security agents, to fabricate another case as you have learned to do under the so-called infallible socialist law. On this occasion I can assure you, however, that I have not bowed to the high representatives of the former political system and, in particular, the [former] State Security agents who paid at least as much attention to my person as you do now. I do not intend today to let myself be intimidated, especially not by individuals such as yourself, a person with a dubious past, not to speak of [your] other qualities ...\u2019\nIn the same letter [the applicant] went on: \u2018It is not only my earlier experience of managing a detective agency which makes it difficult for me to associate you with objectivity, professionalism and respect for the law. I would therefore like to remind you on this occasion that you are also bound by the law despite the fact that you probably consider yourself to be an almighty lord of the "}
+{"target": "the Khanty-Mansiysk Region", "prompt": "100.  On 23 August 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic instituted criminal proceedings under Article 158 \u00a7 2 (a) and (c) (aggravated theft) of the Russian Criminal Code in connection with the theft of the applicant's Subaru car which had been established during the investigation in case no. 12088. The decision stated that the said vehicle had been stolen from the applicant's courtyard in late March 2000 by an unidentified group of police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD seconded to the Chechen Republic from "}
+{"target": "the Magadan Region", "prompt": "7.  The applicant was the president of a non-governmental organisation known as Investory Kolymy (Investors of Kolyma). In 2001 he wrote an article entitled \u201cShares for the Moor of Moscow\u201d (\u201c\u0410\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u043c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0430\u0432\u0440\u0430\u201d). The article was about the acquisition of shares in Kolymaenergo Plc (a local energy\u2011producing company which was at the time a part of the State holding Edinye Energeticheskiye Systemy Rossii) by a group of Moscow-based firms. In the article the applicant described the purchase as a crooked deal and alleged that a high-level official from Moscow, one of the leaders of the pro\u2011government political party, was behind the transaction. The article reads as follows:\n\u201cShares for the Moor of Moscow\nWhere are the 1,300,000,000 roubles [obtained from] the placement of shares in Kolymaenergo Plc?\nWe meant well ...\nEverything started with an advertisement in [the official daily] Rossiyskaya Gazeta of 1 July 2000, in which Kolymaenergo Plc informed us about the next step in its exploration of market in the country \u2013 namely, about the official registration of the issue of 3,231,000,000 simple non-documentary nominal shares. [In that advertisement Kolymaenergo] described in great detail the conditions and procedure for the issue of the shares, including the distribution of the shares amongst prospective buyers in the first priority group and the second priority group, explained how to formulate a request for acquisition of shares, and, naturally, indicated the bank account into which payments for the shares should be made. The payments were supposed to go through a commercial bank situated in Krasnodar [a city in southern Russia]. In other words, a reputable firm got involved, and, as a consequence, the business was put on a solid footing. At least, that was the appearance that the sponsors of the project wanted to create for those who they hoped would \u201cswallow the bait\u201d and, under the influence of the very promising advert \u2013 published, by the way, in all the mass media of the Magadan Region \u2013 would be prepared to play for high stakes.\nAt the local level the preparations had started long before the publication of the advert. First of all, the issuer (the corporation issuing the securities) took care to develop convincing arguments which would help to get support for their project from public officials. On 29 April 1999 a consultation meeting took place in the office of the head of the Yagodninskiy District [of Magadan Region], where the question of payment of the local taxes due by Kolymaenergo Plc was discussed. It was no accident that that question was on the agenda of the meeting: by that time the outstanding fiscal debt of the energy industry [vis-a-vis the local authorities], including the carryovers from previous years, amounted to 228,700,000 roubles \u2013 a very significant amount for the District [budget]. As a result of the discussion an agreement was reached which provided, in particular, that (direct quote) \u201cthe administration of the Yagodninskiy District discharges Kolymaenergo Plc from the payment of 228,700,000 roubles in local taxes. In return, Kolymaenergo Plc transfers [to the administration] its shares worth 228,700,000 roubles, at the market rate applicable at the moment of the transfer\u201d. Both parties signed the minutes of the meeting containing that clause. Naturally, among the signatures were those of Mr F.I.T., the head of the local administration, and Mr G.I.S., the managing director of Kolymaenergo. Some time later Mr. G.I.S. made a similar proposal \u2013 \u201cshares in exchange for taxes\u201d \u2013 to the financial department of the administration of the Magadan Region and to the mayor's office of Magadan.\nThe plot thickens. At the beginning of November 1999 the Duma of the Magadan Region adopted the Law on investment in the construction of the Ust-Srednekanskaya HydroElectric Power Plant (HEPP). Almost certainly, everyone has heard about the problems with the financing of that \u201cnever-ending construction project\u201d, so the desire of the lawmakers to use every opportunity to get the extra funding is quite understandable. As a result, in the new law, driven by the best aspirations, they stipulated that \u201c... in order to complete the construction of the Ust-Srednekanskaya HEPP plant, which is one of the most important elements in the fuel and energy system of the Magadan Region ... Kolymaenergo Plc may dispose of the fees as a registered member of the special economic zone, due for the period until 31 December 2002, which were earmarked for the special-purpose extra-budgetary fund for social development in the Magadan Region.\nThose fees should be considered as a capital investment in the main capital of Kolymaenergo Plc, in particular to pay for the construction costs of the Ust\u2011Srednekanskaya HEPP, on condition that a corresponding part of the shares is registered as the property of the Magadan Administration\u201d (end of quote). That law was enacted on 3 November 1999.\n... But it ended up the same as always\nAs the saying goes, \u201ceverything looked smooth on paper, but they forgot that in reality it was full of cracks\u201d. The fourth additional issue of shares was registered on 16 June 2000, and distribution was supposed to start in two weeks. On different dates, all within the period of open distribution of the shares, a number of potential investors concluded standard acquisition agreements with Kolymaenergo Plc. Edinye Energeticheskiye Systemy Rossii [the biggest State-controlled energy company at that time], for good reason, bought shares for almost 1,680,000,000 roubles, thus investing in the construction of the Ust-Srednekanskaya HEPP. However, the situation has since changed, for the worse as regards most of the investors. One of the local companies, Regiondragmet Ltd, expressed an interest in purchasing shares for 1,200,000,000 roubles. When the director of Kolymaenergo Plc. Mr G.I.S., learned about that offer, he requested that all previous offers and the book where they were registered be destroyed, and decided that henceforth he would take care of the distribution of the shares.\nVery soon, instead of the bank account in Krasnodar indicated in the original issue plan, a new bank account was opened, this time with the Korvet bank (Moscow), and, following that, the implementation of the whole scheme, as designed from the very beginning, started. In a very short time, three commercial firms were incorporated in Moscow: Bakkar Ltd, Promstroy TEK Ltd and ONEKS-Consulting Ltd. Bakkar transferred 140,000,000 roubles to Kolymaenergo's account with the Korvet bank; with that money the recipient [Kolymaenergo] paid for the promissory notes issued by ONEKS-Consulting. For those not familiar with of all the subtle details, I should explain that promissory notes, unlike shares, do not need to be secured by any property or financial resources of the company that issued them. That is why any limited company with a charter capital of eight or ten thousand roubles and nothing besides, not a bean, can issue promissory notes for one billion roubles, provided that a buyer comes forward.\nIn our case the buyer was Kolymaenergo, which at that time had an outstanding debt of more than a billion roubles owed to its employees, the pension fund and the State budget at different levels. The value of the promissory notes was no less than 1,300,000,000 roubles; it's no coincidence that the head of Bakkar earlier transferred 140,000,000 roubles to the account with the Korvet bank (see above). And then that amount was passed ten times through the corresponding bank accounts, with the use of the same photocopied bank payment order. As a result, Bakkar purchased, almost for free, a huge number of shares which amount to 15 per cent of the overall charter capital of Kolymaenergo.\nIt is easy to guess what the reaction of the would-be investors, who suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, was. Numerous legal suits, petitions and complaints were addressed to the Magadan Town Court, the Commercial Court of the Magadan Region, Edinye Energeticheskiye Systemy Rossii and other senior authorities. On 14 May 2001 an NGO called Investory Kolymy was created by a group of persons, and it immediately joined in the process of uncovering the truth. The main goal of that NGO consisted in promoting the interests of the investors, shareholders and other interested persons, and protecting their investment in the energy industry of "}
+{"target": "Castlemaine Harbour", "prompt": "44.  MacMenamin J observed that strong policy considerations arose in the case. The question of how to afford redress to individuals who had suffered the detrimental effects of wrongful actions by the executive was a legitimate concern. Yet changes in the law of negligence and reformulations of State liability must be carefully and incrementally approached with a clear view as to their long-term consequences. While there undoubtedly was a strong public interest in ensuring a proper balance between private and public rights and duties, there was a stronger public interest in ensuring that government can actually function, and that administrators were not impeded in making decisions through fear of a morass of litigation. The courts should not become a form of surrogate unelected government, second guessing prima facie lawful government actions in areas of discretion that did not raise questions of exceeding statutory powers. Reviewing the established domestic jurisprudence, he concluded that operational negligence had not been accepted in Irish law. He considered that in the present case the High Court had identified a tort with such broad headings lasting over so many years that it was questionable whether there was a justiciable controversy at all. It was impossible to say whether it was a tort committed by act or by omission. It was unclear at what point in time the Minister had acted wrongfully in relation to the plaintiffs. It might be said that, by allowing aquaculture to continue prior to 2008, the Minister had actually had regard to the applicant company\u2019s interests, even at the cost of failed adherence to EU law. He further observed:\n\u201c36.  There then arises a further unavoidable question, that is, whether, if the Minister had, in fact, acted between 2000 and 2008, the respondents would inevitably have incurred significant losses, by a similar necessary suspension of activity in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "73.  On 27 March 2006 the district prosecutor\u2019s office ordered the ROVD, Operational and Search Bureau no. 2, the temporary group of forces of the Ministry of the Interior in the Chechen Republic and the FSB department of "}
+{"target": "Bolotnaya embankment", "prompt": "43.  On 6 May 2012 Police Colonel Deynichenko drew up a report summarising the security measures taken on that day in Moscow. The report stated that the march, in which about 8,000 people had participated, had begun at 4.15 p.m. and had followed the route to Bolotnaya Square. It listed the groups and organisations represented, the number of participants in each group, the number and colours of their flags and the number and content of their banners. It further stated as follows:\n\u201c... at 5.04 p.m. the organised column ... arrived at the [cordon] and expressed the intention to proceed straight to Bolshoy Kamennyy bridge and [to cross it] to Borovitskaya Square. The police ... ordered them to proceed to Bolotnaya Square, the venue of the meeting. However, the leaders at the head of the column \u2013 [Mr Udaltsov, Mr Nemtsov and Mr Navalnyy] \u2013 ... called on the marchers through the loudspeaker not to move. Together with some thirty protesters they sat on the ground. Another group of about twenty, called by [their leaders], sat as well. The police ... repeatedly warned them against holding an unauthorised public gathering and required them to proceed to the venue of the meeting or to leave. Besides that, two State Duma deputies, Gennadiy Gudkov and Dmitriy Gudkov, the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Lukin, and a member of the Civic Chamber, Nikolay Svanidze, talked to them, but those sitting on the ground did not react and continued chanting slogans ... From 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m. persons on Malyy Kamennyy bridge and "}
+{"target": "the Lice District", "prompt": "23.  The Government denied the allegations submitted by the applicants. They informed the Court that an armed clash had taken place on 13 and 14 May 1994 in the vicinity of the Dibek village, also attached to "}
+{"target": "the Karadere Forest", "prompt": "29.  On 14 May 1998 the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca Criminal Court rejected the appeal of Ya\u015far \u00d6z against the decision ordering his arrest for the kidnapping and killing of the applicants' relative and the other two persons. On 29 May 1998 an identity parade was held in the prison where Ya\u015far \u00d6z was being detained on remand. Both Sebahattin Uz, the doorman at the \u00c7\u0131nar Hotel, and H\u00fcsn\u00fc Durmazer, the taxi driver who had witnessed the kidnapping on 3 June 1994, stated that Ya\u015far \u00d6z, who was included in a line-up of ten persons, was not one of the men who had carried out the kidnapping. On 14 July 1998 Ali Osman Sivri was questioned by the public prosecutor. Mr Sivri was a watchman working at "}
+{"target": "the 1st District of Bucharest", "prompt": "23.  On 15 July 2003 the applicant and sixteen police colleagues were summoned at their workplace (Bucharest police section no. 5) to appear before the NAP in order to make statements for the purpose of a criminal investigation. The head of police of "}
+{"target": "the Sergokalinskiy District", "prompt": "25.  The District Court reasoned as follows:\n\u201c... [The spouses] married on 6 December 1990, then resided in different locations, and since 1997 in a private house of Gazimagomedov in the village of Novomugri of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "55.  On 14 May 2003 R. was again questioned. He stated that on 2 October 2000, along with other officers of the VOVD, he had accompanied the FSB officers from Grozny to Kurchaloy, where they had detained Ayubkhan Magomadov and brought him to the VOVD. R. stated that when the group had arrived at Kurchaloy they had first visited the district department of the FSB and two officers from that department had accompanied them to the Magomadovs' house. R. could not recall the names of these officers, but he was certain that they were from the Grozny Department of the FSB where he had been on many occasions and seen them. He was also certain that they had a \u201cgood relationship\u201d with the head of the VOVD and that that was the reason why the officers of the VOVD had accompanied them and had afterwards allowed them to question the detainee on their "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "24.  Approximately in the end of January 2003 Ye., an operational-search officer of the ROVD, informed E., the head of the village administration, that after being detained for some time in Khankala, at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya, the applicant\u2019s sons had been transferred to the department of the interior of the "}
+{"target": "Shaami-Yurt", "prompt": "48.  On 19 January 2005 the investigation in case no. 44050 was resumed. The decision stated, in particular, that on 17 October 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office had received the applicant\u2019s complaint that on 2 October 2004 persons in camouflage uniforms had arrested Timur Beksultanov at the \u201cKavkaz\u201d highway near the "}
+{"target": "Ganzenhoef", "prompt": "10.  On 2 December 1994 the Burgomaster (Burgemeester) of Amsterdam, relying on Sections 172 and 175 of the Municipality Act (Gemeentewet) as amended on 1 January 1994, imposed a prohibition order (verwijderingsbevel) on the applicant to the effect that the latter would not be allowed for a period of fourteen days to enter a particular area, i.e. the \u201c"}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD", "prompt": "63.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic that the investigation in criminal case no. 44016 was ineffective. She requested the authorities to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into her sons\u2019 abduction. In her letter she provided a detailed description of the circumstances in which her sons had been taken away and pointed out that after their abduction Magomed-Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov had been detained in Khankala and in "}
+{"target": "the Tula Region", "prompt": "6.  In March 2002 the applicant, an officer in the Uzbek Armed Forces, left his military unit in Uzbekistan and went to Russia for employment-related reasons. He settled in the town of Yasnogorsk, in "}
+{"target": "Sisak", "prompt": "10.  On 7 January 2003 the Sisak police lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown for the killing of S.M. A police inquiry ensued. This inquiry was part of a broader inquiry into the killing of a number of persons of Serbian ethnic origin in the broader "}
+{"target": "the Jiu Valley", "prompt": "24.  Thus, the first demonstrations against the provisional government formed after the fall of the Ceau\u015fescu regime took place in University Square in Bucharest on 12 and 24 January 1990, as indicated in the decision issued on 17 June 2009 by the prosecutor\u2019s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. That decision also states that a counter-demonstration was organised by the National Salvation Front (Frontul Salv\u0103rii Na\u0163ionale \u2013 the FSN) on 29 January 1990. On that occasion, miners from the coal-mining regions of "}
+{"target": "Shutov", "prompt": "63.  On 21 July 2009 the applicant wrote the following statement addressed to the President of the Golosiyivskyy Court:\n\u201cI, Teslenko Anatoliy Grigoryevich, would like to make the following statement. The Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv is currently examining a case against the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department [T.] and [Z.], in which I am a victim. I retract the statements which I gave in the prosecutor\u2019s office under pressure from the investigator and in court, namely that it was precisely [T. and Z.] who had beaten and humiliated me. The investigator [N.] demanded that I identify [T. and Z.]. In exchange, he promised I would be acquitted and that criminal department officials would be held liable. I remembered [T.] because he had been the Chief, and [Z.] because he had been wearing glasses. I could recognise only those two, as I could not, and do not now, remember any other officers. I was beaten up at Shutov Street, no. 3, as they really needed my confession to the robbery. But I did not remember any officers from "}
+{"target": "the Magadan Region", "prompt": "80.  By a judgment of 3 August 1999, the City Court found the applicant guilty on one count and acquitted him on two of the counts contained in the indictment, which had preferred 9 separate charges. It sentenced him to 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment in a correctional colony with a general regime, his term running from 29 June 1995. The City Court considered that the preliminary investigation had been of poor quality and that the investigators had unjustifiably attempted to increase the number of counts in the indictment. It also found an infringement of procedural norms consisting, inter alia, of shortcomings in the presentation in due form of the relevant documents to the court. These shortcomings had had to be corrected at the trial, which had caused a delay. The court noted that, in the course of the investigation, there had been a lack of proper procedural supervision by those in charge of the investigation and the prosecutor's office of "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "26.  The country assessment report on Sudan drawn up by the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs in July 2015 reads in its relevant part:\n\u201cThere is no specific statutory provision rendering genital mutilation of women (FGM) a criminal offence. The Criminal Code merely mentions in general terms the ban on \u2018female circumcision\u2019 without any further definition. The interpretation of this legislative provision is left to the judge. In practice, those who commit FGM are not prosecuted.\nFGM in Sudan is still being carried out at a large scale. Girls are circumcised traditionally to prepare them for marriage, for religious reasons and \u2013 based on superstition \u2013 for \u2018health reasons\u2019. The most recent estimate of the percentage of circumcised women between 15-49 years old in Sudan is 89%. ... UNICEF and UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] conduct large-scale campaigns to stop FGM. These campaigns have rendered circumcision a topic of debate. Discussions are being held within families and in the press and on social media even photographs are being shown. There is, however, also a strong influence of the pro-FGM lobby which presents it as the traditional values and norms being affected by the "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "16.  On 6 September 1999 the Vladivostok Commission for Emergency Situations (\u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f \u043f\u043e \u0447\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0432\u044b\u0447\u0430\u0439\u043d\u044b\u043c \u0441\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f\u043c \u0433. \u0412\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043a\u0430, \u201cthe Vladivostok Emergency Commission\u201d) took a decision concerning, among other things, flood prevention work in the floodplain of "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "113.  The Regional Court also noted that the first-instance court had duly examined and rightly dismissed the claimants\u2019 arguments to the effect that the defendants should be held liable for the destructive consequences of the evacuation of water from the reservoir. The appellate court referred to the expert report of 24 January 2003, which stated that the actions of the Water Company on 7 August 2001 had been correct and explained the flood on that date by the presence downstream of the Pionerskoye reservoir of unauthorised constructions built in breach of the city of Vladivostok\u2019s general development plan, and the presence of debris and constructions in the floodplain of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "31.  On 31 March and 24 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 23 January 2003 the district prosecutor had instructed the investigators to take a number of additional operational search measures to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and identify the perpetrators. The text of the letter of 31 March 2003 also stated:\n\u201c....the investigation established that the applicant's relatives had been abducted by unidentified servicemen in military vehicles; however, the investigators were unable to establish to which military units these vehicles had belonged.\u201d\n 32.  On 30 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that they had examined his complaint about ineffectiveness of the investigation in criminal case no. 44009. As a result, the proceedings had been resumed and the investigators had been instructed to verify the supposition that the abducted men were being detained on the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "24.  It appears that within the next few days the first applicant went to the temporary district department of the interior of the Urus-Martan district (the Urus-Martan VOVD) and to the prosecutor's office of the "}
+{"target": "Hvasser", "prompt": "12.  On 8 June 2000 the newspaper published as its main story an article written by Mr Wilhelmsen, which gave rise to the defamation proceedings brought against the applicants by Mr Rygh. On the front page there appeared an introduction to the article under the headline (all quotations below are translations from Norwegian):\n\u201cMay be forced to sell\u201d\nand the sub-heading\n\u201c[H.K.] and Tom Vidar Rygh will have to explain themselves on permanent residence requirements\u201d\nThe introduction read:\n\u201cPermanent residence requirements: In the worst-case scenario [H.K.] may be forced to sell her property at "}
+{"target": "the Oktyabrskiy District", "prompt": "51.  On 28 November 2005 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the SRJI that criminal case no. 32027 was pending before them. They noted that the case had been instituted following the discovery of five corpses, including that of Idris Gakiyev, in the pit in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "50.  The Government stated that the regime in the social care home allowed patients to leave the institution either accompanied by a staff member, family member or guardian, or alone on the approval of a psychiatrist. According to the institution\u2019s psychiatrist, the applicant never asked to leave the "}
+{"target": "Martan-Chu", "prompt": "17.  On 16 September 2003 the ROVD refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant\u2019s wounding on 4 December 1999. The decision stated that the authorities had conducted an inquiry, which had established the following: a number of armed clashes, including exchanges of gunfire, had taken place between Russian forces and illegal armed groups in the area of the applicant\u2019s residence in 1999. As a result of the bombardment of "}
+{"target": "Oktyabrskiy", "prompt": "38.  On 21 January 2002 Mr K. was questioned. He submitted that from 10 March to 8 May 2000 he had been held in the temporary detention centre of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. On 10 March 2000 two men had been placed in the adjacent cell. It was forbidden to talk to them. They [he and Mr Sadykov] had not found out their names. On the same date a woman had been placed in their cell. She had come to the VOVD to hand over her husband\u2019s documents. She had not said anything about herself, apart from that she lived in the village of Okruzhnoy in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "136.  On several occasions in August 2000 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement agencies about his brother\u2019s abduction during the special operation. On 18 September and 28 October 2000 the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "130.  He did not know Serdar Tan\u0131\u015f and Ebubekir Deniz and had never met them. He was informed of the incident at about 5 p.m. on 25 January 2001 by Mr \u0130dris Tan\u0131\u015f. He contacted the commanding officer of the Silopi gendarmerie on the telephone and asked his replacement to make enquiries of all the gendarmerie posts. S\u00fcleyman Can called him back to say that neither of the missing men had been to the gendarmerie station or taken into custody.\nAfter receiving that information he did not consider an on-site inspection necessary. The procedure was that the commanding officer of the gendarmerie had a duty to inform him whenever anyone was taken into custody and of the reasons for the arrest. He regarded everything he was told by the gendarmes as true. He gave the following account of the events:\n\u201cWe considered that Serdar Tan\u0131\u015f and Ebubekir Deniz had not been taken into custody. The investigation proceeded orally. I found the information provided by the commanding officer to be satisfactory. On 26 January 2001 I contacted the \u015e\u0131rnak, Cizre and \u0130dil public prosecutors' offices by telephone and asked whether the missing men had been detained within their sectors. They said they had not. Later that day Mr Tan\u0131\u015f arrived with the father of one of the missing men. We took a statement from him, they lodged their complaint and the investigation began that day. On 27 and 28 January I took a statement from someone who said that he saw Serdar Tan\u0131\u015f and Ebubekir Deniz enter the district gendarmerie command and gave instructions to the commanding officer to send full lists of the names of the soldiers and officers who were on the "}
+{"target": "Ananyiv", "prompt": "13.  The Government also submitted the testimonies of the above police officers, which were dated 31 October 2004 and drafted in almost identical terms. According to those testimonies, in the morning of 31 October 2004, the police officers who had gone to "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "89.  On 27 October 2006 the investigators questioned Mrs B.D., who stated that on 17 April 2002 unidentified armed men had abducted her son Mr Sh.D. On 24 April 2002 human remains had been discovered on the outskirts of Goyty village in "}
+{"target": "Pionerskoye", "prompt": "26.  On 7 August 2001 it started raining early in the morning. The intensity of the rain proved to be much higher than forecast by the meteorological service the previous day. The amount of rain that fell on that day was the equivalent of a full month\u2019s rainfall. In particular, within a 12\u2011hour period the amount of rain that fell in the area of the "}
+{"target": "Guant\u00e1namo Bay", "prompt": "43.  The 2006 Marty Report (see paragraph 37 above) stated, inter alia:\n\u201cA.  Draft resolution\n... 7.  The facts and information gathered to date, along with new factual patterns in the process of being uncovered, indicate that the key elements of this \u2018spider\u2019s web\u2019 have notably included: a worldwide network of secret detentions on CIA \u2018black sites\u2019 and in military or naval installations; the CIA\u2019s programme of \u2018renditions\u2019, under which terrorist suspects are flown between States on civilian aircraft, outside of the scope of any legal protections, often to be handed over to States who customarily resort to degrading treatment and torture; and the use of military airbases and aircraft to transport detainees as human cargo to "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy district", "prompt": "38.  From the documents submitted it follows that on 12 August 2010 the head of Police Station no. 1 in Makhachkala sent the investigators letter no. 2/4298, stating that on 25 July 2010 four of their police officers, M.D., D.M., M.Z. and M.A., following the order of the Russian FSB no.6/3\u20113726 of 16 June 2010 given as part of the investigation of criminal case no. 171822, had arrived at the house of the judge of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "30.  On 9 October 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. The applicant stressed that his son had told him that he had been abducted and tortured by UBOP officers on the "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "112.  The Government further specified that on 15 July 2002 criminal investigation file no. 59159 had been opened into the abduction of Idris Abdulazimov. The sixth applicant was questioned on 16 July 2002 and 27 September 2004. She was also granted victim status in the proceedings. Three of her neighbours and the former military commander of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "40.  The second applicant and Sh.D. were interviewed as witnesses on 25 June and 2 July 2001. They submitted, among other things, that at about 3.30 a.m. on 7 May 2000 a group of masked, camouflaged and armed men had burst into their house, shouting \u201cPolice! Lie down!\u201d One of the intruders had not been wearing a mask. The intruders had ordered the men to produce their identity papers but had only taken Beslan Baysultanov\u2019s passport for checking, following which they had ordered him to follow them outside. In the courtyard there had been a further group of armed and masked men wearing camouflage uniforms. They had told the second applicant that they would take Beslan Baysultanov to the local VOVD station for an identity check and had left by foot. At about 8 a.m. on the same date the second applicant and Sh.D. had gone to the VOVD station to look for Beslan Baysultanov but the VOVD officers had denied having him on the "}
+{"target": "Ledra Checkpoint", "prompt": "139.  The applicants submitted as evidence an affidavit made by Mr J.C. before a notary public in Dublin, Ireland, on 10 December 2001. The relevant parts of his affidavit read as follows:\n\u201cOn the morning of Sunday 3.12.2000 at approximately 9.30 a.m., I received a telephone call whilst in my apartment within the UN compound in the UN Headquarters in Nicosia. The telephone call ... was from Mr M.\u0130. Mr M.\u0130. wanted to meet the Chief of Mission of UNFICYP. He did not tell me the reason ... I was unable to contact the Chief of Mission. Mr M.\u0130. then wished to speak to the Special Adviser to the Chief of Mission who was also Head of the Civil Affairs Branch. I failed to make contact with the Special Adviser and informed him accordingly. He was very agitated and I agreed to meet him to discuss what he described was a serious matter ...\nMr M.\u0130. was very agitated and very concerned about the arrest of \u00d6mer Gazi Teko\u011ful who, he alleged, was arrested in the UN buffer zone in the Pyla area. \u00d6mer Gazi Teko\u011ful is a Turkish Cypriot, who was arrested by the Police of the Republic of Cyprus on the night of Friday 1.12.2000 being found in possession of a substantial amount of the illegal drug heroin.\n... he [Mr M.\u0130.] told me to take down a protest about \u00d6mer Gazi Teko\u011ful\u2019s arrest. As he spoke, I noted his protest in my notebook.\n...\nI then read out to Mr M.\u0130. the protest that he made in the format that I would present it which was as follows:\n\u201cPROTEST\nOn 3/12/2000, 1100 hrs north "}
+{"target": "the Samashki forest", "prompt": "93.  Pilot P. is further quoted as saying that they were informed that the road had been closed at the administrative border with Ingushetia. They therefore presumed that the trucks were coming out of "}
+{"target": "Lower Austria", "prompt": "11.  The article and its context, namely a short text accompanying photos showing the couple\u2019s hotel and a bar in Brazil, contained the following statements:\n\u201c...Thus, the Lower Austrian mutation of \u2018Bonnie and Clyde\u2019 started on the last part of their trip, a four hour bus ride... (Also brach die nieder\u00f6sterreichische Mutation von Bonnie and Clyde zur letzten Etappe, einer vierst\u00fcndigen Busfahrt...auf.)\n...The first two weeks, \u2018Bonnie and Clyde\u2019 hardly ever left the hotel... (Die ersten beiden Wochen verlassen \u2018Bonnie und Clyde\u2019 das Haus praktisch nie.)\n...\u2019Bonnie and Clyde\u2019 from "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "171.  In its 2011 Annual Report on \u201cthe State of the World\u2019s Human Rights\u201d Amnesty International stated, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201c ... Reports of torture or other ill-treatment remained widespread, despite government promises to adopt a zero tolerance policy toward its practice. Impunity for such human rights violations persisted ...\nIn January, Kazakhstan assumed chairmanship of the OSCE, making counter-terror and security measures in "}
+{"target": "the Magadan Region", "prompt": "100.  It also noted that the length of the trial proceedings had been beyond the courts\u2019 control and was explained by the jury\u2019s formation, the jurors\u2019 participation in the trial, victims and witnesses who resided in a distant district of "}
+{"target": "the Gerhozhansu River", "prompt": "90.  Official letter of 30 August 1999 from the director of the Mountain Institute, Mr M. Zalikhanov, to the President of the KBR:\n\u201cAs you know, earlier this year, on 20 August, a heavy mudslide with a volume of some 1 million cu. m was recorded in the valley of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "39.  The general comments in this recommendation include:\n\u201cOne of the aims of the Council of Europe is to promote the formation of a true European cultural identity. Europe is home to many different cultures, all of which, including multiple minority cultures, contribute to its cultural diversity.\nGypsies hold a special place among minorities. Living dispersed throughout "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "44.  On 12 December 2000 the interim head of the Chechnya department of the FSB informed the first applicant that on 14 March 2000 Islam Dubayev had voluntarily surrendered to the Russian federal troops and had handed over his AK-74 machine gun with ammunition. Pursuant to Articles 208 and 222 of the Criminal Code and the Russian State Duma's decree of 13 December 1999 \u201cOn amnesty to persons who committed socially dangerous acts during the antiterrorist operation in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "73.  On 31 July 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant\u2019s relative Mr A.E., who stated that on 6 February 2003 the applicant had told him that a group of unidentified men had abducted his son. On 12 February 2003 a resident of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "15.  On 25 May 2011 the pre-trial investigation was officially completed and the applicant was given fifteen working days to read the case file. At the same time, she was called almost daily to attend the GPO\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Kor\u010dula", "prompt": "5.  An investigation was opened against the applicant and twenty other individuals on 24 November 2006 by an investigating judge of the Split County Court (\u017dupanijski sud u Splitu) in connection with a suspicion that between 2003 and November 2006 they had organised distribution of heroin in Dubrovnik and on the island of "}
+{"target": "the Sunzhenskiy ROVD", "prompt": "16.  On 22 July 2004, in reply to the Court\u2019s request of 16 July 2004 for factual information relating to the detention and whereabouts of Mr Adam Medov, the Government first submitted that the Ministry of the Interior was not aware of his alleged abduction or his whereabouts. He had not been detained in "}
+{"target": "State", "prompt": "20.  On 23 June 2008 the trial court delivered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The applicants\u2019 presence at the scene when the incident happened, as well as the development and dynamics of events, was established on the basis of the testimony of the anonymous witnesses \u201cKorab\u201d and \u201cVodno\u201d, which the court regarded as credible and consistent despite \u201csmall differences which were due to the intensity of the shooting and fear for their lives\u201d. The court also gave weight to the statement given by F.S. in the pre-trial proceedings under the pseudonym \u201cVardar\u201d. It disregarded his statement of 1 April 2008 (see paragraph 17 above), finding that it had been given under duress and the threat that he or his family would be killed. In this connection it referred to a police report of 24 January 2008 according to which F.S. had been visited several times by unknown people who had threatened him and his family about the testimony given in the pre-trial proceedings. The motive for the crime was established on the basis of the statement given by B.H. in the pre-trial proceedings. That witness had not been examined at the trial since he had been untraceable. In that context, the trial court referred to an official note by the police of 9 January 2008 informing the court that B.H. had fled the respondent "}
+{"target": "Tvi24", "prompt": "55.  The applicant submitted news articles to the Court referring to inpatients who had apparently managed to leave the HSC\u2019s grounds. The first five articles below had already been submitted to the domestic authorities (see paragraph 44 above where the Administrative Supreme Court found the information contained therein to be irrelevant to the decision in the instant case):\n(i)  on 9 March 2008 the body of an inpatient who had escaped two weeks earlier was found close to the hospital grounds (in Di\u00e1rio de Coimbra);\n(ii)  on 29 October 2008 a man escaped from the HSC and was hit by a car after jumping in front of it (in Di\u00e1rio das Beiras);\n(iii)  on 31 July 2008 the body of an inpatient who had escaped from the hospital the previous month was found in a river (in Di\u00e1rio de Coimbra);\n(iv)  on 14 August 2008 a patient who had been involuntarily hospitalised in the HSC escaped (in Di\u00e1rio de Coimbra);\n(v)  in early March 2010 three different inpatients escaped from the hospital; one of them was located by the police after stealing a car and another was found dead in a nearby river (in Bombeirospontopt);\n(vi)  on 16 October 2011 an inpatient escaped from the HSC\u2019s grounds and attacked two police officers with a hoe (in Correio da Manh\u00e3);\n(vii)  on 1 March 2015 two inpatients escaped from the HSC and stole a car (in "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "52.  On 12 March 1996 the Lice gendarmerie commander replied to Lieutenant-Colonel Alp\u0131's requests and enclosed copies of two pages of custody ledgers and copies of two pages of operation logbooks in which the day-to-day activities of the Lice gendarmerie were recorded. The Lice commander further stated in his letter that his soldiers had not conducted an operation in T\u00fcreli village on 18 May 1994 and that Servet and \u0130kram \u0130pek had not been detained. The letter further states that Major \u015eahap Yaral\u0131 had been Lice gendarmerie commander on 18 May 1994 but he had since been posted to another town in central "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martan", "prompt": "44.  On 26 and 30 June and 5 July 2002 the investigators requested the ROVD and other district departments of the interior in Chechnya to take operational search measures to identify and question witnesses to Zurab Iriskhanov's abduction, to establish whether he had been detained by local law-enforcement and military structures, whether he was detained in any of the detention centres of the "}
+{"target": "the Argun River", "prompt": "9.  Between 5 and 6 p.m. on the same day a light coloured UAZ vehicle (\u201c\u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430\u201d) arrived at the applicant\u2019s house. About ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks emerged from the vehicle. The applicant\u2019s neighbours R.Z., Z.D. and L.D., who witnessed the arrival of the vehicle, inferred that those men were servicemen. Two servicemen stayed by the UAZ vehicle and the others rushed inside the applicant\u2019s house. Shortly thereafter the servicemen came outside, leading Abdula Edilov with them. He was wearing a T-shirt, black trousers and house slippers and was holding his hands behind his back. The servicemen threw the applicant\u2019s son inside the UAZ vehicle and drove in the direction of the checkpoint manned by Russian federal forces located on the bridge over "}
+{"target": "Silesia", "prompt": "10.  On 17 December 2002 Dziennik Zachodni, a newspaper published in Katowice, published an article written by the applicant and entitled \u201cA Lawyer\u2019s Nonchalance?\u201d\nThe applicant alleged that J.Z., the advocate representing the accused in a major criminal case pending before the Krak\u00f3w \u015ar\u00f3dmie\u015bcie District Court, had failed to meet his professional obligations and act diligently by failing to attend the hearing held on 16 December 2002.\nThe relevant part of the text read:\n\u201c(...) \u2018it is the absence of the defence lawyer which is a problem\u2019 explained the presiding judge, E.S.\nAdvocate J.Z. failed to attend the hearing and did not justify his absence. He only asked another advocate to tell the court that he could not attend the hearing and requested that advocate (one day before the hearing) to replace him. The court could not accept that replacement, because the interests of the defendants represented by J.Z. and by that advocate were in conflict. The court could not but adjourn the hearing.\nAdvocate Z. was well aware of that conflict. Other defence lawyers in that case had drawn his attention to it. It is difficult not to see his absence as disrespect towards the court, the prosecutor (...), the parties who reside in "}
+{"target": "the Far Eastern Federal Region", "prompt": "9.  The article went on to quote from an open letter which had been adopted by the participants in the panel:\n\u201cAll these irregularities have clearly been on the rise since the town's police department (timber purchasing quota of 4,500 cubic metres) and the courts' management department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (timber purchasing quota of 3,000 cubic metres) became the forest operators.\u201d\nThe quotation was bold-faced and the source was clearly identified. The letter had been signed by seventeen individuals, including the head of the Dalnerechensk municipal council and his first deputy, the deputy head of the town police, the deputy head of the local department of the Federal Security Service, the deputy head of the tax police, a senior State tax inspector, the deputy head of the department for environmental resources, two directors of regional forest operators, and others. The letter had been sent on behalf of the Dalnerechensk municipal council to the Presidential Envoy in "}
+{"target": "the Shali district", "prompt": "18.  The applicant received very little substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into her son's disappearance. On several occasions she received copies of letters by various authorities directing her complaints to the prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Punta Perotti", "prompt": "21.  In a judgment of 5 June 2000 the Bari Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court below. It found that the granting of planning permission had been legal, in the absence of any ban on building at "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  According to the applicant company, their cooperation had been forced on them as the police officers had impressed upon the journalist that in view of the search and seizure warrant he had no option but to cooperate.\nHowever, it emerged from an internal report drawn up by the applicant company on 8 May 2009 that the journalist told the police officers \u201cthat he had no objection to giving them a copy [of his] notes\u201d and that the editor-in-chief of the newspaper had suggested handing over an electronic version of the article to the police officers. The same report stated that a police officer had inserted a USB memory stick into the journalist\u2019s computer. The applicant company pointed out that it did not know whether he copied any files, although the case file showed that the police officers had at no stage been left alone on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "37.  On 30 December 2009 the investigators issued a decision concerning the seizure of the detainees\u2019 registration log of the Shatoy ROVD owing to \u201cthe information concerning the involvement of its employees in Mr Rustam Kagirov\u2019s abduction and his detention on the ROVD "}
+{"target": "the Tatra Mountains", "prompt": "32.  The Regional Court further considered defamatory and grossly offensive the applicant\u2019s statements that the public prosecutor had acted in accordance with the practice of the former State Security agents, had a dubious past, not to speak of his other qualities, and possibly considered himself to be an almighty lord of "}
+{"target": "Ve\u00efkou Estate", "prompt": "11.  On 10 November 1994 the applicants challenged decision no. 3015/1994 before the Supreme Administrative Court. They claimed that they were owners of properties that originated from the parcelling of a broader area included in the major area known as \u201c"}
+{"target": "the Nadterechny District", "prompt": "65.  In June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against the inactivity of the military and law-enforcement authorities, during the investigation into his son\u2019s abduction and his own beatings, with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. In August 2001 the applicant was summoned to that court, which at the time was situated in the village of Beno-Yurt in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "15.  On 6 July 2006 the Supreme Court convicted the applicants of agitation against a national or ethnic group. The majority of judges (three out of five) first considered decisive for the outcome of the case whether the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom to distribute the leaflets could be considered necessary in a democratic society and whether the interference with their freedom of expression could be deemed proportionate to the aim of protecting the group of homosexuals from the violation that the content of the leaflets constituted. The majority then held:\n\u201cIn the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 10, in the interpretation of the expression \u201ccontempt\u201d in the provision regarding incitement against a group, a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the case should be made, where, in particular, the following should be considered. The handing out of the leaflets took place at a school. The accused did not have free access to the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "22.  By judgment of 21 July 2004 the Hamm Court of Appeal ordered the journalist M. and another animal rights activist to desist from publishing or disseminating the film \u201cPoisoning for profit\u201d as well as two further short versions of the film footage. Conversely, the Court of Appeal rejected the C. company\u2019s request entirely to prohibit the publication of the footage secretly obtained within its "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "41.  In their public declarations the municipal authorities apparently took the stand that the removal of the Batalova Vodenitsa residents was overdue but could not be done immediately because of pressure \u201cfrom "}
+{"target": "the Southern Federal Circuit", "prompt": "16.  Following Isa Zaurbekov\u2019s detention, the applicants repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at various levels, administrative authorities of Chechnya, the Office of the President of Russia (\u0410\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0420\u0424), the Chairman of the State Duma (\u041f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0435\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0413\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0414\u0443\u043c\u044b) and the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in "}
+{"target": "North Sea", "prompt": "145.  First, in considering whether the State could be held liable on the basis of the general principle on strict liability, the Supreme Court observed, inter alia, that the fact that diving was a risky activity ought to be the starting point for any assessment. Nonetheless, it had been clear that the risk to which the "}
+{"target": "Martan-Chu", "prompt": "10.  The first eight applicants are relatives of Leoma Akhiatovich Meshayev, who was born in 1952. The first applicant is his wife, the second applicant is his brother, the fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh applicants are his children. The third and eighth applicants are his niece and nephew. Leoma Meshayev worked as a driver and tractor mechanic. The first applicant suffers from a number of chronic diseases and has category 3 disabled status. The fifth applicant, the Meshayevs\u2019 minor daughter, is seriously ill and has category 1 disabled status. The applicants submitted that Leoma Meshayev had suffered from tuberculosis. In March 2003 the heads of administration of "}
+{"target": "Verkh-Issetskiy", "prompt": "11.  On 21 April 2003 the head of the Verkh-Issetskiy police department forwarded the report and supplementary materials to the Verkh-Issetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg. The matter was assigned to the justice of the peace of the 3rd Court Circuit of the "}
+{"target": "Ex I", "prompt": "109.  The applicant, Mr Muledal to some extent, and more particularly the applicant, Mr Lindahl, and also to a certain degree the applicant, Mr Sigurdur P. Hafsteinsson, provided detailed accounts of their individual experiences of test dives which had caused them pain, suffering and injuries. This related, inter alia, to Mr Lindahl\u2019s participation in the Deep "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "34.  On 3 May 2000 the applicant was released from custody in Stavropol. Upon release he was provided with a document issued by the Ministry of the Interior which stated that he had been detained from 23 January to 3 May 2000 and that the criminal proceedings against him had been dropped under State Duma Decree no. 4785-11 of 13 December 1999 \u201con amnesty for persons who had committed dangerous acts against public order during the anti-terrorist operation in "}
+{"target": "M\u00f8lleparken", "prompt": "21.  After the interview with the taxi driver the commentator said:\n\u201cNow we are left with all the questions: why did the vital part of the taxi driver\u2019s explanation disappear and who, in the police or public prosecutor\u2019s office, should bear the responsibility for this?\nWas it the two police officers who failed to write a report about it?\nHardly, sources in the police tell us they would not dare.\nWas it [the named chief superintendent] who decided that the report should not be included in the case file? Or did he and the chief inspector of the Flying Squad conceal the witness\u2019s statement from the defence, the judges and the jury? ...\u201d\nPictures of the two police officers, the named chief superintendent and the chief inspector of the Flying Squad, were shown on the screen simultaneously and parallel with the above questions. The questions went on:\n\u201cWhy did the chief inspector phone the taxi driver shortly after the television programme \u2018Convicted of Murder\u2019? After all, the police had taken the view that the taxi driver had no importance as a witness and had filed her statement among the 0 reports.\nWhy did the chief inspector not call her in for an interview when she repeated her original explanation on the telephone?\nWhy was the taxi driver interviewed at the Frederikshavn police station in the presence of the chief superintendent, which was completely at odds with the public prosecutor\u2019s public statement?\nOn 20 September last year [a named] Chief Constable stated to [a regional daily]: \u2018All the information connected to the case has been submitted to the defendants, the prosecution and the judges.\u2019 Did the Chief Constable know about the taxi driver\u2019s statement, when he made this statement? Did the State Prosecutor know already in 1981 that there was a statement from a witness confirming that X had been in "}
+{"target": "South Darfur", "prompt": "32.  The United States Department of State\u2019s \u201cCountry Reports on Human Rights Practices 2014\u201d, published on 25 June 2015, reads:\n\u201cFemale Genital Mutilation and Cutting (FGM/C): There is no national law prohibiting FGM/C. The states of "}
+{"target": "western Europe", "prompt": "54.  First of all, the Regional Court found that the Government of the Slovak Republic had no standing to be sued in the proceedings and that the correct entity to defend the action was the SIS. The Regional Court considered that the crucial criterion for establishing standing was which entity de facto possessed the ex-StB archives.\nOn the basis of the StB file pertaining to the applicant, the Regional Court established that the applicant had been listed since 1983 as a \u201ccandidate for secret collaboration\u201d and as an \u201cagent\u201d of the StB since 1984. For tactical reasons it had been decided not to have the applicant sign a formal undertaking to collaborate. This was permitted under the 1972 guideline. The applicant\u2019s StB file contained only an index indicating which reports and documents he had provided. There was a note that the reports and documents themselves had been officially destroyed in late 1989 when, according to the file, cooperation with the applicant had been terminated.\nThe Regional Court also noted that the applicant had on thirteen occasions travelled abroad to "}
+{"target": "Urus\u2011Martan", "prompt": "37.  On 30 November 2000 the investigators granted both applicants victim status in the criminal case and questioned the second applicant, who stated that she had found out about the events from her neighbours and that she had been prevented by them from approaching the scene of the incident. From the eyewitnesses she had learnt that her son and Ali Yudayev had been killed by a projectile which had arrived from the eastern part of "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "12.  According to documents available on the website of the Roma and Travellers Division of the Council of Europe, the Roma originated from the regions situated between north-west India and the Iranian plateau. The first written traces of their arrival in "}
+{"target": "Pergamos", "prompt": "117.  The first of those entries, which was made at 6.30 p.m. on 12 December 2000, read as follows:\n\u201cAccording to the information I received, at approximately 5.30 a.m. on the morning of 13 December 2000 a Greek Cypriot will enter the TRNC via "}
+{"target": "Aragvi River", "prompt": "10.  The passage of the article describing Mr Lominadze's assets in the light of his latest property declaration was placed on the fifth page of the newspaper:\n\u201c... If Mr B.'s pride is his son, Mr Givi Lominadze \u2013 Head of the Parliamentary Fraction \u201cAbkhazia\u201d (although, he might soon forfeit this post) \u2013 is proud of his son\u2011in\u2011law, Mr P., who is the Head of the President's Security Service (we already spoke about the latter in the previous edition). The son-in-law has probably given a hand to his father\u2011in\u2011law, otherwise the latter could hardly have finished for some 25\u201135,000 Laris [EUR 11,500-16,170[1]] the construction of the summer house (which, in fact, looks like a palace) in the village of Tsitelsofeli on the banks of "}
+{"target": "Central Russia", "prompt": "88.  On 14 November 2006 the applicant, along with eight other co\u00adaccused, was found guilty by the Regional Court of having taken part in aggravated robbery, participation in a criminal gang, and illegal storage, trafficking and use of firearms, and was sentenced to twelve years and six months of imprisonment. The court established that the applicant and the co-accused, acting as a criminal gang, had robbed trucks by disguising themselves as police officers and using real firearms to scare the drivers. They had subsequently sold the stolen property at local markets. The body of evidence included, among other items collected in various regions of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "51.  On various dates in June 2008 the investigators again forwarded numerous information requests to various prosecutors\u2019 offices, military commanders\u2019 offices, the departments of the FSB, detention centres and departments of the interior in Chechnya and the other regions of the Russian Federation, asking whether the abducted men had been detained on their "}
+{"target": "the Yedig\u00f6ller", "prompt": "10.  The applicant, who at this time was living in Turkey, was informed of what had happened to his brother at 5 a.m. that same day. With friends and family he began a search, especially along the Istanbul-Ankara motorway. Part of the search party came to an area called "}
+{"target": "the Znamenskiy District", "prompt": "21.  On 23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol held:\n\u201c...the court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Rytsarev was unlawfully held in custody during the preliminary investigation for a total of over 56 days..., which caused him moral and physical suffering. Furthermore, with regard to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court takes into account that, while detained in the KAZ of "}
+{"target": "Bug River", "prompt": "36.  On 28 October 2003 the mayor of Wieliczka organised a competitive bid for property situated in Chor\u0105gwica and Niepo\u0142omice, in the Ma\u0142opolska Province, that was being sold by the State Treasury. The reserve prices were PLN 150,000 and PLN 48,000 respectively. The bid was entered by several "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "35.  On 20 December 1999, at the first applicant's request, the Nazran District Court of Ingushetia certified the deaths of Ilona Isayeva, born on 29 May 1983, and Said-Magomed Isayev, born on 30 October 1990, \u201cdue to shell-wounds received as a result of bombing of a convoy of refugees from Grozny by fighter planes of the Russian military air force on the \u201c"}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "8.  On 25 January 2001 the Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) dismissed the applicant's appeal. Referring to the supplemented expert opinion, the Regional Governor found that the project at issue would not affect the drainage system on the applicant's "}
+{"target": "Ural", "prompt": "48.  On 27 January 2003 the investigators questioned an officer of the ROVD, Mr U.S. He stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 he had been on duty at the police station. At about 5 a.m. the ROVD received information that unidentified armed men in "}
+{"target": "the Leskenskiy District", "prompt": "7.  The first, second, third, fifth and seventh applicants submit that they are relatives of the people whose dead bodies were found following the events of 13 and 14 October 2005 (see paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14). The fourth applicant claims that his son was killed by State agents in the village of Anzorey in "}
+{"target": "Kalvarija", "prompt": "25.  In a letter of 24 August 2004 addressed to the applicants\u2019 lawyer, the State Border Guard Service indicated that several queues of lorries (ranging from 2 to 10 kilometres long) had formed from 21 until 23 May 2003 in both directions in the proximity of the "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy", "prompt": "27.  On 16 November 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department opened a criminal investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova\u2019s abduction under Article 126 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction). The case file was given the number 66094. The decision stated that from the applicant\u2019s complaint lodged on 5 November 2009 it appeared that at about 5.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving a UAZ vehicle had abducted Ms Zarema Gaysanova from 7 Second Darvina Lane in the "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "33.  On 7 April 2004 S., an official from the Urus-Martan Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, sent the first applicant a letter informing him that inquiries concerning the whereabouts of his son had been sent to the Departments responsible for the Execution of Sentences of the Chechen Republic and of other regions of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "12.  On the morning of 10 December 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns took Akhmed Rezvanov away from the first applicant's house at 6 Mayakovskiy Street, "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "6.  On 18 January 2002 Ramzan Saidov voluntarily surrendered to the Russian authorities and handed over his weapons. Pursuant to the State Duma decree of 13 December 1999 granting an amnesty for crimes committed by members of armed groups during the counter-terrorist operations in "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus Area", "prompt": "44.  Law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic and the North Caucasus Area replied to the district prosecutor's office's queries that Movsar Tagirov had not been arrested, that no criminal proceeding had been instituted against him and that he had not been suspected of participation in illegal armed groups. Movsar Tagirov had not applied for medical assistance to hospitals in the Chechen Republic and had not been detained in remand prisons in "}
+{"target": "Petragol", "prompt": "17.  Asked to describe his departure from the DRC, the applicant stated that he had left Kinshasa by boat to go to the airport in Brazzaville (the Republic of Congo) on 17 May 1997. At the end of June 1997 he had continued by train to Point Noir and from there by boat to Cabinda in Angola. There he had been staying for three months in order to acquire an Angolan identity card; he had been living in a house owned by a local. He had then travelled to Luanda by plane; he had run into some difficulties as he had not been speaking Portuguese; he had been arrested but had been allowed to continue his journey after he had paid some money. He had stayed in Luanda in the "}
+{"target": "the 20th District of Vienna", "prompt": "16.  Relying on a report by the Youth Welfare Office of 1 September 2000, the court noted that the first applicant had not cooperated with that office. In particular, it had not been possible to arrange a visit at her husband\u2019s address and she had not kept her appointments with the Youth Welfare Office. On 23 August 2000 the first applicant had contacted the Youth Welfare Office and had informed it about her address at "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "44.  Alternatives not involving railways, which had been suggested after Outline Planning Decision \u2013 Part 1 had been laid open for public inspection, were discarded in view of the need to connect to the existing railway infrastructure in the rest of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "17.  On 25 April 2016 the City Court quashed the judgment of 23 November 2015 and ordered the applicant\u2019s eviction from the flat. The City Court held as follows:\n\u201c...\nThe owner of the flat in question, Mr Nikolayev A.A., who had let the defendant live in [the flat], died on 9 May 2013.\n...\nTaking into account that none of the heirs of Mr Nikolayev A.A. had come into an inheritance, ..., the property right to flat no. 20 at 11, Marshal Novikov street in St Petersburg, which was a heirless estate, had been transferred to the city of St Petersburg from the moment the inheritance had been opened, and in accordance with the law it belongs to social housing which is managed by the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg.\n...\nMrs Valdgardt Ye.V. [the applicant] had been allowed to live in the flat by the former owner. However, following the death of the owner and the transfer of the property rights in respect of the flat to the City of St Petersburg pursuant to Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of Mrs Valdgardt to use the contested flat had come to an end.\nTaking into account that there are no legal grounds which would allow Mrs Valdgardt to continue living in the flat and also because the defendant had not vacated the flat voluntarily, the claims of the administration of the Primorskiy District to evict the defendant from the residential "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "350.  On 16 December 2011 the applicant stated that her son had fought against the Russian federal forces during the first Chechen war and had left Chechnya at the end of the war. In January 2004 he had returned and on 24 February 2004 he had gone to Grozny to visit his friend, A. Mutsayev. On 25 February 2005 she had learnt that servicemen had abducted her son and she had gone to Grozny. The Mutsayevs and their neighbours had confirmed that Suliman Yunusov had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms. She had been told that the servicemen had been looking for someone and when they had arrested her son, they had left the house saying over the radio that they had found him. The first applicant also noted that after that incident, her son\u2019s friend, A. Mutsayev had moved to "}
+{"target": "the Kurgan Region", "prompt": "42.  There is no indication that thereafter there has been any significant change of the circumstances relating to the issue of medical care. It appears that the applicant is currently being kept in prison no. 2 in "}
+{"target": "Kor\u010dula", "prompt": "48.  On 16 November 2007, after the applicant had been indicted in the Split County Court, a three-judge panel of that court extended the applicant\u2019s detention, again under Article 102 \u00a7 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n\u201cThe criminal record ... shows that the accused ... Milan Trifkovi\u0107 ... [has] already been convicted of a criminal offence of the same type as the one concerned in these proceedings ...\nFurthermore, the report drawn up by a neuropsychiatrist ... shows that the defendant... Milan Trifkovi\u0107 ... [is a] drug user ...\nTherefore since the accused ... Milan Trifkovi\u0107 ... [are] drug users ... there is a risk that they might reoffend.\nAlso, since the accused are charged [with having] organised a group with the aim of trafficking in illegal drugs on the island of "}
+{"target": "Guant\u00e1namo Bay", "prompt": "99.  In its judgment of 11 October 2002 in Boumediene and Others, the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina found a number of violations of the Convention arising from the transfer of the claimants, who had been detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the custody of the US security services who subsequently removed them to the US Naval Base at "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "54.  On 30 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed because it was necessary to take investigative measures and verify the information concerning the detention of the abducted men on the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "82.  The decision further quoted the conclusions of the operative and tactical experts\u2019 examination (see paragraph 114 below) to the effect that the decision had been well-founded and timely and that the relevant military authorities had taken measures to minimise casualties among civilian residents of "}
+{"target": "North Darfur", "prompt": "9.   The applicant entered Switzerland on 23 August 2004 and applied for asylum the same day to the (former) Federal Office for Refugees (Bundesamt f\u00fcr Fl\u00fcchtlinge \u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe FOR\u201d). Since he was unable to produce any identity papers, on 13 September 2004 the FOR carried out a so-called \u201cLingua analysis\u201d, during which his cultural knowledge and Arab dialect were assessed by an expert in order to ascertain whether he originated from "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "19.  On 5 April 2004 the Social Care Centre informed the Municipal Court of its decision adopted on 21 May 2003 and observed that, despite her keen interest, the applicant had only been able to see her child briefly at the centre's own "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "20.  She applied on numerous occasions to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic, and others. She also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya and other regions in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "21.  Discussing the implications of the Court's judgment in Connors on the decision of the House of Lords in Qazi, he later added (at paragraphs 114 and 115):\n\u201cThere may, however, be cases like Connors where the incompatibility with the article 8 Convention right lies in primary legislation which the county court is being asked to apply to the case by the public authority ... In such a case it would be open to the High Court to make a declaration of incompatibility, if it was not possible to read or give effect to the legislation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in a way which was compatible with the Convention right. But the legislation would nevertheless still have to be enforced, unless the decision of the public authority to seek to enforce it when faced with that incompatibility could be said, when judicially reviewed, to be arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate. The decision could not be held in the county court to be an unlawful act within the meaning of section 6 of the 1998 Act: see section 6(2)(b). The fact that the question of incompatibility that was raised in Connors was not capable, under the domestic system, of being dealt with effectively in the county court because of the limits on its jurisdiction reinforces, rather than detracts from, the proposition that a defence which is raised in that court under article 8 should be struck out unless the legislation can be read and given effect in a way that is compatible or it raises an issue as to its incompatibility that ought to be considered in the High Court.\nThe appellants' right to continue in occupation of premises over which they never had any rights granted to them by the landowner was brought to an end by the operation of law when Lambeth gave notice terminating the leases to LQHT. They have no right to remain there indefinitely, which would be the effect of denying to Lambeth its unqualified right to possession of the "}
+{"target": "R\u00e9duit", "prompt": "14.  In respect of the Swiss Radio and Television Company, the Federal Court considered the application on the merits. It held that, although politically committed journalism was not prohibited in itself, it should be identifiable as such. In the present case the journalist had conveyed his support for one particular viewpoint through harsh criticism. In short, the Federal Court did not object to the programme\u2019s content but rather to the fact that the method used, namely politically committed journalism, had not been identified as such. It pointed out that journalism of that nature was subject to particularly stringent rules of diligence, which the programme had not observed. The journalist should have informed viewers that the report was not presenting an indisputable truth but rather one possible interpretation of relations between Switzerland and Germany. The Federal Court accordingly dismissed the Swiss Radio and Television Company\u2019s application. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:\n\u201c5.  (b)  ...\nThe impugned programme concerns a historical subject \u2013 Switzerland\u2019s position during the Second World War \u2013 which has returned to prominence on account of the issue of unclaimed assets. By broadcasting a programme on a matter of public debate, the Swiss Radio and Television Company was performing the role assigned to it, and it has rightly not been criticised on that account. Because of its historical aspect, the programme in issue was faced with a problem regarding sources: witnesses to the events recounted are becoming increasingly rare and certain elements that might have explained the conduct of the time are becoming blurred, as was noted in the decisions complained of. Accordingly, the explanation of historical facts relies on hypotheses that may serve as a basis for the construction of theories. In such circumstances, journalists must test their hypotheses and, where appropriate, adjust them, even if they are not expected to reveal an absolute truth. They must abide by the rules of journalistic diligence. Accordingly, in this context they must, in particular, indicate any persisting doubts, point out contradictions between witness accounts and mention the differing interpretations supported by some historians. On account of its topical nature, the programme in issue contributes to a debate and may be described as politically committed journalism in the sense referred to above. It has to satisfy particularly stringent requirements of journalistic diligence since it expresses criticism that may be especially painful. It is necessary to assess whether the rules of diligence applicable in the present case have been complied with, bearing in mind that such an assessment must take into account the situation obtaining at the time when the impugned programme was broadcast. 6.  (a)  The impugned programme, entitled \u2018Switzerland\u2019s lost honour\u2019, begins by discussing the history of Switzerland during the Second World War, as supposedly experienced by the people at the time and taught for many years in schools. Switzerland had been depicted as a small, brave country which had resisted the demoniac forces of Nazism. Despite being neutral, in their hearts the Swiss had been on the side of democracy, in other words the Allies. They had deterred the Nazis from attacking them through their determination to resist, if necessary with the help of the "}
+{"target": "River Meri\u00e7", "prompt": "76.  The statement also contains a detailed description of the killing of Talat T\u00fcrko\u011flu. The statement, insofar as relevant reads:\n\u201cWe then went to \u00c7ad\u0131rkent in two cars and took Talat T\u00fcrko\u011flu there with us. Murat Demir and also a commander were with us. Talat was in the car in front of our car and we drove him to a place near "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "15.  According to Adam Ayubov\u2019s sister, Ms Liza Azimova, on 19 January 2000 the Russian TV channel NTV showed an interview with Russian servicemen concerning the military actions in Grozny, which was recorded in the vicinity of the Ayubov family domicile. One of the servicemen mentioned the capture of a Chechen sniper, \u201ca master of sports in shooting\u201d, briefly showed a passport with that man\u2019s photograph and stated that the sniper\u2019s name was Arsanov [rather than Ayubov]. Ms Azimova insisted that she had recognised her brother\u2019s photograph in the passport and that he had been the only master of sports in shooting in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  On 4 December 1997 the prison's governor, relying on the relevant regulations (see paragraphs 17 and 18 below) and having regard to a note in which the investigating authorities had described the charges against the applicant, his character, and their assessment of the risk that he could pose to prison staff, ordered that he be placed within an isolated group of prisoners subjected to stringent security measures and be deprived of the right to take part in communal activities. In a follow-up decision of 14 May 1999 the governor ordered that the applicant be handcuffed each time he was separated from that group. According to the Government, the applicant was being handcuffed only when taken out of the "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "20.  The applicant submitted two newspaper cuttings of May 2001. On 22 May 2001 the Moscow-based Kommersant published an article entitled \u201cKhattab\u2019s Friend and Dudayev\u2019s Assistant are Killed\u201d. The article said:\n\u201cIn the "}
+{"target": "Baneheia", "prompt": "31.  Mr Justice Stang Lund, whose reasoning was endorsed in the main by the other judges in the majority, inter alia concurred with the High Court\u2019s finding that, the F\u00e6drelandsvennen\u2019s focus on the applicant as a previously convicted knife killer, his presence in Baneheia on the day when the criminal acts had been committed and the investigation of the applicant, for an ordinary reader must have been perceived as if he could be suspected of having committed the murders. It had already been publicly known that the perpetrators of the murders had used pointed penetrating weapons against the girls. This information together with the rendering of parts of the judgment by which the applicant had been convicted in 1988 and the security measures case, were likely to harm his good name and reputation and to expose him to hatred and contempt, thus fulfilling the objective constitutive elements in Article 247 of the Penal Code. On these points Mr Justice Stang Lund stated:\n\u201c(56) Taking as a starting point the wording, typography, the internal context and the use of photographs it must be ascertained how the report and articles were likely to be understood by the ordinary reader.... The statements must be considered in the context of the whole report they are part of.\n(57) The High Court unanimously found that the factual information had to be considered in the context of the other content of the reports and the articles published on 24 and 25 May 2000, and concluded:\n\u2018In the High Court\u2019s opinion the conclusion of the interpretation is that F\u00e6drelandsvennen pointed to [the applicant] as a possible perpetrator of the murders of the two girls in Baneheia. His name is not stated, but it was possible for those who previously knew [the applicant] to recognize him in particular because of the photograph taken of him from behind and because of the information about where he lives and the work place in the report dated 25 May. It is difficult to evaluate how strong the suspicion created was. Even though it is correctly underlined that the police had given [the applicant] only a witness status without formally charging or suspecting him, in the High Court\u2019s view the report as a whole was capable of giving the ordinary viewer the impression that the newspaper considered [the applicant] to be a man who already at this early stage in the investigation stood out as the most likely perpetrator among the persons who were in the police\u2019s search light.\u2019\n(58) The High Court, amongst other aspects, emphasised that in the front page story of 24 May it was stated that [the applicant] was \u2018probably the most interesting of several convicted persons whose movements are now being checked by the police\u2019, that he had been questioned for 10 hours after having been collected by the police at his work place, and that the report was illustrated with Dagbladet\u2019s photograph of [the applicant] with his head blanked, being escorted by two police officers. The High Court found that the photograph created associations of arrest. This was presented together with the information that, after having been brought home, another police car with a dog patrol had arrived at the house, had passed by in low speed, had turned and had vanished in the dark. In addition to this the newspaper rendered statements by a police inspector to Verdens Gang that the police had received much information with substance, and that the answer to who had killed the two little girls was to be found in the police records. Also the rendering on 25 May that the police were looking for a locally known murderer with a greatly deviant personal character, in the High Court\u2019s opinion supports the view that the applicant may be a person with the special character that are a requisite for committing such a heinous crime. The High Court did not find that the rendering of [the applicant]\u2019s denial and of the neighbours\u2019 warning against prejudging were sufficient to weaken the suspicion created by the newspaper coverage as a whole.\n(59) I concur with the High Court in that the focus by F\u00e6drelandsvennen on [the applicant] as a previously convicted knife killer, his presence in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "50.  By a decision of 21 July 2000 the republican prosecutor\u2019s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the first applicant\u2019s complaint concerning a bomb strike on a residential quarter of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "77.  The Government submitted that although the criminal investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev and the internal investigation conducted by the Zavodskoy ROVD into the circumstances of the disappearance of its officer Beslan Dolsayev had also failed to identify those responsible for his abduction, the investigating authorities had forwarded information requests to competent State agencies and had taken other steps to solve the abduction. The investigation found no evidence to support the theory of the involvement of Russian federal forces in the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers. The law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya had never arrested or detained Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out any criminal investigations in respect of them. No special operations had been carried out in the "}
+{"target": "the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District", "prompt": "7.  In May 1993 the bodies of three persons were found in a street of Yekaterinburg.  On 29 March 1994 the applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons. Ten days later a deputy prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Furmanova street", "prompt": "18.  On 24 December 2002 the Nalchik Town Court heard the applicant's complaint. The court reiterated that the Russian Constitution guaranteed to anyone who lawfully resided in its territory the freedom to move freely and choose his or her place of residence and stay and that that provision also applied to foreign nationals. The court took statements from the applicant, his friend Mr Kh. and another person who had been in the flat in "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "21.  On 26 May 2001 the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta published its regular update on the conflict in Chechnya, covering events between 12 and 25 May 2001. It reported that \u201con 19-20 May 2001 in Serzhen-Yurt, "}
+{"target": "Ken\u2011Yurt", "prompt": "7.  The account of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form; the second applicant\u2019s written statements of 25 December 2007 and 14 July 2010; written statements by S.D. and A.D. made on 22 November 2006; a written statement by Sh.D. dated 29 November 2006; and a detailed plan of the relevant area of "}
+{"target": "Vinnytsia District", "prompt": "6.  On 28 February 2000 the captain of the Vinnytsia District of the Interior's Division on Combating the Illegal Circulation of Drugs (the \u201cCICD\u201d) issued a resolution authorising the purchase of opium from the applicant on the basis of information received from undisclosed sources. This resolution was approved by the "}
+{"target": "Equateur", "prompt": "118.  Among the other categories assessed to be at risk were high-ranking officers of the FAZ; members of the garde civile (with the exception of its commander-in-chief to whom an exclusion clause in the Refugee Convention might be applicable); leading and active members of pro-Mobutu parties and other political allies, except for current sympathisers or members of the opposition who were not playing a substantial role within those parties; and Mobutu family members and close collaborators, especially those from the Ngbandi tribe or the "}
+{"target": "Silesia", "prompt": "12.  On 9 March 2009 the applicant applied for judicial review of that decision and asked to be heard in person. He claimed that the information contained in the documents of the Federal Commissioner was incomplete and not accurate. The fact that at the time of recruitment he was only 19 years old and had been severely traumatised when fleeing his home town in "}
+{"target": "the Achkhoy-Martan District", "prompt": "94.  The applicants submitted written statements from Ms M.E., who worked at a kiosk located in Druzhby Narodov Square, and Ms Sh.N. Both were eyewitnesses to the abduction. Ms M.E. submitted that on 8 November 2006 she had seen servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic weapons. They had conducted a special operation. At around 2 p.m. they had stopped a car with two persons, allegedly Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov. Shortly thereafter, one of them had gone to Ms M.E.\u2019s kiosk to buy a blank authorisation form for driving a car and had told her that he was from "}
+{"target": "Land", "prompt": "38.  According to information furnished by the Government, at the relevant time the applicant was one of some thirty persons detained in the Rosdorf preventive detention centre. In order to comply with the duty to provide the necessary therapy and care and to motivate detainees to participate in the relevant therapies and treatment, the centre\u2019s staff comprised one psychiatrist, four psychologists, five social workers and twenty-five members of the general prison service. The staffing situation was similar to that of Moringen Psychiatric Hospital, situated in the same "}
+{"target": "Dzerzhinsky", "prompt": "26.  On 25 May 2010 the Main Contractor asked the chief of the city police to send police units to the site at 7 a.m. on 26 May 2010 to prevent third parties from infiltrating the construction site. On 29 May it asked the chief of police of the then "}
+{"target": "territories", "prompt": "90.  In the proceedings concerning the International Court of Justice\u2019s Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (9 July 2004), Israel denied that the human rights instruments to which it was a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and asserted (at paragraph 102) that:\n\u201chumanitarian law is the protection granted in a conflict situation such as the one in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whereas human rights treaties were intended for the protection of citizens from their own government in times of peace.\u201d\nIn order to determine whether the instruments were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice first addressed the issue of the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, holding as follows:\n\u201c106.  ... the Court considers that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be found in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As regards the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law, there are thus three possible situations: some rights may be exclusively matters of international humanitarian law; others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may be matters of both these branches of international law. In order to answer the question put to it, the Court will have to take into consideration both these branches of international law, namely human rights law and, as lex specialis, international humanitarian law.\u201d\nThe International Court of Justice next considered the question whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was capable of applying outside the State\u2019s national territory and whether it applied in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It held as follows (references and citations omitted):\n\u201c108.  The scope of application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is defined by Article 2, paragraph 1, thereof, which provides:\n\u2018Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.\u2019\nThis provision can be interpreted as covering only individuals who are both present within a State\u2019s territory and subject to that State\u2019s jurisdiction. It can also be construed as covering both individuals present within a State\u2019s territory and those outside that territory but subject to that State\u2019s jurisdiction. The Court will thus seek to determine the meaning to be given to this text. 109.  The Court would observe that, while the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national territory. Considering the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even when such is the case, States Parties to the Covenant should be bound to comply with its provisions.\nThe constant practice of the Human Rights Committee is consistent with this. Thus, the Committee has found the Covenant applicable where the State exercises its jurisdiction on foreign territory. It has ruled on the legality of acts by Uruguay in cases of arrests carried out by Uruguayan agents in Brazil or Argentina ... It decided to the same effect in the case of the confiscation of a passport by a Uruguayan consulate in Germany ... 110.  The Court takes note in this connection of the position taken by Israel, in relation to the applicability of the Covenant, in its communications to the Human Rights Committee, and of the view of the Committee.\nIn 1998, Israel stated that, when preparing its report to the Committee, it had had to face the question \u2018whether individuals resident in the occupied territories were indeed subject to Israel\u2019s jurisdiction\u2019 for purposes of the application of the Covenant ... Israel took the position that \u2018the Covenant and similar instruments did not apply directly to the current situation in the occupied territories\u2019 ...\nThe Committee, in its concluding observations after examination of the report, expressed concern at Israel\u2019s attitude and pointed \u2018to the long-standing presence of Israel in [the occupied] "}
+{"target": "the Naurskiy District", "prompt": "57.  According to the Government, the investigation established that on 21 May 2003 between 3.30 and 4 a.m. a group of unidentified men wearing camouflage and masks and armed with automatic weapons had entered three houses in the village of Kalinovskaya and killed six persons, including the first applicant and three members of her family. The identities of the perpetrators were not established. The involvement of the special forces was not confirmed by the investigation. According to the information supplied by the United Group Alliance (UGA), no servicemen of the UGA had been involved on 20 and 21 May 2003 in any operations in "}
+{"target": "the Middle East", "prompt": "50.  A report entitled \u201cHizb ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation)\u201d, published on 15 April 2007 by the European research project Transnational Terrorism, Security, and the Rule of Law (TTSRL), financed by the European Commission, reads as follows:\n\u201cHizb ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) presents itself as \u2018a political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology ...\u2019 ... In their own eyes, Hizb ut Tahrir (for short) is a political group and not a priestly one ... It is a trans-national party or movement that claims to try to achieve its political goals without the use of violence and has branches in about forty countries, including both Islamic and Western countries. In the Islamic world they are, for instance, active not only in "}
+{"target": "Katyn Forest", "prompt": "23.  On 3 March 1959 Aleksandr Shelepin, Chairman of the KGB, proposed to Nikita Khrushchev, Secretary General of the USSR Communist Party, that the documents on the execution of Polish prisoners of war be destroyed:\n\u201cSince 1940, records and other materials regarding prisoners and interned officers, policemen, gendarmes, [military] settlers, landowners and other persons from the former bourgeois Poland who were shot that same year, have been kept by the Committee of State Security of the Council of Ministers, USSR. On the basis of decisions taken by the Soviet NKVD\u2019s special troika, a total of 21,857 persons were shot, 4,421 of them in "}
+{"target": "Dniester", "prompt": "22.  On 29 July 1994 Moldova adopted a new Constitution. It provided, inter alia, that Moldova was neutral, that it prohibited the stationing in its territory of troops belonging to other States and that a form of autonomy might be granted to regions which included some areas on the left bank of the "}
+{"target": "Horteri", "prompt": "8.  The applicant claimed that until 1974 she had been permanently residing in a house she owned at 33, 28th October Street, Kyrenia (northern Cyprus). She also owned a garden at Kazafani and three fields with trees at Karmi (in the locality known as \u201c"}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "17.  On 15 April 2011 the investigator questioned S.N., who refuted the applicant\u2019s allegations. S.N. claimed that he had not used force against the applicant and that, in any event, he had not been on the "}
+{"target": "Southern France", "prompt": "105.  Several Austrian politicians, including members of parliament, high-ranking public officials, well-known public figures and persons affected by the events surrounding the BAWAG crisis commented in public on the applicant\u2019s arrest and the criminal proceedings against him.\n(1)  On 3 May 2006 Mr Grasser, then Federal Minister of Finance, published a statement through the Austrian Press Agency (APA) and stated that rescuing BAWAG with public money had to be a last resort and that he had had consultations with the Trade Union Federation, the bank\u2019s majority owner and the bank\u2019s management on this matter. He also said that, in his view, the auditing of the bank had not been lax (zu lax). For more than ten years the irregularities could not be detected. It was also decisive, in his opinion, that within the five-tier auditing and monitoring system, the first four tiers \u2013 board of management, internal monitoring, supervisory board and external certified accountants (Wirtschaftspr\u00fcfer) \u2013 \u201chushed up matters deliberately\u201d (vors\u00e4tzlich vertuscht) so that there was no possibility for the fifth tier, namely, monitoring by the state, to come into play. The effectiveness of monitoring was not the issue in point.\n(2)  On 5 May 2006 Mr Haider, Regional Governor of Carinthia, made a press statement entitled \u201cPenthouse socialists must give back their luxurious dwellings!\u201d He accused the applicant, inter alia, of squandering billions of euros belonging to the trade union bank and receiving penthouses at a ridiculous price as a reward. He further stated that \u201cthese luxury left wingers without morals or decency should give back what they have obtained illegally (was sie sich erschlichen haben) and, if need be, be forced to do so by the courts.\u201d He also welcomed the fact that an action for eviction (R\u00e4umungsklage) had been lodged against the applicant and his wife.\n(3)  On 7 May 2006 Mr Leser, a university professor and well-known intellectual with close links to the Social Democratic Party, stated that he noted the \u201cabsence of any expression of guilt\u201d by ex-director of the board of management Helmut Elsner and the retired president of the trade union Mr Verzetnitsch. He added that in the past those responsible for similar calamities (Misere) had \u201coften taken their own lives\u201d.\n(4)  In an interview published in the newspaper Ober\u00f6sterreichische Nachrichten on 29 May 2006 Mr Grasser, after answering questions on the state\u2019s guarantee for BAWAG, the takeover of PSK (see \u201cthe background of the case\u201d) and the effectiveness of the state\u2019s controlling and monitoring system of the capital market, was asked the following question: \u201cIt has been suggested that bank robbers could by no means do as much harm as has been done to BAWAG. The bracket of sanction is the same [under criminal law]. Should one change that?\u201d He replied: \u201cThere have been several developments in this area since 2000. But there must be more severe measures as regards external certified accountants. And there must be higher penalties for those who have embezzled and stolen. Misuse in that bank was shameless to such an extent that an example should be made quickly.\u201d\n(5)  In an interview published in the newspaper Der Standard on 7 June 2006 Mr Hundstorfer, president of the Trade Union Federation, stated that he wanted \u201cto see all those implicated before a court\u201d.\n(6)  On 4 July 2006 Mr Grasser issued a further statement to the APA which was entitled \u201cGrasser repudiates reproaches regarding the National bank monitoring report 2001\u201d and was sub headed \u201cBAWAG-case like \u2018bank holdup\u2019 \u2013 \u2018criminal energy\u2019 of the board of management\u201d. The press release contained, in particular, the following statements. Mr Grasser repudiated at a press conference reproaches that the Ministry of Finance had not reacted adequately to the monitoring report of the National Bank for the year 2001. \u201cAs far as I am concerned the matter is settled\u201d he said, adding that it was \u201cridiculous\u201d that excuses were being sought, when after all the BAWAG-case was a \u201ccriminal case\u201d just like a \u201cbank hold-up\u201d, into which the organs of the judiciary were enquiring. In the National Bank monitoring report there had been no references to losses or a guarantee of the Trade Union Federation, Grasser replied when asked why he had not become suspicious because of certain foundations mentioned in the report. BAWAG had been the object of numerous audits, but apparently the board of management had acted with intent and \u201ccriminal energy\u201d. Moreover, K., the BAWAG-appointed external certified accountants firm, had drawn up a \u201cglowing\u201d report.\n(7)  On 22 July 2006 the newspaper Der Standard published a lengthy interview with Mr Cap, chairperson of the Social Democratic Party\u2019s group of parliamentarians in the National Council. In the interview relations between the two parties in coalition, the People\u2019s Party and the Social Democratic Party, and what coalitions might result from the imminent elections were discussed. To the question \u201cafter the BAWAG-affair one has the feeling that the Social Democratic Party has resigned itself to accept second place in the elections,\u201d Mr Cap answered: \u201cIt is very sad that it has come to that, for the bank, for the savers, for the trade union. All are making an effort to clear up this criminal case as quickly as possible. That is one side. The other is: Mr Elsner makes a public appearance and the Social Democratic Party feels it immediately at the polls. And this hurts. I do not hear, by the way, the clinking of handcuffs of certain BAWAG managers. Naturally the People\u2019s Party is reaping the benefits at the moment and this is doubly regrettable: after all, the elections are not about the criminal machinations of the BAWAG management but whether Wolfgang Sch\u00fcssel, despite his long list of sins, should become chancellor again.\u201d\n(8)  On 14 September 2006 Mr Geyer, press officer for the Vienna Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office, issued a press release informing the press of the arrest of the applicant in France, which read as follows: \u201cAt the request of the Vienna Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court issued a European warrant of arrest on the night before 14 September 2006 against Helmut Elsner. The question whether Helmut Elsner should be remanded in custody has repeatedly been examined since the beginning of the BAWAG proceedings. The decisive factor for the present request for his detention was that the suspicion against Helmut Elsner had considerably increased as a result of the investigations during the previous few months, and that he had not come to Austria to be heard. He had alleged that he was seriously ill and submitted a medical certificate advising him not to leave the region ("}
+{"target": "Baltiysk", "prompt": "9.  On 13 August 2004 the applicants applied to clarify the judgment, and on 26 August 2004 the Town Court issued a clarification. The applicants disagreed with it and appealed. After a rehearing, on 26 November 2004 the Town Court ordered the Military Unit to\n\u201cprovide [the applicants] before 1 February 2005 with a decent (in terms of "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "21.  On 10 or 11 May 2000 the applicants found a handwritten note at the entry gate of their house in Ken-Yurt, saying that Beslan Baysultanov had been abducted by \u201cMr K.\u2019s men\u201d. According to the applicants, at the material time K. held the post of commander of the \u201c"}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "79. According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators also requested information about the disappearance from various State authorities, including a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya and other units of the Ministry of the Interior, the Grozny department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), various military commanders\u2019 offices in Chechnya, the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no. 20102, the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the UGA, a number of penitentiary institutions in Chechnya and the neighbouring regions, the prosecutors\u2019 officers of various levels, various detention centres in "}
+{"target": "the Agdam Region", "prompt": "16.  On 7 April 2005 the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment identical to the Supreme Court's decision of 13 December 2002. It ruled that H. should vacate the applicant's apartment. It further held as follows:\n\u201c... the claim of V.B. Akimova must be upheld; however, having regard to the fact that the defendants are internally displaced persons from "}
+{"target": "Pikes", "prompt": "14.  She was shown a photograph album with ten photographs and was asked to examine them. She stated:\n\u201c... I do not know the name of the person in photograph no. 5[1] ... I was buying narcotics from him ... in "}
+{"target": "the Amur Region", "prompt": "43.  On 30 June 2004 a local police officer, Mr A.N., was questioned. He stated that he had learnt about the Eskiyev brothers\u2019 abduction the following day. He had asked their relatives to immediately lodge an official complaint, but they had refused to do so out of fear that an official inquiry would only worsen the situation. They had believed that an official complaint would make the brothers\u2019 return impossible and had hoped that both brothers would be released once questioned and checked. He also stated that he had gone to the checkpoint and asked for information concerning the passage of the abductors\u2019 vehicles. The police officers from "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "7.  Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (The Party of Islamic Liberation \u2013 hereinafter \u201cHizb ut-Tahrir\u201d) is an international Islamic organisation with branches in many parts of the world, including the Middle East and "}
+{"target": "Vega", "prompt": "14.  After a complaint by the applicant, that decision, however, was quashed by the Klaip\u0117da Regional Court on 13 February 2008. The court held that the prosecutor had failed properly to investigate the applicant\u2019s submission that her husband had died because of dangerous conditions on the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "29.  In January 2003 the applicants informed the administration of prison no. 29/13 in Chi\u015fin\u0103u about their fear of reprisals by a group of detainees in that prison. The applicants asked to be transferred to prison 29/4. They were transferred to that prison on 12 January 2003, and did not inform the administration of any threat received or otherwise alert the authorities to any danger to their lives or health in that prison. On 19 April 2003 the applicants were severely beaten by other detainees from their own brigade. They claim that for dubious reasons the security personnel were absent from their posts and thus did not intervene, and that the metal gates separating their block from other blocks were left unlocked, in violation of the rules. According to several reports submitted by the Government, during their free time detainees could either remain in their cells or visit common areas within their brigade\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Zone Z4", "prompt": "24.  On 20 December 2004 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment upholding the findings of the District Court of Larnaca. The court found that it had not been established that a possible reduction was the consequence of the rejection of the applicant's application for a planning permit. If any reduction had occurred to the property's value this would have been due to its prior inclusion in "}
+{"target": "the Moskovskiy District", "prompt": "40.  On 26 July 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, acting pursuant to Article 125 of the Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the applicant\u2019s detention had been lawful:\n\u201c[Mr] Fursenko is charged with two offences ... for which only punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty is provided. The application of the preventive measure and the fixing of the terms of [Mr Fursenko\u2019s] detention between 14 April and 14 May 2001 and between 26 February and 25 March 2002 complied with the provisions of the legislation on criminal procedure ... [I]nformation about the personality of the accused, previously convicted of a grave offence, and the nature of the offence he is charged with, was taken into consideration.\nTherefore, the preventive measure ... was applied to [Mr] Fursenko lawfully and on valid grounds, as were the extension of [his] detention between 14 April and 14 May 2001 and between 26 February and 25 March 2002 by the prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Notre-Dame", "prompt": "31.  In these judgments the judges noted in particular the following facts in relation to the applicant. The three mobile phones used by the applicant had received calls from B.B. on 16 and 22 October and 1 November 1995; a receipt for an exchange transaction performed on 16 October 1885 at 3.50 p.m. (Paris time) for an amount of FRF 36,800 had been discovered at B.B.\u2019s home, together with a notice of transfer of FRF 38,000 from an English branch of Western Union, and the checks carried out established that the applicant had gone into a Londis shop in Wembley containing a Western Union office at 2.34 p.m. on 16 October 1995 and had re-emerged at 3.26 p.m. (London time); the applicant\u2019s fingerprints had been found on the transfer slip kept by the Western Union office in the Londis shop; the words \u201cLYESO \u2013 FF 36,600\u201d had been found in the credit column of B.B.\u2019s accounts and the words \u201cWest Union\u201d and \u201cWest-Union Bank\u201d had also been entered by B.B. in a document logging the details of the 17 October attack; the applicant had possessed the details of the Western Union branch in rue du Clo\u00eetre in the "}
+{"target": "Syrets", "prompt": "16.  In May 2002 the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty (in issue no. 19), published an article titled \u201cOur Football Players Withstood Death\u201d about the \u201cDeath Match\u201d, which stated that only four football players from the \u201cDeath Match\u201d had been arrested and sent to the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "6.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor\u2019s office opened a criminal investigation into the activities of a criminal gang allegedly organised by V., a high-ranking police officer at the time. The members of the gang were suspected of numerous thefts of goods and foodstuffs from various storage facilities. One of the episodes under investigation was a fraudulent attempt by the members of the gang to sell scrap metal, which belonged to a private company, to a scrap metal processing plant. According to the official version, the attempt to sell the scrap metal was carried out by V., the applicant, who was also a high-ranking police officer at the time, and G., another member of the gang. On an unspecified date in November 2000 V., the applicant and G. met with M., a director of the scrap processing plant, and fraudulently represented to him that the scrap metal belonged to K. and that they were acting on her behalf. M. agreed to purchase the scrap metal and on 23 November 2000 he sent a group of workers to the company\u2019s site in order to have the scrap metal removed. G.\u2019s boyfriend Yer., another member of the gang, was also present at the site at the time. The removal of the scrap metal was interrupted by B., one of the private company\u2019s directors. Yer. phoned G., who told him to go to the police station to notify V. of the incident. Then both Yer. and G. returned to the site to settle the issue with B., who had complained to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal. B. also informed Vosh., the company\u2019s managing director, of the incident. Acting in his official capacity, V. assigned the investigation into the attempted theft of scrap metal to Yem., who decided to question M. However, V. interviewed M. himself and brought Yem. M.\u2019s statement. Yem. questioned K., who submitted that she had nothing to do with the removal of the scrap metal from the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "25.  On an unspecified date in August 2009 the Chechnya traffic police replied to the investigators that on the date of the abduction the traffic policemen had only manned the permanent checkpoint at the entrance to Grozny:\n\u201c... On 17 May 2009, at about 6 p.m., on the motorway "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "19.  Since 27 August 2001 the applicant and her husband have contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, the "}
+{"target": "Kirovskiy", "prompt": "31.  On 18 May 2012 the investigators questioned operational search officer Mr A.G. of the CTC, who stated that the Abdullayev family had been known to them as adherents of illegal armed groups. At the end of January 2012 he had participated in a search of their house conducted together with police officers from the "}
+{"target": "Drava", "prompt": "53.  On 12 February 2008 the Zagreb County Court extended the applicant's detention and at the same time dismissed her request for the custodial measure to be lifted. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n\u201cA reasonable suspicion that the third [the applicant], fifth and sixth defendants committed the criminal offences defined in the indictment still exists, this being a general statutory requirement under Article 102 \u00a7 1 of the C[ode of] C[riminal] P[rocedure] for extending the detention.\nThe third, fifth and sixth defendants have been indicted for criminal offences against humanity and international law \u2013 war crimes against the civilian population \u2013 under Article 120 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, carrying a minimum of five years' imprisonment or imprisonment for twenty years; this is one of the criteria for detention under Article 102 \u00a7 1(4) of the CCP.\nFurthermore, the third, fifth and sixth defendants have been indicted for the gravest acts which could possibly be committed against the civilian population, namely illegal arrests, torture and killings of civilians. The civilians were tortured and killed for no reason and the motive was national hatred.\nThe charge against the third defendant, Gordana Geto\u0161-Magdi\u0107, states that she, together with the second defendant, I.K., on the order of the first defendant, B.G., formed a [military] squad for special reconnaissance and sabotaging tasks and illegally arrested civilians of Serbian and other national origins, tortured and killed them, and transmitted such orders to their subordinates in the said squad... The victims were severely beaten and then taken to the banks of the river "}
+{"target": "the River Karacha", "prompt": "7.  A further internal inquiry was subsequently carried out by a commission composed of six Network officials (hereinafter \u201cthe commission\u201d). Its report, drawn up on 20 August 2001, states that the Network owned two wooden poles on opposite banks of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "28.  In 2004, the C. company requested the issue of civil injunctions ordering two Swiss animal right associations and two internet providers to desist from further disseminating footage taken by the journalist M. inside its "}
+{"target": "Point Blanche", "prompt": "14.  In this letter, in which the applicant referred to a conversation he had had with this judge on 20 September 1996, the applicant explained, among other things, that inmates were locked in their cells for 21 hours a day with nothing to do, that after ten days\u2019 detention in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "79.  On 3 October 2005 the investigators questioned the director of the factory, Mr A.B., who stated that on 1 August 2003 the head of the Shali administration, Mr M.D., had asked his permission to use his company\u2019s lorry. The witness had authorised the driver, Mr Sh.Sh., to go with his GAZ-53 lorry to assist the administration. At some point later on the same date, the driver had informed the witness that military servicemen had taken the lorry away from him at the administration\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Centru", "prompt": "49.  At 9.30 a.m. a car belonging to the Special Forces police regiment \u201cScut\u201d with four men inside arrived at the garage. Ten minutes later a traffic police car arrived. Minutes later an operative group of the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrived, followed by the "}
+{"target": "Marum", "prompt": "29.  By a judgment of 26 November 1996 the District Court decided another removal case which had been brought by the applicant and her sister in 1994. Apparently in response to the removal proceedings brought against the applicant, they had claimed that several other joint owners of "}
+{"target": "Middle East", "prompt": "8.  On 14 February 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found fifteen organisations, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, to be terrorist organisations and prohibited their activity in the territory of Russia. It held a hearing in camera which was attended by a representative of the Prosecutor General\u2019s office, but not the organisations\u2019 representatives. The part concerning Hizb ut-Tahrir reads in its entirety as follows:\n\u201cThe Party of Islamic Liberation (\u2018Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami\u2019) is an organisation that pursues the aims of overthrowing non-Islamic governments and of establishing Islamic rule on an international scale by reviving a \u2018Worldwide Islamic Caliphate\u2019, in the first place in the regions with a predominantly Muslim population, including Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Its main methods and activities include Islamic militant propaganda, combined with intolerance towards other religions, active recruitment of supporters, and activities aimed at promoting schism and disunity in society (primarily proselytism with massive financial support). It is banned in several "}
+{"target": "the Val d\u2019Oise", "prompt": "24.  As regards the obligation of the municipality, after the annulment of the travellers\u2019 reception and accommodation programme, to make land available for travellers, the court referred to a letter from the prefect of "}
+{"target": "Schengen", "prompt": "8.  On 2 October 2002 the first two applicants were questioned for the first time at the Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office as part of the investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against a network of individuals trafficking in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  In the period from 14 November 2000 to 3 October 2002 the first-instance court held 30 hearings. In addition five separate sittings were held at which the court decided to prolong the applicant\u2019s detention, and on two occasions witnesses were examined away from the court\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "164.  The relevant part of Mr Su.\u2019s statement to the investigators reads as follows:\n\u201cI do not remember the exact date but, possibly, in the morning of 14 February 2002 ... a special operation was planned for Gekhi in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "50.  On 23 January 2002 the District Court delivered its judgment. At the trial the defendant Ministry did not contest, as such, the accuracy of the applicant's submissions or the evidence he had presented, but denied its responsibility for the consolidated police units, stating that they had formed part of the federal troops within the territory of Chechnya and had been under the command of the military authorities of the United Group Alignment. The court made no comment in respect of those submissions by the defendant Ministry. It examined the material before it and established that the applicant owned the property in question, that the local council had certified on 16 October 2000 the unauthorised occupation of that property by federal police units, that the applicant had requested the authorities to ensure his estate be vacated and that by a judgment of 14 February 2001 the Nadterechny District Court had ordered the eviction of the Tambov consolidated police units from the applicant's "}
+{"target": "Okusha", "prompt": "16.  Upon the applicants' appeal against the land commission's decision, on 29 June 1995 the Velingrad District Court set aside the commission's decision and restored the applicants' title on part of the plots of land claimed, including those covering 14 ha in the "}
+{"target": "the Far North Areas", "prompt": "5.  In 1967-95 the applicant worked in the Far North of Russia. His family was entitled to assistance in resettlement from the Kamchatka Region pursuant to the Federal Target Program \u201cConstruction of housing for persons moving from "}
+{"target": "the Terek River", "prompt": "72.  The investigators sent a request to a commander of the special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Chuvashiya who, while on mission in the Chechen Republic, had been duty at the checkpoint over "}
+{"target": "Aspropyrgos", "prompt": "28.  On 23 July 2009, the Ombudsman wrote again to the Ministry of Education. He informed him that the prefect, which had, on 17 October 2008, refused to authorise the merging of 12th and 11th schools, did not wish to revisit this decision. He stressed that the operation of this ghetto school for Romani students was contrary to the position of the ministry, which was unfavourable to schools \u201cexclusively reserved for Gypsy students.\u201d He availed himself of the letter of 8 September 2008 from the Director of the 12th school, according to which the state of the facilities would not have covered the basic needs of a school and would have jeopardised the safety of students and teaching staff. He added that the needs could not be met by the mayor of Aspropyrgos, who openly declared on 26 September 2008, that the Romani children \u201cdare to demand to share the same classrooms as the other students of "}
+{"target": "the Southern District of New York", "prompt": "11.  On 30 August 2010 the United States Embassy addressed diplomatic note no. 071 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting the applicant\u2019s extradition. According to the diplomatic note, the applicant had been charged, along with other co-defendants, with the following eight counts: 1) membership of an organised racketeering enterprise engaged in murder, kidnapping, drug distribution, arson, robbery, extortion and the interstate transportation of stolen goods; 2) conspiracy to engage in a racketeering enterprise; 3) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms and more of marijuana; 4) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances; 5) conspiracy to commit robbery; 6) the possession, use, carrying and brandishing of firearms, including a firearm equipped with a silencer, during, in relation to, and in furtherance of the narcotics offence; 7) kidnapping in aid of racketeering; 8) the possession, use, carrying and brandishing of firearms during, in relation to, and in furtherance of the kidnapping charged in count six; and 9) the murder of E.S in aid of racketeering.\nThe diplomatic note further stated that five charges carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment (nos. 1-2 and 6-8); two charges carried a maximum penalty of forty years\u2019 imprisonment (nos. 3 and 4); one charge carried a maximum sentence of twenty years\u2019 imprisonment (no. 5); and another charge carried a penalty of either death or life imprisonment (no. 9). The diplomatic note further stated that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant on 19 August 2010 by the United States District Court for "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "50.  It appears that at around 12 noon on 9 April 2006 Aslan Israilov and Bulat Chilayev left Sernovodsk for Grozny in the latter\u2019s car. They passed through two military roadblocks situated between Sernovodsk and the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "77.  On 26 June 2013 the court invited the Ivani\u0107-Grad and Split Social Welfare Centres to make a psychological evaluation of the family and to submit a joint opinion and recommendation. The centres nevertheless submitted separate opinions on 26 July and 11 September 2013 respectively. The report of the Split Social Welfare stated that the children had refused to come to the Centre\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Ozerne", "prompt": "22.  Before the show, the pilots were provided with a different aircraft from the one in which they had carried out their training flight. There was a certain asynchronism in the performance of the right and left engines of this aircraft. Overall, however, it was in an acceptable technical condition and remained fully operational until it crashed. The aircraft had been supplied with extra fuel in order to enable the pilots to return to "}
+{"target": "Bois du Trou-Poulet", "prompt": "35.  The findings of the study were presented by the SONACOTRA to the steering committee on 6 June 2006. At a meeting of 17 November 2006 between the select steering committee and the applicant association, held for the presentation to the latter of the results of the social study, the committee agreed that the families who had in the meantime left "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "38.  On 20 April 2009 the Tambov Regional Prosecutor supervising correctional institutions sent a letter to the applicant\u2019s lawyer, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n\u201cIt was established that on 10 March 2009 at 7.15 a.m., having arrived at the check\u2011point of [the medical colony] in the Tambov Region and disregarding the orders of an officer on duty... to wait until the beginning of the working day, you entered the restricted area adjacent to the [medical colony].\nOn arriving at the office building, you did not file a request for a meeting with [the applicant] with the colony administration.\nThe facility administration considered that your actions constituted an administrative offence proscribed by Article 19.3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences; you were accordingly asked to produce identification documents in order to draw up a report [of an administrative offence], but you categorically refused [to comply with the request] and left the "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "74.  A decision of 17 November 2003 terminated the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/00/0008-03. It stated, in particular, that pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 1255c of 23 September 1999, the Russian authorities had launched a counter-terrorism operation in "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "92.  On 1 January 2003 an investigator questioned officer G. of the Karabulak GOVD. G. stated that at 9 a.m. on 29 October 2002 he had been informed that Mr Adam Arsamikov had been abducted from the garage where he lived by officers of the Chechnya FSB. The abductors had used white VAZ-2106 and VAZ-2121 (Niva) vehicles with registration plates covered with mud. Officer G. together with officers G-v and Ts. pursued the abductors. At the checkpoint near the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya they were told that no such vehicles had been that way. Then the officers went to checkpoint no. 20 at the entry point for the Rostov-Baku motorway. Traffic police there confirmed that two white vehicles VAZ-2106 and Niva with registration plates covered with mud had passed by fifteen to twenty minutes previously. They had not stopped them because they had papers on their windscreens authorising unhindered passage. It was usually FSB officers who had such badges. At the \u201c"}
+{"target": "the Vilnius Region", "prompt": "17.  In 2006 the applicant and her husband lodged a claim against the VCA before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. They complained that the two hectares of land assigned to them in 1995 had still not been provided, that they had been unable to receive any information from the VCA about the ongoing land reform in "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "48.  The applicant\u2019s neighbour in Grozny, \u201cGalina P.\u201d, testified that she had been with the applicant and her sister on 11 January 2000 when they had found their parents\u2019 and uncle\u2019s bodies in the house at Derazhavina Street. The witness submitted that the Chechen fighters (\u201cboyeviki\u201d) had left the district by mid-December, and that before that they had caused no harm to the residents, and had sometimes even helped them. From 25 December 1999 the Russian servicemen started to enter the "}
+{"target": "the Payidar hills", "prompt": "56.  On 23 December 1992 the Palu public prosecutor Nihat Turan examined the documents relating to the preliminary examination and decided that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate the killing \u201con 9 November 1992 of an unidentified terrorist during the clash between members of the PKK and soldiers on "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "21.  The investigation in case no. 47041 was suspended in August 2005, March 2006, September 2007, November 2009 and on the latest occasion on 4 March 2010. Supervising prosecutors repeatedly set aside those decisions, ordering the investigation to be resumed and pointing to the investigators\u2019 failure to take a number of important steps. For instance, on 26 January 2006, 21 August 2007 and then again, as late as on 23 October 2009, the supervising prosecutors pointed out the investigators\u2019 failure to inspect the premises of the 2nd regiment and verify the allegation of the involvement of its officers in the crime with the participation of the third applicant, in spite of his specific assertions that he had been detained on those "}
+{"target": "Veljun", "prompt": "12.  On 30 March 2006 the Karlovac State Attorney\u2019s Office asked the Slunj police whether the Veljun area had been occupied on 7 August 1995; whether the perpetrator of the killing of G.O. had been identified; and whether G.O. had been a member of the paramilitary forces of Krajina or of the Croatian army. On 6 July 2006 the Karlovac police department replied that "}
+{"target": "Central Asia", "prompt": "37.  On 13 February 2009 the Moscow City Court again found the decision of the General Prosecutor's Office of 11 March 2008 to be valid. The City Court heard the applicant and her lawyer, as well as Ms Ryabinina, who made a statement as an expert on the situation in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "18.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. According to their submission, \u201c... in connection with the abduction of A.S. Sadulayev which had taken place on 9 December 2002 on the road between Alkhazurovo and Martan-Chu, the "}
+{"target": "the Oktyabrskiy District", "prompt": "79.  On 17 July 2003 the town prosecutor\u2019s office stayed the investigation in case no. 40007 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated as follows:\n\u201c... The preliminary investigation established that on 27 December 2002 at about 10.20 a.m. unidentified armed and camouflaged servicemen of the 2nd battalion of military unit no. 3186 had unlawfully entered the Temergeriyevs\u2019 house, searched it and discovered a grenade in the refrigerator... Meanwhile Musa Temergeriyev, born in 1952, returned home. [He] was arrested and brought in an APC to the military unit located on the grounds of the former 15th military base in Gudermesskaya Street in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "84.  On 18 April 2003 the first applicant, acting in her capacity as the head of the NGO \u201cSociety of War Victims\u201d, forwarded a list of missing persons who had disappeared following their detention by the \u201cpower structures\u201d in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "35.  On 3 July 2003 the district military commander\u2019s office informed the applicant that they had conducted an inquiry into her allegations about the abduction of her son at the checkpoint and stated the following:\n\u201c... as of 30 June 2003 the "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "84.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant\u2019s lawyer requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, establish which military unit had carried out the special operation on 1 August 2003 and question military servicemen stationed in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  The Guardianship Authority then contacted a child upbringing counsellor (\u201cnevel\u00e9si tan\u00e1csad\u00f3\u201d) who recommended the assistance of a foundation specialised in facilitating visits. It therefore ordered that the regular visits scheduled for the period between 16 February and 11 May 2002 be held at the foundation\u2019s "}
+{"target": "\u0130mral\u0131", "prompt": "31.  According to the Government, no restrictions were placed on the applicant as regards either the number of visits by his lawyers or their duration. Apart from the first visit, which took place under the supervision of a judge and members of the security forces, the meetings were held subject to the restrictions provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to ensure their safety, the lawyers were taken to the island of "}
+{"target": "the Groznenskiy District", "prompt": "6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Nebist Khalitova, born in 1959;\n2) Ms Zarema Almurzayeva, born in 1971;\n3) Ms Zalina Chapayeva, born in 1982; and\n4) Mr Maulat Achkhanov, born in 1929.\nThe first applicant lives in the village of Raduzhnoe. The second, third and fourth applicants live in the village of Pobedinskoe. The two villages are located a short distance one from another in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "16.  In the Divisional Court judgment dated 4 April 2001, Lord Justice Kennedy noted that section 3 had a long history and cited the Secretary of State\u2019s reasons, given in the proceedings, for maintaining the current policy:\n\u201cBy committing offences which by themselves or taken with any aggravating circumstances including the offender\u2019s character and previous criminal record require a custodial sentence, such prisoners have forfeited the right to have a say in the way the country is governed for that period. There is more than one element to punishment than forcible detention. Removal from society means removal from the privileges of society, amongst which is the right to vote for one\u2019s representative.\u201d\nExamining the state of practice in other jurisdictions, he observed that in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "130.  During questioning on 2 and 3 July 2003 four pilots, Pog., Ab., D. and Sh., who at the material time had been seconded to the Chechen Republic and served in military unit 11731, stated that they had performed a flight in a group of four planes on 19 October 1999 to the southern mountainous area of the Chechen Republic. According to Mr Pog., the planes had been laden with aerial bombs of calibre 250 or 500 kg. The pilots also stated that the results of the bombing had been recorded by means of objective control devices \u2013 video recorders and photographic cameras \u2013 and after the flight had been given to a commanding officer. The pilots insisted that they had been instructed to launch bombs in an area situated at a distance of no less than three kilometres from any inhabited settlement and that they had never carried out any strikes on "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "37.  The terms of this recommendation are as follows:\n\u00ab The Committee of Ministers, in accordance with Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,\nConsidering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a closer union among its members, and that this aim may be pursued in particular by adopting joint action in the field of education;\nRecognising the urgent need to lay new foundations for future educational strategies for Roma / Gypsies in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "5.  On 8 September 2000 a security officer of the applicant\u2019s former employer, a private company, drew up a report in which he stated that in the course of the applicant\u2019s work on 7 September 2000 she had stolen thirty-five labels, the total value of which was 0.42 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1]. These labels were found in the applicant\u2019s possession when she was leaving the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Kemi River", "prompt": "11.  By virtue of the Tornio Fishing Act, the Ministry issued Decision no. 496/1997 (\u201cthe 1997 Decision\u201d), prohibiting all salmon and trout fishing throughout the year and all fishing with stationary gear during the period from 1 May until 5 July. The restrictions extended to the maritime area of "}
+{"target": "Hask\u00f6y Dock", "prompt": "7.  On 22 April 2004 the applicants requested a rectification of the decision dated 21 January 2004. Subsequently, on 26 April 2004 the applicants' lawyer also lodged a request with the Military Supreme Administrative Court and requested clarification (tavzih) of the decision dated 21 January 2004. In his request the applicants' lawyer referred to the relevant statements of means provided by the domestic authorities. He further stated that while lodging the case he had submitted the relevant medical records concerning Mr Yusuf Kaba, a report on the asbestos levels at "}
+{"target": "Pankissi Gorge", "prompt": "7.  In the period from March to December 2001 the applicant, as a member of a small group of \u201cvolunteers\u201d from Azerbaijan, underwent military training organised by Chechen militants based in Georgia\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Atlantic", "prompt": "13.  On 13 June 2002, at 6 a.m., the French frigate spotted a merchant ship travelling at slow speed through the waters off Cape Verde, several thousand kilometres from France. It was not flying a flag, but was identified as the Winner. The merchant ship suddenly changed course and began to steer a course that was dangerous both for the frigate and for members of the armed forces who had boarded a speedboat. While the Winner refused to answer the attempts of the commander of the frigate to establish radio contact, its crew jettisoned a number of packages into the sea; one of the packages, containing about 100 kilos of cocaine, was recovered by the French seamen. After several warnings and warning shots fired under orders from France\u2019s maritime prefect for the "}
+{"target": "Schengen Area", "prompt": "43.  The Supreme Court further observed that the first applicant lacked a legal basis for residing in Norway and therefore ought to leave the country in any event. What the likely outcome could be of an application for residence permit in the current situation could not enter into the consideration of the case. The disputed decision entailed the consequence for him that he would be expelled from the country for a period of five years and he could not apply for a residence- or work permit during this period. Norway\u2019s participation in the Schengen cooperation meant as a rule that an expulsion from Norway also implied a prohibition to enter the entire "}
+{"target": "Kr\u00e1sn\u00e1 Ves Districts", "prompt": "11.  On the basis of the Land Ownership Act, the applicant entered into restitution agreements with two legal persons (the Hradec Kr\u00e1lov\u00e9 State Forest Enterprise and the L\u00edny \u2013 Kr\u00e1sn\u00e1 Ves Agricultural Cooperative) on 10 December 1993 and 4 May 1994 respectively. By two decisions of 12 October 1994 the Mlad\u00e1 Boleslav Land Office (pozemkov\u00fd \u00fa\u0159ad, \u201cthe Land Office\u201d) refused to approve the restitution agreements. Referring to section 32(3) of the Land Ownership Act, it found that some of the plots had been assigned to different owners pursuant to the 1948 Act, and that these owners, being natural persons, had proved their property rights by showing their deeds of assignment. The Land Office based its decisions on the following documents: the decision of the former Mlad\u00e1 Boleslav State Notary (st\u00e1tn\u00ed not\u00e1\u0159stv\u00ed) of 26 May 1977 on the applicant\u2019s father\u2019s inheritance, the decision of the former Doksy District National Council of 7 June 1949 on the expropriation of the applicant\u2019s father\u2019s property, the record of the former L\u00edny Local National Council (m\u00edstn\u00ed n\u00e1rodn\u00ed v\u00fdbor) of 7 November 1949 on the proceedings on the applicant\u2019s father\u2019s appeal against the expropriation, the decision of the former Liberec Regional National Council (krajsk\u00fd n\u00e1rodn\u00ed v\u00fdbor) of 29 November 1949 by which the decision of expropriation had been modified, and an extract (v\u00fdpis) from the land register (pozemkov\u00e1 kniha) relating to the L\u00edny and "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "18.  In the morning of 5 February 2003 the applicant and his relatives found numerous footprints on the snow in their yard and around their household in the street. The footprints led in the direction of the village bakery. According to one of the applicant\u2019s daughters-in-law, the servicemen who had raided their house that night had been out of breath and she concluded that they had reached their house on foot from some distance away. Several days later she talked to three other residents of Goyty who had seen two military UAZ vehicles parked near the bakery on the night of the abduction. The first witness had seen the UAZ vehicles close to the bakery in Goyty; the second and third witnesses had seen the vehicles in the western part of the village at about 4 a.m. on 5 February 2003. The vehicles were leaving Goyty and were about to cross the checkpoint of the Russian federal forces in the eastern part of "}
+{"target": "Vedeno", "prompt": "69.  On 3 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the second applicant. She stated that about eight months prior to being questioned, in the summer of 2004, a young man named Mr Ya. Ge., who had been around twenty years old, had arrived at her house and had told her that he had been detained with Magomed Kudayev for eight days. The detention place had reminded him of an abandoned bathhouse and had been located in "}
+{"target": "the Daugava River", "prompt": "10.  By contracts signed in 1994, in respect of donations inter vivos, the applicants became the owners of five plots of land on the island of Kundzi\u0146sala. This island, situated close to the mouth of "}
+{"target": "North Sea", "prompt": "137.  The High Court did not share Mr Vilnes\u2019s view that the State had been the actual wrongdoer. The wrongdoers had been those who had conducted the diving activities. In addition, the licence holders had been jointly and severally liable for the damage (section 10-9 of the Petroleum Act). The assertion that diving - especially "}
+{"target": "the Moscow Region", "prompt": "6.  On 10 March 2009 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody during the investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n\u201cWhen deciding whether a preventive measure should be imposed, the court takes into consideration whether [the applicant] has been charged with a serious offence which entails a custodial sentence of up to seven years\u2019 imprisonment. [The offence in question] was committed against public peace and public order.\nFurther, the court takes into consideration the fact that, at the time of the arrest, [the applicant] did not reside in Moscow, did not reside at his registered address and, according to him, was staying at his friend\u2019s place in "}
+{"target": "Evin", "prompt": "17.  Subsequently, the applicant was summoned to appear on 2 November 2009 before the Revolutionary Court. He had contacted a friend who, in turn, had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country. The applicant submitted a summons from the Revolutionary Court dated 21 October 2009 stating that he should present himself at "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "18.  Lastly, the court considered that, in respect of Article 3 of the Constitution regarding the principle of equality, the relevant legislation did not create unreasonable discrimination, given that homosexual unions could not be considered equivalent to marriage. Even Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not require full equality between homosexual unions and marriages between a man and a woman, as this was a matter of Parliamentary discretion to be regulated by national law, as evidenced by the different approaches existing in "}
+{"target": "Pont-Euxin", "prompt": "18.  On 12 September 2005, the first day of the school year, the Romani parents, including the parents, accompanied their children to school. In front of the entrance, several non-Romani parents, most of them of Pontic origin, that is to say from the region of "}
+{"target": "the Tsentralniy District", "prompt": "29.  On 18 August 2003 the first applicant complained to a number of prosecutors\u2019 offices. The relevant parts of her complaint read as follows:\n\u201cBetween 20 December 2002 and 17 June 2003 I have addressed law-enforcement agencies on numerous occasions asking them to search for my son, Kaykharov Gelani Arturovich, who was abducted by unidentified men in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns ...\nOn 17 June 2003 I again addressed the issue concerning the abduction of my son to the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District, [R.]. After examination of the case file, the prosecutor [R.] told me that my son was alive and was detained in the SIZO of "}
+{"target": "Kazeli", "prompt": "12.  Attached to her observations of 4 September 2002, the applicant produced a certificate of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties, issued on 12 August 2002 by the Departments of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, and an affidavit, signed by herself, in which she declared that she owned 8 pieces of land in Lapithos \u201call on the mountain slope, very suitable for building purposes\u201d. According to the above mentioned certificate of affirmation of ownership, the following properties were owned by Mrs Iordanou Iordani Anthousa, daughter of Mr Polykerpos Panagiotou:\nLapithos village \u2013 Agia Paraskevi and Agia Anastasia:\n(a) Land certificate no. 1613 of 22 April 1971, plot no. 199 of sheet/plan XI/22 (Mantres tou "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "50.  In paragraphs 127\u2011133 of its 1999 report on Bulgaria, the CPT stated, inter alia:\n\u201c[H]ealth care in Bulgarian prisons is provided by the Ministry of Justice ... Prison health-care staff are recruited by and administratively subordinated to the Main Prison Directorate, whose Medical Division is responsible for supervising their work. The prison health-care services apply general health guidelines and regulations issued by the Ministry of Health; further, arrangements can be made for hospitalising prisoners in need of urgent treatment in Ministry of Health establishments. However, it emerged that in the Ministry of Health's view, given the division of responsibilities, the issue of health care for prisoners lay outside its remit...\nA similar situation is found in many other countries in "}
+{"target": "Iecava", "prompt": "44.  In a third set of proceedings, on 22 September 2011, the custodial court examined the suitability of the applicant\u2019s wife and son as his guardians, following a complaint by the applicant. Following a hearing in the applicant\u2019s presence, it was decided that they were not appropriate guardians and the court terminated their guardianship of the applicant. The reasons for this were, among other things, that they had never taken him outside the \u012ale Centre to stay at their home, to visit his parents\u2019 grave or to church, which had been long-standing requests from him. In addition, they had not ensured that the applicant visited the "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "20.  On 16 March 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicant's case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:\n... In its decision of 13 June 2008, the Refugee Appeals Board found ... The Refugee Appeals Board still finds that your client's fear of being forcibly recruited by the LTTE or of being subjected to outrages by the LTTE as a result of having fled from the LTTE does not warrant a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act. In this connection, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasises that your client's statements about his alleged connection with the LTTE were extended during the asylum proceedings and were diverging in essential areas. In this connection, the Refugee Appeals Board also refers to the fact that the Sri Lankan military forces defeated the LTTE in May 2009. Moreover, the Refugee Appeals Board refers to the background information available to the Board from which it appears that it is hardly likely that former low-ranking members of the LTTE or persons who have previously supported the LTTE will risk reprisals from the LTTE, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009. Regardless of whether your client's information about his previous activities for the LTTE is considered a fact, the Refugee Appeals Board stills find that your client would not risk persecution or being subjected to outrages as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act by the Sri Lankan authorities if returned to Sri Lanka, including in connection with his arrival at Colombo airport. The Refugee Appeals Board emphasizes that from his detention in 1991, where his photo was taken, and until his departure in 1997 your client has not been detained or had his picture or fingerprint taken or in any other way been the object of interest from the Sri Lankan authorities. The authorities have thus not carried out any acts aimed at your client that indicated that he was suspected of being a member of the LTTE. In this connection, the Board also refers to the fact that your client departed lawfully from Sri Lanka with his own Sri Lankan national passport for the purpose of family reunification with his spouse. Similarly, the Refugee Appeals Board refers to the background material available to the Board, according to which persons who have previously supported the LTTE on a lower level are generally not of interest to the authorities, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009, and see United Kingdom: Home Office, Report of Information Gathering Visit to Colombo, Sri Lanka 23-29 August 2009. Against that background the Refugee Appeals Board also finds that the fact that one or more of your client's siblings have been members of or active for the LTTE cannot warrant a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act, according to the background information now available. The fact that as an ethnic Tamil from northern Sri Lanka your client may risk being questioned and investigated by the authorities on entry into the country cannot lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law. In this assessment, consideration has been given to the background information available to the Board, according to which the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in Colombo are young Tamils, men in particular, from northern and eastern Sri Lanka, those without identification or residence in Colombo, and those recently returned from the "}
+{"target": "Straits", "prompt": "57.  In a judgment of 15 December 2000, the Beyo\u011flu Commercial Court confirmed its earlier judgment and held that the plaintiff\u2019s claim must be dismissed on the grounds that the seizure and detention of the vessel had been in compliance with domestic law and the Montreux Convention governing the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "12.  Melanie Joy was concerned for the safety of Michael Fitzgerald and, although she did not know whether or not he was in the flat, she shouted his name through the letterbox on the front door of the "}
+{"target": "the Middle East", "prompt": "57.  The charges brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor may be summarised as follows.\n(i) In a speech he had given in Batman on 27 October 2012 in the offices of the Peace and Democracy Party (\u201cthe BDP\u201d, a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party), the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK terrorist organisation by urging people to close their shops and not to send their children to school as a protest aimed at securing the release of the PKK leader.\n(ii) On 13 November 2012 two demonstrations had been held in Nusaybin and K\u0131z\u0131ltepe in protest against the conditions of the PKK leader\u2019s detention, and the applicant had made the following comments in K\u0131z\u0131ltepe:\n\u201cThey said you couldn\u2019t put up the poster of \u00d6calan. Those who said it ... Let me speak clearly. We are going to put up a sculpture of President Apo. The Kurdish people have now risen up. With their leader, their party, their elected representatives, their children, their young and old, they are one of the greatest peoples of "}
+{"target": "the Ramon District of the Voronezh Region", "prompt": "38.  On 6 June 2005 the District Court, acting as a first-instance court, upheld the decision of 15 February 2005. The court decided that the investigation had been lawful and sufficiently complete to exclude the criminal responsibility of the police officers in question. The court noted, in particular:\n\u201c... During the investigation carried out on the [applicant\u2019s] request ... it was established that on 23 August 2004 [the applicant] was arrested and detained in the [local] police station, where he was placed in sobering-up cell, and then an administrative case against him was sent for examination on the merits to the justice of the peace of circuit no. 2 of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "71.  The investigation of the kidnappings of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev did not establish the identities of the perpetrators. The implication of special units of State agencies and federal forces in those crimes was not proven. Neither was it proven that the perpetrators had been driving APCs and UAZ vehicles. According to the information obtained by the district prosecutor's office from the Department of the FSB of the "}
+{"target": "the Leninskiy District", "prompt": "22.  On 14 June 2006 the head of the Department for supervision of the investigation of crimes by the prosecutor\u2019s office forwarded the first applicant\u2019s complaint about the disappearance of Khamzat Tushayev to the acting prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "120.  On 11 March 2001 the applicant\u2019s husband informed the investigator that on 25 December 2000 Akhmed had left home at about 11 a.m. and had not been since since. He further stated that on 27 December 2000 the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "14.  The applicant's parents appealed against that judgment. On 31 July 2003 the Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal, on the same grounds as the lower court, finding that the applicant, by behaving as she had done, had overstepped the limits of the right to express and manifest her religious beliefs on the school "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "106.  In her statement of 15 December 1999 the first applicant asked the Nazran Town Court to certify the fact of her two children's deaths. She submitted that on 29 October 1999 a refugee convoy was attacked by fighter planes on the \u201c"}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "9.  The applicant subsequently requested information about his missing son and his lorry from General Na. The commander refused to admit that the 205th brigade had detained Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev and that his lorry had been parked at their "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "93.  On 30 June 2008 the investigators forwarded a number of requests to various law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya, asking them to provide information concerning any possible detention of Magomed Kudayev on their "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "14.  On 3 August 2000 the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper ran an article on the Unification Church\u2019s activities in southern Russia which \u2013 according to the applicant \u2013 described in general terms the grounds subsequently endorsed by the Federal Security Service in favour of his expulsion. It was entitled \u201cCaramels from Moon will drive to debility\u201d (\u00ab\u2018\u0413\u0443\u0446\u0443\u043b\u043e\u0447\u043a\u0438\u2019 \u043e\u0442 \u041c\u0443\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e \u043c\u0430\u0440\u0430\u0437\u043c\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0443\u0442\u00bb):\n\u201cThe prosecutor\u2019s office of the Stavropol Region has banned the activity of social organisations under the protection of which the Korean Moon ... was buying souls for $500 a piece.\nOnce there were two public organisations registered by the Stavropol Department of Justice: the Youth Federation for World Peace (YFWP) and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU). As it turned out, these so-called public movements preach one of the most dangerous religions of the past century...\nOutwardly inoffensive \u2018pedlars\u2019 who sell or give away the \u2018New Families\u2019 newspaper and cheap caramels lure young men and women into Moon\u2019s family ... Young missionaries who were freely permitted to lecture to senior students at Stavropol schools introduced themselves as volunteers from the International Education Fund (IEF), [which is] one of Moon\u2019s many \u2018parishes\u2019 ...\nThe self-proclaimed lecturers had no documents authorising them to talk to students. To \u2018sweeten\u2019 the lectures, they distributed caramels. Later, a panel of experts from the Stavropol clinic for borderline states gave a negative appraisal of Gutsulka caramels that Moonies distributed to children and adults alike. As it turned out, an outwardly inoffensive caramel destroys the human being\u2019s energy-information profile. Simply speaking, such caramels with little-known inclusions \u2013 in some of them small holes are visible \u2013 facilitate the conversion of neophytes into zombies.\nThe contents of Moonies\u2019 lectures leave a strong aftertaste of debility. It is sufficient to read the briefing materials [prepared by] the IEF \u2013 an outline of the lecture on \u2018Preparation of a Secure Marriage\u2019. Citation: \u2018The genitals belong to a spouse and they only serve their purpose in a marital relationship ... Until the marriage you are the guardian of your genitals for your future spouse ...\u2019\nAfter some time ... [a certain young man] was introduced to the head Moonie in "}
+{"target": "A. O.\u2019s", "prompt": "6.  According to the applicants, the uncontrolled draining of sand from Batman Stream of Dicle River changed the stream\u2019s ecological balance. Eventually, holes and vortexes which occurred as a result of uncontrolled sand drain allegedly contributed to "}
+{"target": "Autonomous region of Krajina", "prompt": "6.   The applicant, a person of Serbian ethnic origin, lived in the town of Sisak. During 1991 and 1992 Serbian paramilitary forces gained control of about one third of the territory of Croatia and proclaimed the so-called \u201cSerbian "}
+{"target": "the Southern Federal Circuit", "prompt": "53.  On 27 January 2010 the head of the Chechen investigation department wrote to the Chechen Minister of the Interior stating, amongst other things:\n\u201c... [within the framework of the investigation of criminal case no. 66094], on 24 December 2009 the Chechen prosecutor organised a meeting on officers from the Leninskiy ROVD in Grozny and servicemen from operational-search unit no. 2 of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "61.  In an article published in the daily newspaper \u201cRadikal\u201d on 5 December 1996, the journalist \u0130smet Berkan wrote:\n\u201cIt all dates back to early 1992. At that time the Turkish Chief of Staff's office made radical changes in its strategy in the fight against the outlawed PKK. The military units, which used to take action only after PKK attacks had taken place by engaging in hot pursuit, started to be organised as a guerrilla force. Now they were taking pre\u2011emptive action. This change soon started to bear fruit. The PKK no longer had the initiative. Now the PKK was on the run with the soldiers at its heels.\nThe PKK gradually withdrew from the centres of population where it had been staging attacks, taking refuge in the mountains. But Turkey's \u201cactive fight\u201d against terrorism was continuing. This time, the logistic support for the PKK in the mountains began to diminish through village evacuations. The PKK had been greatly weakened, and seemed to be on the verge of being \u201cfinished off\u201d.\nBut the change in the strategy was not limited to a \u201clow-intensity conflict\u201d in the region. It was decided that a \u201cmore active\u201d drive was required to dry up other sources of terrorism too. In this way, with a little effort, this job would be \u201cfinished off next spring\u201d.\nThis would take the form of a two-pronged effort. Terrorists would be caught \u2013 or killed if necessary \u2013 before they actually staged attacks. And the persons who provided the terrorists with material or moral support would be equated with the terrorists themselves.\nThis change in strategy was put on the agenda of the National Security Board at the end of 1992. A National Security Board document, which the author of this column was allowed to see, contains the chart of the organisation that was to be created for this purpose, as well as the names of the persons who would take part in it. These names included Abdullah \u00c7atl\u0131. The others taking part in the organisation included policemen belonging to the \"special teams\", soldiers and some of \u00c7atl\u0131's friends.\nInitially, the proposed tactics did not meet with the approval of the National Security Board. Turgut \u00d6zal, at that time the President of Turkey, and E\u015fref Bitlis, at that time the Commander of the Turkish Armed Forces, both opposed the State taking action in co-operation with fugitives <from justice>. I guess this is pure coincidence, but first General Bitlis and then \u00d6zal died, the former in an accident and the latter due to a heart attack.\nS\u00fcleyman Demirel became President and Tansu \u00c7iller the Prime Minister. Initially, \u00c7iller was quite mild on the south-east issue. She was talking about the Basque model and, with good intentions, having discussions with the opposition leaders on the issue. But after a short time she underwent a change. She became more hawkish than all of the other hawks, declaring, \u201cThis <the PKK> will either be finished or it will be finished\u201d. It was obvious that she was convinced that it would end soon.\nAs there was no one around to raise objections any longer, the issue was again submitted to the National Security Board. And this new technique of struggle was approved in the autumn of 1993. The organisation, call it \u201cGladio\u201d[2] or \"special organisation,\" was founded by a decision taken by the National Security Board.\nAccording to figures released at that time, Turkey was spending more than $8 billion annually on the fight against the PKK. No doubt the PKK was also spending a lot in its fight against Turkey. Calculations made in the higher State echelons indicated that the PKK's war budget was no less than $3 billion. In the autumn of 1993, the year in which \u00c7iller became Prime Minister, the PKK had two main sources of income: 1. money obtained through narcotics and extortion. 2. donations collected in "}
+{"target": "Kurgan Region", "prompt": "50.  On 12 November 2004 the investigator of the Kurgan Region Police Department ruled not to open criminal proceedings against persons unknown. The decision was taken in response to a letter from the applicant\u2019s representative claiming that the applicant\u2019s injuries had been caused in the context of incitement to ethnic hatred. The decision referred to pending criminal investigation no. 96348 and the absence of information on the alleged perpetrators of that crime. It also referred to the fact that no charges had been brought under Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to ethnic or religious hatred) in the entire "}
+{"target": "St Barnabas", "prompt": "172.  The witness denied the applicant's allegation that he had left the island two days before the killing of Mr Adal\u0131, namely on 4 July 1996. He stressed that he had left the island in the second week of August 1996 subsequent to the end of his term of office. When asked about the allegations made by Mr Adal\u0131, in his column in 23 March 1996 edition of Yenid\u00fczen, in relation to the "}
+{"target": "Shali", "prompt": "26.  On 30 September 2005 the Shali ROVD informed the applicants that they were taking operational-search measures to establish the whereabouts of Abdul Kasumov. The text of the letter included the following:\n\u201c... [the investigators] have been verifying the theory of the involvement in the abduction of the special forces and power structures stationed in the "}
+{"target": "North-Western", "prompt": "82.  In April 2002 the head and deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD testified about the events of January and February 2000. Both stated that they had arrived in the district around 22 January 2000 with the troops, that they were aware of the applicant's case and that it was one of many instances of servicemen killing civilians in the district. The head of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD stated that he was aware of about 40 similar cases in the district, all committed in the same style \u2013 people shot with automatic rifles in courtyards and garages. Both servicemen also spoke of widespread looting committed by servicemen who had been conducting house-to-house searches. The witnesses testified that, according to their information, the crimes against civilians had been committed by servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior, most probably by a consolidated team of special police forces (SOBR) of the "}
+{"target": "the Moscow Region", "prompt": "349.  On 16 February 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the complaint. The District Court established that there were no appropriate penitentiaries in Moscow; furthermore, it was impossible to accommodate all the convicts from Moscow in "}
+{"target": "San Jos\u00e9", "prompt": "5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Valencia. He has lived in San Jos\u00e9, a residential district of Valencia since 1962. Since 1974 Valencia City Council (\u201cthe City Council\u201d) has allowed licensed premises, such as bars, pubs and discotheques, to open in the vicinity of his home. In view of the problems caused by the noise, the City Council resolved on 22 December 1983 not to permit any more licensed premises to open in the area. However, the resolution was never implemented and new licences were granted. In 1993, the Polytechnic University of Valencia carried out a study of the levels of night-time noise during the weekend on behalf of the City Council. It was reported that in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "91.  On 2 July 2007 the investigators again questioned the seventh applicant, who stated that at about 4 p.m. on 6 July 2002 she had seen a UAZ vehicle and a VAZ-2107 car leaving the premises of the district military commander's office. Some time later that day she had been told that unidentified persons had arrived at her house. When the seventh applicant had returned home, her father, the eighth applicant, informed her that unidentified men in similar vehicles had searched their house looking for weapons. The applicant had concluded that the unidentified men had arrived in the vehicles she had seen at the military commander's office. According to the applicant, next to the building of the local administration she had seen the APCs in which the abductors had taken away her brother. The applicant further stated that on 8 July 2002 she had been in "}
+{"target": "North Caucasus", "prompt": "73.  In July 2003 the materials concerning the applicants\u2019 detention at the Khankala military base were separated from case no. 22600008 and transmitted to the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in the "}
+{"target": "Luki\u0161k\u0117s", "prompt": "40.  From 8 December 2009 to 5 October 2011 and from 4 to 20 July 2012 Mr Traknys was held in the Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison.\nIt can be deduced from the Lithuanian court decisions that during the first period of his detention in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "45.  On 27 February 2003 the investigators forwarded a number of information requests to various detention centres in the Northern Caucasus. According to their responses, Balavdi Ustarkhanov was not detained on their "}
+{"target": "Bryansk Region", "prompt": "8.  The article read as follows, in so far as relevant:\n\u201cMaksim Kosenkov and Ruslan Pogulyayev will be on trial in Bryansk. The lads wanted to replicate the deed of the Bryansk thieves from the local administration, but they lacked the power, although they had skills in abundance.\nThey concocted fake decrees from the Bezhitskiy District Administration on the parcelling of land for the construction of individual houses. They \u2018certified\u2019 the papers with makeshift stamps and took them to the Bryansk Region Department of the State Register (\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0440\u0435\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440). Here they were issued with [extracts from the State registry of real estate] in respect of nine plots of land. Try to register your property at that department. They will wear you down with requests for piles of papers. However, in this case the credulous clerks easily signed the documents after accepting the fakes. Isn\u2019t that strange?\nAs established by the prosecutor\u2019s office, the swindlers acquired property rights in this way in respect of plots of lands which belonged to the category of indivisible State property. Their market value exceeded 6,400,000 roubles. The lads face up to ten years\u2019 imprisonment for this. Pity the birds. They could be doing good deeds, raising their kids. However, they got carried away by the example of the big Bryansk thieves and failed to take into account that the latter were protected from all sides \u2013 by the powers that be, the party, relations, and so on.\nAt least we know now what sentence "}
+{"target": "Pirin Macedonia", "prompt": "9.  The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (\u201cthe applicant association\u201d or \u201cIlinden\u201d) is an association based in south-western Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of "}
+{"target": "Inkaya", "prompt": "109.  Later, the applicant petitioned Kulp District Gendarme Command, Lice District Gendarme Command and Kulp Chief Public Prosecutor. Approximately one month after the incident, the applicant was in Diyarbak\u0131r and he met Esref from the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "96.  On 26 June 2007 PACE adopted the following resolution on the \u201cPromotion by Council of Europe member States of an international moratorium on the death penalty\u201d:\n\u201c1.  The Parliamentary Assembly confirms its strong opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment: it violates the right to life. The Assembly takes pride in its decisive contribution to making the member States of the Council of Europe a de facto death penalty-free zone, and strongly regrets the fact that one European country \u2013 Belarus \u2013 still carries out executions. 2.  The Assembly has also on several occasions taken a strong stand against executions in other parts of the world, and in particular in the Council of Europe observer States which retain the death penalty, namely Japan and the United States of America. 3.  It notes with satisfaction that the death penalty is on the decline worldwide, as shown by a 25% decrease in executions and death sentences between 2005 and 2006. 4.  It also draws attention to the fact that more than 90% of known executions in 2006 took place in only six countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and the United States of America \u2013 a Council of Europe observer State. Based on available public records, which may cause the number of executions to be underestimated in countries lacking free media or an accountable government, China alone accounts for more than two thirds of all executions worldwide. Iran\u2019s execution rate nearly doubled from 2005 to 2006. Iraq also witnessed a dramatic increase in executions in 2006, bringing the number up to 65. Saudi Arabia, among the worst offenders in 2005, saw a decrease in 2006 to 39 executions, but witnessed an upsurge in early 2007 (48 executions through to the end of April). 5.  The small number of countries that still resort to executions on a significant scale is becoming increasingly isolated in the international community. Between 1977 and 2006, the number of abolitionist countries rose from 16 to 89. This number increases to 129 when including those countries which have not carried out any executions for the past ten years or more and which can therefore be considered as abolitionist in practice. The time is now ripe to give new impetus to the campaign in favour of a death penalty-free world. 6.  The Assembly therefore strongly welcomes Italian efforts in the United Nations General Assembly in advocating for a moratorium on the death penalty, as well as the support of the European Union for this initiative, and expects it to be proceeded with in such a manner as to guarantee the best possible success within the United Nations. 7.  A moratorium on executions is but one step in the right direction, the ultimate goal remaining the complete abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. 8.  In the meantime, a moratorium is an important step as it saves lives immediately and has the potential of demonstrating to the public in retentionist countries that an end to State-sponsored killings does not lead to any increase in violent crime. On the contrary, a moratorium on executions can bring about a change of atmosphere in society fostering greater respect for the sanctity of human life, and thus contribute to reversing the trend towards ever-increasing hate and violence. 9.  Finally, a universal moratorium on the death penalty represents a concrete and highly symbolic political act, which could help change an international climate which is all too often characterised by violent actions which take their victims \u2013 by no means exclusively in a context of conflict \u2013 from among civilian populations. A universal moratorium on the death penalty would also make a significant contribution to the establishment of a shared and operational body of principles and rules leading towards a more effective rule of law at international level. 10.  The Assembly calls on all member and observer States of the Council of Europe to actively support the initiative for the abolition of the death penalty in the UN General Assembly and to make the best use of their influence in order to convince countries that are still on the sidelines to join in. In this context, it warmly welcomes the resolution in the same spirit, adopted by the European Parliament on 26 April 2007, on the initiative for a universal moratorium on the death penalty. 11.  At the Luxembourg meeting of 18 June 2007, the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) of the European Union unanimously made a formal commitment to tabling \u2013 at the next session of the General Assembly of the United Nations \u2013 a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions all over the world. 12.  The Assembly recalls that, whilst 60 States have so far ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989 to promote the universal abolition of the death penalty, 10 Council of Europe member and observer States have not yet done so, namely Albania, Armenia, France, Japan (observer), Latvia, Mexico (observer), Poland (signed but not ratified), the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States of America (observer). For countries which have de facto and de jure abolished the death penalty (Albania, Armenia, France, Latvia, Mexico (observer), Poland and Ukraine), or which maintain a moratorium (Russian Federation), the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR would be a valuable gesture of political support for abolition, and would contribute to further isolating the remaining retentionist countries. 13.  The Council of Europe\u2019s own instruments against the death penalty are also still lacking ratifications. In particular, Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty (ETS No. 114) has still not been ratified by the Russian Federation, despite the commitment to do so undertaken upon its accession to the Council of Europe in 1996. Protocol No. 13 to the Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (ETS No. 187), including in time of war or imminent threat of war, has still not been signed by Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation, and has still not been ratified by Armenia, France, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain. For the sake of the strong and unified signal to be sent by the Council of Europe as a whole, the Assembly calls on the countries concerned to sign and ratify these instruments without further delay. 14.  The Assembly notes in this context that Italy\u2019s Chamber of Deputies approved on 2 May 2007, in a second reading, the constitutional bill containing amendments to Article 27 of the Constitution concerning the abolition of the death penalty; the bill is presently before the senate for its second reading and final adoption under the current procedure for constitutional revision. The bill aims to delete from Article 27 \u00a7 4 the following words: \u2018unless in the cases provided for by military laws in case of war\u2019, thus eliminating any reference to the death penalty in the Italian Constitution and making it possible to ratify Protocol No. 13 to the Convention. 15.  Also, the Assembly reiterates its view, noted in Recommendation 1760 (2006) on the position of the Parliamentary Assembly as regards the Council of Europe member and observer States which have not abolished the death penalty, that the death penalty should be abolished in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Transnistrian Moldavan Republic, and that the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row in these territories should be immediately commuted to terms of imprisonment in order to put an end to the cruel and inhuman treatment of those who have been kept on death row for years in a state of uncertainty as to their ultimate fate. 16.  The Assembly fully supports the Conference to establish a European Day against the Death Penalty, to be held in Lisbon on 9 October 2007, and expects all member States of the Council of Europe also to show their unstinting support. Given its pioneering work on the abolition of the death penalty in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "10.  On 14 November 1995 the Tartu police initiated criminal proceedings against the head of the Energy Department of the Tartu City Government. The proceedings concerned the alleged abuse of his position in contracting a loan with the Ministry of Finance for reconstructing the city's heat supply in an amount higher than approved and guaranteed by the City Council. In the context of these criminal proceedings the Tartu Public Prosecutor (Tartu prokur\u00f6r) approved a search of the applicant's company's "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "29.  Some ten hearings were held between 6 October and 10 November 2006 and on 19 January 2007 the Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed the applicant\u2019s guilt and his original sentence of seven years\u2019 imprisonment and a EUR 2,500 fine.\n(i)  Criminal procedure issues\n... 34.  The defendants further protested against the addition to the case file of interview reports from France and Morocco. They argued that the statements had been obtained using treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, adding that, in respect of the interviews conducted in Morocco, they were unlawful under Moroccan law. Invoking their right to a fair trial, they requested the Court of Appeal to remove them from the criminal case file.\n... 36.  As to the interviews conducted in Morocco, the Court of Appeal first noted that the defendants had not adduced any concrete evidence giving rise to reasonable doubt as to a possible breach of Moroccan law by the police or judicial authorities of that country in the proceedings from which the interview reports in question had emanated. The court found, in particular, that the interview reports recorded the statements in a detailed manner, mentioning the identity of the police officer by whom they were drawn up, the precise duration of the judicial custody periods and the fact that they had been authorised by the relevant public prosecutor. It further found as follows:\n\u201c... Moreover, the fact of citing in general terms various reports of human rights organisations \u2013 admittedly respectable ones \u2013 does not adduce any concrete evidence that would be capable of giving rise in the present case to the above-mentioned reasonable doubt as to the violence, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment that was allegedly inflicted on the individuals interviewed in Morocco ...\nLastly, it cannot be surmised from those interviews or from the Moroccan court decisions added to the file that ... the above-mentioned persons were questioned or sentenced after an expedited trial for participating in the Casablanca bombings, on the basis of a Moroccan Law of 28 May 2003 on the combating of terrorism that had been applied retroactively in breach both of Article 4 of the Moroccan Criminal Code and of the general principle that criminal legislation cannot have retrospective effect.\nAn examination of the Moroccan court decisions \u2013 and more specifically the judgment of the Rabat Assize Court \u2013 reveals, on the contrary, that the eight Moroccan defendants had initially been charged with setting up a criminal association for the preparation and commission of acts of terrorism, forgery of passports, and the collection of funds in aid of terrorist actions, on the basis of legislation that was unconnected with the above-mentioned Law of 28 May 2003.\nIt can be seen from the foregoing findings that the interview reports and Moroccan court decisions that were added to the file, with the possibility of being freely challenged by the parties, should not be excluded.\nIn addition, the contradictions allegedly contained in those statements, according to defence counsel\u2019s argument, are not capable of justifying the claim that the individuals who were interviewed and/or tried in Morocco were subjected to any inhuman and degrading treatment or torture.\nLastly, the Belgian trial courts are by no means bound by those statements and remain free to decide on their relevance and accuracy.\u201d\n...\n(ii)  Examination on the merits 39.  In its judgment, the Court of Appeal began by showing that the GICM was a terrorist group within the meaning of Article 139 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, explaining that it was an organised association of more than two people, established on a lasting basis, which engaged in concerted action for the purpose of committing terrorist offences covered by Article 137 of the Criminal Code. It observed in particular that the group had set up a coordination committee in Morocco and a number of cells in "}
+{"target": "\u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e\u2011\u041a\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430", "prompt": "54.  On 27 May 2005 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment in the North Caucasus Region (\u0412\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u041e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0438 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a (\u0441\u0438\u043b) \u043f\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044e \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0439 \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438 "}
+{"target": "Kad\u0131k\u00f6y", "prompt": "5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1938 and 1964 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first two applicants are the parents and the third applicant is the wife of Mr Ta\u015fk\u0131n Usta, who was shot dead by police officers at a flat in the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "6.  On 2 August 2005 the Berlin Tiergarten District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on suspicion of two counts of drug trafficking. The arrest warrant specified that the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences resulted from statements made by one of his co\u2011suspects, the separately prosecuted A.K. The District Court further found that there was a risk that the applicant, who did not have a permanent residence in Germany and in the past had been travelling between Brazil and "}
+{"target": "the Terskiy mountain range", "prompt": "12.  According to the applicant, the village was shelled by artillery positioned on the Terskiy mountain range, where Russian troops were stationed. In his submission, a total of five to six shells had been fired during the attack. He submitted a sketch map of the scene of the incident indicating the shell craters. According to him, the position of the craters clearly indicated that the shells could only have been fired from "}
+{"target": "the Yaroslavl Region", "prompt": "149.  In December 2008 the district investigation unit asked the head of the investigation committee to order his subordinates to establish the whereabouts of Mr P.Ch. and Mr I.Kh., two former servicemen of military unit no. 3186, who had subsequently been dispatched to "}
+{"target": "W\u00f3lka Kosowska", "prompt": "9.  On 14 May 2008 the mayor gave a decision in which she banned the demonstration on the grounds that it might entail a danger to life or limb, or a major danger to property (section 8(2) of the Assemblies Act). The reasons for the mayor\u2019s decision were as follows:\n\u201cNadrzeczna Street is the main road in W\u00f3lka Kosowska and provides access to Krakowska street for residents and many businesses located on [that street], their deliveries and employees. It should be underlined that there is increased traffic on that street, particularly during the morning (and in the evenings), which impacts on traffic on Krakowska street. Nadrzeczna Street is used by public transport minibuses and by the school bus. Therefore organising a demonstration on that street between 7 and 10 a.m. would block the entire length of the street and also limit or even make impossible any journey by car to Krakowska street and in the farther direction of Grojec. In the event of a traffic accident, the intervention of the police, the fire service or the ambulance service would be difficult, if not impossible. Similarly, access to a doctor by the residents of "}
+{"target": "the Fergana Valley", "prompt": "103.  In its report of 29 March 2004, \u201cCreating Enemies of the State: Religious Persecution in Uzbekistan\u201d, Human Rights Watch remarked:\n\u201cFor the past decade, with increasing intensity, the government of Uzbekistan has persecuted independent Muslims. This campaign of religious persecution has resulted in the arrest, torture, public degradation, and incarceration in grossly inhumane conditions of an estimated 7,000 people.\nThe campaign targets nonviolent believers who preach or study Islam outside the official institutions and guidelines. They include independent imams and their followers, so-called Wahhabis - a term used incorrectly by the government to defame people as \u201cfundamentalists.\u201d The most numerous targets were adherents of the nonviolent group Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), whose teachings in favor of an Islamic state the government finds seditious ...\nInternational human rights law guarantees individuals the right to have and to express religion or beliefs. The Uzbek government\u2019s policy and practices directly contravene these standards, as they punish certain religious believers for the content of their belief, for expressing their beliefs, exchanging information with others, or engaging in nonviolent association. In their treatment of independent Muslims, the Uzbek authorities\u2019 systematic torture, ill-treatment, public degradation, and denial of due process also violate the country\u2019s obligations under international law.\nThis report documents these violations. It explains how the state criminalized legitimate religious practice and belief and how it casts individuals\u2019 exercise of their rights to freedom of conscience, expression, and association as attempts to overthrow the government. It details the ordeal independent Muslims have endured from their arrest through to their incarceration, in some cases serving up to twenty years. Most of the people whose stories are documented in this report remain incarcerated. They were tortured and suffered other forms of mistreatment by police trying to obtain confessions. They endured incommunicado detention, denial of defense counsel, denial of a fair trial, and convictions based on fabricated evidence. They continue to suffer torture and ill-treatment as they serve their sentences in Uzbek prisons. We also document the arrest, harassment, and intimidation of their families, including Soviet-style public denunciations that local officials stage against perceived Islamic \u201cfundamentalists.\u201d ...\nFinally, the report describes the obstacles independent Muslims face in seeking redress through state agencies, including the courts, the ombudsperson\u2019s office, and the procuracy. It also recounts the harassment they sometimes face in retribution for appealing to international organizations ...\n... Since 2000, arrests and convictions of independent Muslims - members of Hizb ut-Tahrir mostly, but also people accused of \u201cWahhabism\u201d - have continued apace and have outstripped the number of people returned to liberty following implementation of presidential amnesty decrees in 2001 and 2002. As of September 25, 2003, Human Rights Watch had analyzed and entered the cases of 1,229 independent Muslims into its database of religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. The cases of about 150 additional individuals convicted on charges related to religious activity, belief, or affiliation remained to be examined and entered into the database. Researchers from the Russian rights group Memorial have documented the cases of 1,967 independent Muslims.\nWhile the campaign was carried out by law enforcement agents nationwide, it appeared that the arrests of independent Muslims occurred on a most massive scale in the capital city Tashkent and certain cities in "}
+{"target": "Western Europe", "prompt": "13.  On 3 March 2012 the Ny\u00edrb\u00e1tor District Court again prolonged the applicants\u2019 detention, holding that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would hinder or delay the implementation of the expulsion order. Having heard the applicants, the court held as follows:\n\u201cThe expulsion order cannot be considered unenforceable on the ground that the asylum procedure has not been concluded. Under section 51(2) of the Immigration Act, a first asylum application has suspensive effect on the enforcement of the expulsion order, although this does not mean that the expulsion order is not enforceable. Unenforceability refers to a permanent state and not to a temporary period such as the term of the asylum procedure.\n...\nUnder section 54(6) of the Immigration Act (Act no. II of 2007), detention ordered under the immigration laws shall be terminated if (a) the expulsion or transfer has become viable; (b) when it becomes evident that the expulsion or transfer cannot be executed; or (c) the detention has exceeded six ... months.\nNone of the reasons for the termination [of the detention] listed in the above-cited paragraph exists. The expulsion or transfer is [actually] not viable because of the pending asylum application; furthermore, there will be [at last] no reason preventing the execution of the expulsion or transfer if the foreign national [eventually] receives no protection in the asylum procedure, since the procedure has failed to prove that Serbia is no safe third country, [and Serbia], according to the information provided by the immigration authority, is ready to re-admit the foreign national pursuant to the Agreement between Serbia and the European Union. Lastly, the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the detention is less than six or twelve months ...\nOn the basis of the information available to the court, the foreign national, according to his statement made during the first interview, intended to travel to "}
+{"target": "Peloponnese", "prompt": "5.  The applicants, Bangladeshi migrants living in Greece without a work permit, were recruited on different dates between October 2012 and February 2013 in Athens and other places, to work on the region\u2019s biggest strawberry farm, at Manolada, a village of two thousand inhabitants in the regional district of Elis, in the western part of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "68.  The applicant submitted three bailiff's reports on the eviction of the police units dated 30 July 2001 (see paragraph 43 above). The reports were drawn up in respect of the applicant's house, his brother's house and the industrial equipment and "}
+{"target": "Caucasus", "prompt": "54.  It went on to state that \u201cby publishing and disseminating the Radikalnaya Politika newsletter [the applicant had] wilfully acted with a view to stirring up enmity and conflict, including armed conflict, on national, racial and religious grounds between citizens living in the European and Asian parts of the country and people living in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "47.  The Government further submitted a report of 16 September 2003 by the same officer, who informed that on the same day the applicants had dismissed his offer to drive them to their former place of residence. The documents also contained a copy of a universal power of attorney dated 16 September 2003 and certified by a notary public in her "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy district", "prompt": "8.  In December 2000 the city of Grozny was under curfew. The applicants and Mayrudin Khantiyev lived in the same five-storey block of flats at no. 269 Ugolnaya Street in Grozny (\u201chouse no. 269\u201d). The flat of Mayrudin Khantiyev's family was on the ground floor; his parents' flat was on the first floor. Two guard posts of the Russian military forces were stationed on the roof of house no. 269 on a permanent basis, the soldiers having constructed a shelter there. The building was situated about fifty metres from the military commander's office of "}
+{"target": "Dniester", "prompt": "19.  In 1991-92 a number of 14th Army military units joined the Transdniestrian separatists. In the Ila\u015fcu judgment the Court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that Transdniestrian separatists were able, with the assistance of 14th Army personnel, to arm themselves with weapons taken from the stores of the 14th Army stationed in Transdniestria. In addition, large numbers of Russian nationals from outside the region, particularly Cossacks, went to Transdniestria to fight with the separatists against the Moldovan forces. Given the support provided to the separatists by the troops of the 14th Army and the massive transfer to them of arms and ammunition from the 14th Army\u2019s stores, the Moldovan army was in a position of inferiority that prevented it from regaining control of Transdniestria. On 1 April 1992 the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Boris Yeltsin, officially transferred the 14th Army to Russian command, and it thereafter became the \u201cRussian Operational Group in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova\u201d or \u201cROG\u201d. On 2 April 1992 General Netkachev, the new Commander of the ROG ordered the Moldovan forces which had encircled the town of Tighina (Bender), held by the separatists, to withdraw immediately, failing which the Russian army would take counter-measures. In May the ROG launched attacks against the Moldovan forces, driving them out of some villages from the left bank of the "}
+{"target": "Anatolia", "prompt": "29.  The articles also emphasized that the Government\u2019s public declarations, which appeared to allow displaced villagers to return to their villages, were unreliable. Whenever villagers had attempted to do so, they were physically denied access to their villages.\n(d)  The report of 14 January 1998 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly\u2019s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken in order to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east "}
+{"target": "Kentron", "prompt": "7.  On 10 October 2002, as compensation for the applicant\u2019s kiosk, the Mayor of Yerevan adopted decision no. 1785-A, granting her the right to lease a plot of public land of 5 sq. m. at a specified address in the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "19.  The relatives of the two abducted men chased the UAZ vehicles in a car. At some point Mr S., a serviceman of the military commander's office, managed to stop their car and told them not to follow the vehicles because they might be shot. Mr S. added that the UAZ vehicles belonged to the department of the interior of "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martan", "prompt": "44.  On 1 May 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 was instructed to verify the following information: whether federal troops had carried out a special operation in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004; whether they had arrested Luiza Mutayeva, and whether the military units stationed in the "}
+{"target": "the Balkan States", "prompt": "40.  According to the applicants in the present case, Russia accounted for 18% of the \u201cMRT\u201d\u2018s exports and 43.7% of its imports, primarily energy. The \u201cMRT\u201d paid for less than 5% of the gas it had consumed. For example, in 2011 Transdniestria consumed USD 505 million worth of gas, but paid for only 4% (USD 20 million). The Russian Government explained that since the \u201cMRT\u201d was not recognised as a separate entity under international law, it could not have its own sovereign debts and Russia did not effect separate gas supplies for Moldova and Transdniestria. The bill for supplying gas to Transdniestria was, therefore, attributed to Moldova. The supply of gas to the region was organised through the Russian public corporation Gazprom and the joint stock company Moldovagaz, which was owned jointly by Moldova and the \u201cMRT\u201d. The debt owed by Moldovagaz to Russia exceeded USD 1.8 billion, of which USD 1.5 billion related to gas consumed in Transdniestria. Gazprom could not simply refuse to supply gas to the region, since it needed pipelines through Moldova to supply "}
+{"target": "Zangelan", "prompt": "59.  In 1993 the United Nations Security Council adopted the following four Resolutions relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.\n \nResolution 822 (1993), 30 April 1993, S/RES/822 (1993)\n\u201cThe Security Council,\n...\nNoting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces,\n... 1.  Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan,\n...\u201d\nResolution 853 (1993), 29 July 1993, S/RES/853 (1993)\n\u201cThe Security Council,\n...\nExpressing its serious concern at the deterioration of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic and at the tensions between them,\n...\nNoting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular, the seizure of the district of Agdam in the Azerbaijani Republic,\n... 3.  Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and other recently occupied districts of the Azerbaijani Republic;\n... 9.  Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposals of the Minsk Group of the [OSCE];\n...\u201d\nResolution 874 (1993), 14 October 1993, S/RES/874 (1993)\n\u201cThe Security Council,\n...\nExpressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic, and of the tensions between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic, would endanger peace and security in the region,\n... 5.  Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the [OSCE] Minsk Group\u2019s \u2018Adjusted timetable\u2019, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communication and transportation;\n...\u201d\nResolution 884 (1993), 12 November 1993, S/RES/884 (1993)\n\u201cThe Security Council,\n...\nNoting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities as [a] consequence of the violations of the cease-fire and excesses in the use of force in response to those violations, in particular the occupation of the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "17.  According to the applicant\u2019s brother-in-law and his wife, the men who raided their house were members of the federal forces, since they spoke Russian without an accent and had military vehicles at their disposal. The applicant also submitted an eye-witness statement by a neighbour of her brother-in-law, who had confirmed that he had seen Russian servicemen in a \u201cUral\u201d military vehicle not far from the house of the Bersunkayev family on the night of the incident, and that he had subsequently mentioned this fact during his interview at the "}
+{"target": "Okusha", "prompt": "20.  In 1997 the local forest authority brought an action for rei vindicatio against the applicants, claiming that they had unlawfully entered into possession of State forest land. The claim concerned plots covering 25.6 ha, including the plots of 14 ha in the "}
+{"target": "Dundas", "prompt": "12.  On 6 August 2001 the applicants and other Greenpeace activists arrived off the coast of the Dundas peninsula by a vessel called the M/V Arctic Sunrise. Some of the activists went ashore at the beach of "}
+{"target": "Central Sudan", "prompt": "18.  On 27 August 2012 the applicant\u2019s representative asked the FOM for access to the transcript of the Lingua analysis. By letter of 3 September 2012 it informed the representative that the applicant could listen to the interview conducted by the expert at its offices, but that the transcript contained some confidential information so could not be provided in full. The following details could be disclosed. The expert who had carried out the analysis originated from "}
+{"target": "South America", "prompt": "5.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of four tenements in Malta. Before the Court he produced a statement made on 19 July 2006 by a notary public, which reads as follows:\n\u201cI the undersigned Dr. Paul Pullicino, Notary Public, do hereby certify that in virtue of a secret will made on the 4th day of October, 1966, by Charles Edwards, and published by me on the 9th November, 1996, Major Joseph John Edwards [the applicant] was nominated and appointed by his father, the late Mr Charles Edwards as his sole universal heir and Testamentary Executor of his estate to whom he bequeathed 21/25ths undivided parts of tenements situated at numbers 96 to 100 Tonna Street, Sliema, - of which 2/25ths had been inherited by his wife from her late brother Sir Augustus Bartolo and the further 16/25ths purchased by him from her brother's family in the mid 1950's \u2013 all of which were owned in common with the remaining 4/25ths undivided and equal parts owned by four further members of the Bartolo family residing somewhere in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "16.  By a decision of 6 July 2007, filed with the court registry on 9 July 2007, the Bologna Youth Court refused the application for return. It noted that divorce and custody proceedings were still pending in Romania; that M. had claimed that she and the child had lived in Italy since 2006; and that since June 2006 A. had been known to the Infant Neuropsychiatric Services (\u201cNPI\u201d) of the Parma Local Health Agency (\u201cAUSL\u201d). Moreover, it noted that M. had claimed to have had the required permission from her husband to keep the child in Italy in accordance with a notarial deed of 2005 and that the applicant had contested this on the basis that he had only given permission for A. to travel to Italy for tourist purposes, and that, albeit he had moved to Qatar in 2006, he wanted the child to be with him. In that light, the court considered that there were no grounds for returning A. and that, in view of the relevant international law, it could not be held that the mother had arbitrarily taken A. away from his father as legitimate custodian of the child. The Bologna Youth Court noted that the Romanian authorities had not yet taken a decision on custody, thus the parents had joint custody, and therefore the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights. Moreover, the applicant had consented to A.\u2019s transfer to Italy and had eventually moved to Qatar. Furthermore, the Bologna Youth Court observed that the child had been in Italy for more than a year and was integrated into Italian society, albeit with some problems. In this light, the court considered that psychological harm would ensue as a result of his return. Thus it was not obliged, according to Article 13 of the Hague Convention, to order his return. Indeed, from the social services report ordered by the court, it appeared that A. had arrived at the NPI\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Vilnius Region", "prompt": "12.  On 25 September 2000 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter \u201cthe VCA\u201d) approved the land allocation plan (\u017eem\u0117s reformos \u017eem\u0117tvarkos projektas) for the Buivydi\u0161k\u0117s cadastral area (this area comprised several villages in "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "12.  In application no. 41463/12, the European Union for Progressive Judaism is a religious association with its registered office in London. It acts as an umbrella organisation for progressive Jewish congregations in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "41.  On various dates in June 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to a number of detention centres in Chechnya and other regions of the Russian Federation, asking whether the applicant\u2019s son had been detained on their "}
+{"target": "Shatoy", "prompt": "123.  On the same date, 27 July 2002, the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated, in particular, that a few days after the abduction she had seen the abductors\u2019 UAZ vehicle entering the premises of the "}
+{"target": "SIZO-1", "prompt": "32.  According to the applicant, he was beaten by the investigating officers immediately after his arrest and was ill-treated on several occasions thereafter. He also alleged that on an unspecified date in 2000 during his detention in "}
+{"target": "Vedeno", "prompt": "62.  According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators requested information, inter alia, about special operations conducted in the area between 1 and 5 February 2003 and officers who had served in the "}
+{"target": "Staropromyslovskiy", "prompt": "74.  In May and June 2002 the military prosecutor in Budennovsk, Stavropol region, reviewed the operation reports, orders and log book of the 205th motor rifle brigade (205 \u043e\u043c\u0441\u0431\u0440) for the period between December 1999 and February 2000 and concluded that they contained no information relevant to the investigation of the criminal case. Two officers of that military unit stated that their unit had been engaged in the "}
+{"target": "Andijan", "prompt": "79.  In the report of 11 May 2006, entitled \u201cUzbekistan: Andijan \u2013 impunity must not prevail\u201d, Amnesty International claimed:\n\u201cScores of people suspected of involvement in the Andijan events have been sentenced to long terms, in vast majority in closed secret trials, in violation of international fair trial standards. Most had been held incommunicado for several months in pre-trial detention...\nThe Uzbek authorities have also continued to actively \u2013 and often successfully \u2013 seek the extradition of members or suspected members of banned Islamic parties or movements, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Akramia, whom they accuse of participation in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "21.  On 14 August 2000 the applicants learned that two more detainees, Yusup Satabayev (Satabayeva v. Russia, application no. 21486/06) and Ch., had gone missing from the Urus-Martan VOVD at the same time as Kazbek Vakhayev. Yusup Satabayev had been in detention since 23 February 2000 on suspicion of involvement in illegal paramilitary groups; from the beginning of August he had been held in the Urus-Martan VOVD. According to the applicants, Ch. had been arrested during the sweeping operation on the "}
+{"target": "Cyprus", "prompt": "16.  On 18 January 1995 the applicant was visited at the school of Ayia Triada by representatives of Doctors of the World, to whom she showed the bruises she had on her legs, hands and head. In its relevant parts, the report of Doctors of the World reads as follows:\n\u201cAlthough [Eleni Foka] knew we were coming and had agreed to meet us, nevertheless when she first saw us she became very nervous. Her respiration increased, and she seemed to have trouble breathing. We reassured her that we had come from ... Doctors of the World but it still took her about 10 minutes to be able to speak normally. The first thing she did, somewhat frantically, was to show us the bruises up and down her legs which she received, she says, as a result of being beaten by the police. At the time of our visit, she said the beating had occurred over one week ago. She also said the police were from the neighbouring town of Jalousa, only two kilometres away from Sipahi. She claims that the reason she was beaten is that she had tried to bring across the border some textbooks for the children and some religious crosses, after having visited relatives [on] the Greek side of "}
+{"target": "Transdniestrian", "prompt": "20.  In Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, \u00a7\u00a7 64-73, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) the Court summarised the content of various reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations concerning the situation in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "13.  According to four affidavits, the first of which was drawn up by Mr Hristo Evtimov and Ms Lilia Evtimova, and the rest by witnesses asked by the applicants to describe the situation, the club had forty\u2011six computers and two vending machines. It was open twenty\u2011four hours a day, seven days a week. The services it offered were chiefly computer gaming and Internet surfing. The club\u2019s clients, mostly teenagers and young adults, often gathered in front of the building, chatting loudly and shouting, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes and allegedly even narcotic drugs. They would often break the door of the building and enter the passageway, where they drank and smoked. The noise and the vibrations generated by them, both while inside the club and while entering or leaving the "}
+{"target": "the Southern Orekhovo-Borisovo District", "prompt": "11.  The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation in 2004 and worked on a market in Moscow. On 4 October 2006 the market was raided by a special unit of the police and the applicant, together with around twenty other Georgian nationals, was arrested. The applicant was brought to the Department of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "Eastern Mediterranean", "prompt": "91.  The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights visited Cyprus in June 2003 and in his subsequent report of 12 February 2004, he referred to issues in Cyprus regarding trafficking of women. The report noted, inter alia, that:\n\u201c29. It is not at all difficult to understand how Cyprus, given its remarkable economic and tourist development, has come to be a major destination for this traffic in the "}
+{"target": "Pelendri", "prompt": "8.  On 25 July 1997 a notice of compulsory acquisition of the applicant's property was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus (administrative act no. 908). The compulsory acquisition was for the purpose of the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of a public road. The notice stated as follows:\n\u201cNotification is hereby given that the immovable property described in the Schedule set out below is essential for the following purpose of public benefit, namely for the creation and development of roads in the Republic and its compulsory acquisition is imperative for the following reasons, namely the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of the road.\u201d\nOn the same day a requisition order was issued under the Requisition of Property Law of 1962 (as amended) and published in the Official Gazette (no. 930):\n\u201cBecause the immovable property described in the Schedule set out below ... is essential for the following purposes of public benefit, namely for the creation and development of public roads in the Republic or for any of these purposes and its requisition is imperative for the following reasons, namely the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of the "}
+{"target": "the Staropromyslovskiy District of", "prompt": "54.  On 9 July 2004 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unsubstantiated and premature and ordered the investigators to resume it and take a number of steps, such as identifying the servicemen from military unit no. 3737 who had participated in the military operation in "}
+{"target": "Makhkety", "prompt": "27.  On 14 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no. 24012. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:\n\u201c...on 4 February 2003, during a special operation in "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "56.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant gave detailed submissions to an investigator from the Ingushetia prosecutor's office relating the arrest and detention of his brother, as described above. In addition, he submitted that on 3 April 1999 his brother had told him in great detail what had happened on the night of 24 to 25 February 1999 and named other persons who had been detained with him and questioned by the relatives of Magomed K. He also allegedly told him that he had been taken to several detention centres in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "23.  Against this background, the High Court concluded that the City Court\u2019s procedure had suffered from no defects. Its decision of 22 July 2011 had been based on a correct approach to the handling of the material gathered at the applicant\u2019s "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "106.  Between September 2009 and September 2010 the investigators asked various district investigations departments, the various police departments in Chechnya, detention centres and hospitals in the North Caucasus and the nearby regions of southern Russia whether they had discovered or stored the body of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov, whether they had initiated any criminal proceedings against him and whether he had been arrested by their officers or detained on their "}
+{"target": "Narimanov", "prompt": "20.  The applicant was arrested at around noon on 27 September 2008. The relevant part of the official record of the applicant\u2019s arrest (cinay\u0259t t\u00f6r\u0259tmi\u015f \u015f\u0259xsin tutulmas\u0131 bar\u0259d\u0259 protokol) of 27 September 2008 reads as follows:\n\u201c... At around noon on 27 September 2008, Nagiyev Asif Najaf oglu [the applicant], whose identity was established later, born on ... and in ... was arrested in the district of "}
+{"target": "the Severo-Evensk District", "prompt": "11.  On 7 July 2006 the Magadan Regional Police Department conducted an inquiry in response to the Government's request in connection with the present application pending at the time before the Court. In particular, Colonel S. in charge of the inquiry stated the following in his report:\n\u201cThe inquiry confirms the truthfulness of the [applicant's] allegations about the lack of proper living conditions in the temporary detention facility at the [police station] in "}
+{"target": "Suvorivskyy", "prompt": "10.  According to the applicant, he was seriously ill-treated after his arrest and his account of subsequent events is as follows. In his application form he submitted that once the police had seen him regain consciousness, at about 5 a.m., they had taken him to the "}
+{"target": "the North Caucasus Region", "prompt": "58.  On 28 May 2007 the district prosecutor's office granted the fourth applicant's complaint in the part concerning requests for information but refused to resume the investigation. The decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201cAt about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 in the course of the operation carried out by the special unit in the village of Duba-Yurt of the Shali District of the Chechen Republic unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrested Mr Abdurzakov, Mr Dudayev, Mr Tatayev and Mr Vakayev and then drove them away in two APCs and a UAZ vehicle to an unknown destination.\n...\nHaving examined [the fourth applicant's] request, the investigative authorities have reached the conclusion that it should be granted in the part regarding the sending of requests to the Altay Region and to the Prosecutor's Office of the United Group Alignment, as well as the sending of a request for the establishment of the identity of the serviceman of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "30.  On 23 January 2004 the head of the ROVD informed the applicant that they had opened an operational-search file for the search for her son and that they had sent an unspecified number of requests for information to law-enforcement agencies in "}
+{"target": "Hindu Kush", "prompt": "28.  Following his force-feeding, the applicant became extremely ill and suffered very severe pain. A doctor visited his cell in the middle of the night and administered medication, but he remained bedridden for several days. Around that time, the applicant felt what he believed to be a minor earthquake. In this connection, the applicant submitted the \u201cList of significant earthquakes of the world in 2004\u201d, issued by the US Geological Survey on 6 October 2005. According to this document, there was one earthquake on 5 April 2004 in the "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova[1], born in 1953;\n2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940;\n3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924;\n4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva[2], born in 1929;\n5) Mr Alikhan Shirvanovich Israilov[3], born in 1976;\n6) Ms Petimat Shirvanovna Israilova, born in 1975;\n7) Mr Magomed Shirvaniyevich Israilov [4], born in 1993;\n8) Ms Roza Abdulkhamidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1951;\n9) Ms Fatima Saidselimovna Ismailova, born in 1970;\n10) Ms Aminat Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 2000;\n11) Ms Iman Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 1995;\n12) Mr Magomed-Khasan Adlanovich Dovtayev, born in 1993;\n13) Mr Aslan Dzhunaidovich Dovtayev[5];\n14) Ms Roza Dzhunidovna Aydamirova[6], born in 1963;\n15) Ms Raisa Dzhunaidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1965; and\n16) Ms Madina Dzhunidovna Talkhigova[7], born in 1979.\nThe applicants live in the villages of Gekhi and Kulary, in "}
+{"target": "the Bryansk Region", "prompt": "49.  In a letter of 18 August 2005 the applicant informed his counsel that the administration of remand prison IZ-32/1 was aware of the contents of the written statements he had addressed to the Deputy Prosecutor of "}
+{"target": "North Caucasus", "prompt": "65.  The investigation requested information on Ruslan Kasumov\u2019s abduction from various law enforcement agencies. The branches of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutors\u2019 offices of different districts and towns of the Chechen Republic replied that they had not arrested Ruslan Kasumov and that no special operations had been carried out in the village of Pervomayskaya on the night of 3 February 2003. Ruslan Kasumov had not been kept in any remand prisons or temporary detention facilities in the "}
+{"target": "Sizo", "prompt": "64.  The relevant parts of the report of the CPT on its visit to Moldova between 27 and 30 November 2000 (CPT/Inf (2002) 35) read as follows.\n\u201c40.  At the outset of the visit, the authorities of the Transnistrian region provided the delegation with detailed information on the five penitentiary establishments currently in service in the region.\nIn the time available, the delegation was not in a position to make a thorough examination of the whole of the penitentiary system. However, it was able to make an assessment of the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in Prison No. 1, at Glinoe, Colony No. 2, at Tiraspol, and the SIZO (i.e. pre-trial) section of Colony No. 3, again at Tiraspol. 41.  As the authorities are certainly already aware, the situation in the establishments visited by the delegation leaves a great deal to be desired, in particular in Prison No. 1. The CPT will examine various specific areas of concern in subsequent sections of this report. However, at the outset, the Committee wishes to highlight what is perhaps the principal obstacle to progress, namely the high number of persons who are imprisoned and the resultant overcrowding. 42.  According to the information provided by the authorities, there are approximately 3,500 prisoners in the region\u2019s penitentiary establishments i.e. an incarceration rate of some 450 persons per 100,000 of the population. The number of inmates in the three establishments visited was within or, in the case of Prison No 1, just slightly over their official capacities. Nevertheless, the delegation found that in fact the establishments were severely overcrowded.\nThe situation was at its most serious in Prison No 1. The cells for pre-trial prisoners offered rarely more \u2013 and sometimes less \u2013 than 1 m\u00b2 of living space per prisoner, and the number of prisoners often exceeded the number of beds. These deplorable conditions were frequently made worse by poor ventilation, insufficient access to natural light and inadequate sanitary facilities. Similar, albeit slightly better, conditions were also observed in the "}
+{"target": "Svajoni\u0173 street", "prompt": "9.  On 12 February 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision and granted the applicant\u2019s action. On the basis of topographic plans provided by the local authorities the court found that the disputed plot of land was situated adjacent to the buildings that belonged to the applicant. The court noted that the documents concerning the return in natura of that plot had been prepared before the Government ruling no. 239 was adopted. Nevertheless, that ruling merely noted that 13,990 hectares of land constituted forests of national importance; the boundaries of those plots had not been marked. For the appellate court, there were no factual data to support the claim that the disputed 0.33 hectares of land were in a forest of national importance. The court also noted that by a letter of 23 March 2001 the Vilnius local authority had confirmed that the boundaries of forests of national importance in Valakupiai neighbourhood had not [yet] been established. Lastly, and as it had been confirmed by the Vilnius local authority, there were no other obstacles to return the plot in natura.\nThe appellate court thus ordered the Vilnius local authority to restore the applicant\u2019s rights to \u201cthe 0.33 hectares of land adjacent to the house no. 43 in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "78.  In a letter of 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the United Group Alignment confirmed, in reply to Mr Khamzayev\u2019s complaint of 20 April 2004, that the criminal proceedings concerning the attack of 19 October 1999 on "}
+{"target": "the Moscow North-Western District", "prompt": "18.  In response to one of the complaints of the applicant\u2019s parents\u2019, on 8 December 2000 a prosecutor from the Feodosiya Prosecutor\u2019s office initiated administrative proceedings regarding the events of 3 November 2000 against the Ukrainian officials involved. The decision stated that:\n\u201c... On 3 November 2000 police officers from the Moscow department of criminal investigations arrived at the town of Feodosiya with a warrant to carry out a search at [the applicant\u2019s home address], this decision having been authorised by [a] prosecutor from "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "37.  On 6 August 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court (\u201cthe town court\u201d) examined the first applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the suspension of the investigation into her son\u2019s kidnapping. It noted that the investigators had taken certain measures to resolve the crime. In particular, they had questioned witnesses and sent requests to law-enforcement agencies. The department of the Federal Security Service of the Urus-Martan District, the military commander\u2019s office, the department of the interior and some other law-enforcement agencies had replied that their officers had not detained Adnan Akhmadov. The investigators had tried to establish which State agency had owned an armoured intelligence vehicle (\u201cAIV\u201d, \u00ab\u0431\u043e\u0435\u0432\u0430\u044f \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0434\u044b\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e-\u0434\u043e\u0437\u043e\u0440\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043c\u0430\u0448\u0438\u043d\u0430\u00bb, \u0411\u0420\u0414\u041c) and a Ural vehicle. Nevertheless, the town court found that the investigators had not taken all the measures indicated by the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Chechen Republic in a decision of 13 April 2004. In particular, they had not questioned the former head of the district department of the FSB and the former military commander of "}
+{"target": "Black Sea", "prompt": "7.  On 30 June 1993 a private company owned and represented by the applicant bought a campsite by public auction from Federal Coop Tulcea, a State-owned company. The campsite was located in the village of Jurilovca on the "}
+{"target": "the Far-Northern Region", "prompt": "5.  On 11 July 2003 the Neryungri Town Court accepted the applicant's claim against the Government of the Russian Federation and awarded her 72,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,110 euros) in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide her with a car in exchange for payments extracted from the applicant's salary and benefits related to her employment in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "15.  On an unspecified date in July 2011 the applicant\u2019s wife, Ms L. Dzh., and the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Ms E.A., went to Yalkhoy-Mokhk and spoke with local residents. They were told that there was a building belonging to the Kurchaloy ROVD on the southern outskirts of the village. When the applicant\u2019s relatives went there, they saw that the building did not have any signs indicating that it belonged to the ROVD; it was surrounded by a brick fence with a barrier gate. A man in police uniform came out and identified himself as the duty officer of the village police department. The women asked him about Tamerlan. The officer told them that he had no information about their relative and that they did not have detention cells on the "}
+{"target": "the Elbrusskiy district", "prompt": "53.  Between 10 and 14 December 2004 the investigators questioned the UBOP officers M.G. and Z.Sh., both of whom gave similar statements to the effect that at the end of September 2004 they had been asked by relatives and friends of Rasul Tsakoyev\u2019s about his possible whereabouts on their unit\u2019s premises. They had checked some offices, but had not found him. In addition, they stated that at the material time officer K., like a number of other officers, had work in "}
+{"target": "Northern Iraq", "prompt": "74.  The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 5 May 2009 which the Civil Registry and Migration Department had addressed to the applicant, informing him that following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority and the expiry of his temporary residence permit, he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 78.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claims that on 20 March 2005, while he was serving in the Syrian army, he was arrested and taken into detention by the Syrian authorities along with other Kurds because of Nowruz (the Iranian New Year, Nowruz or Newroz marks the first day of spring or Equinox and the beginning of the year in the Persian calendar). He was tortured for ten days along with his co-detainees. They were put into a car tyre and were subjected to bastinado. They were accused of conspiring against the State. Military proceedings were brought against him but after completion of his military service the charges were dropped. During this time the military police collected information on him and his friends and he was entered on a database as a dangerous individual. He was arrested again on 21 March 2006 because he attended the Nowruz celebrations and was a member of Yekiti party. He was detained for a week and was released after bribing the District Officer. He was then re-arrested on 15 August 2006 at his house after attending a Yekiti party meeting. He was released after bribing the same official. He then decided to leave Syria and managed to obtain a Turkish visa after bribing a Syrian security official working at the Turkish embassy. 80.  He applied for asylum on 25 August 2006. He claimed that he had left Syria because as a Kurd he had been subjected to discrimination. Kurds were persecuted and did not enjoy any rights. He had therefore left for fear of his life. 81.  The Asylum Service held an interview with him on 27 February 2009. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that he was a follower/supporter of the Yekiti Party, he had left Syria due to the injustice that Kurds suffered, and in particular, although he had a passport he had no other rights and he could not buy a house or land or work. He claimed that he was known to the Syrian authorities and he had been taken at the police station and beaten up on several occasions. He had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions. In particular, in 2005 he had been arrested and detained for four or five days for participating in the Nowruz festivities. He had been arrested on another occasion for problems he had in the army. In May 2006 he was detained for a week and in August 2006 for four days. The latter two times he had been released after paying a sum of money. He also stated that he was not wanted by the authorities and no other member of his family had ever been arrested. He claimed that he feared arrest if returned to Syria. 82.  Subsequently, the Asylum Service called the applicant for a second interview and asked him to provide any documents he had concerning his application. The second interview was held on 10 April 2009. In this the applicant claimed, inter alia, that certain members of his family worked and that although the job market was not good, he would be able to work if he managed to find something. The applicant stated that he had been arrested on 20/21 March 2005 when he was in the army following a dispute with another soldier on 21 March 2006 for participating in the Nowruz festivities, and on 25 May 2006 and 2 August 2008 when demonstrations took place even though he was not involved. He was not, however, wanted by the authorities nor did he have any problems by reason of the fact that he was a follower of the Yekiti party. 83.  His application was dismissed on 13 May 2009 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated. In particular, the Asylum Service pointed out that during his interview he had claimed that he had left Syria for two reasons: because of his Kurdish origin he could not work and buy a house or land and secondly due to his arrests by the Syrian authorities. With regard to the first claim, they noted that he had not substantiated that he had been subjected to any form of discrimination due to his origin. As regards the arrests the applicant\u2019s allegations remained unfounded as he had not given any specific answers to questions that had been put to him. Furthermore, during the interview the Asylum Service had spotted a number of significant untruths/falsehoods concerning his claim. 86.  The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been subjected to persecution and had claimed that he was not wanted by the Syrian authorities. In its decision it observed that the applicant\u2019s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated. Although he claimed that he could not buy a house or land, he then stated that his parents owned a house which they lived in. Further, although he initially claimed that he could not work due to the fact that he was Kurdish he then stated that his family worked and he also was able to. The information he gave concerning his arrest and reasons was equally general and vague. He was not in a position to give specific replies to questions given concerning these matters. The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions and give information concerning his claims. 87.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 88.  The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so and at that time no legal aid was granted in such cases. 90.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that he and his family are members of the Azadi Kurdish party in Syria which was banned by the authorities. In early September 2006 the applicant was driving his motorbike in his village carrying Azadi party papers. The civil police in Aleppo ordered him to stop but he fled as he was scared that they would find the papers. The police pursued him but he managed to escape. The next day the police went to his house. The same day he got a visa on his passport. 93.  The Asylum Service, however, discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on 3 April 2009 by virtue of section 16A (1) (c) of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 236 below) as the applicant had not come to the interview which had been fixed for 27 March 2009 despite having received the letter requesting him to attend. It was noted in the file that the letter had been sent to him by double registered mail and there was indication he had received it. It was also noted that the applicant, on 19 March 2009, had confirmed on the telephone after receiving a call by the Asylum Service that he would come to the interview. Despite this he had not shown up. Lastly, there was no indication that the applicant had departed from the country. 95.  The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview and that he had not received notification of the decision of the Asylum Service to close his file. He was subsequently informed of the closure of his file but he did not appeal against the decision as he did not know the procedure to follow and the steps to take so he could appeal against it. He was also scared to approach the authorities. 96.  In the copies of the records of the Civil Registry and Migration Department it was noted on 3 March 2010 that in accordance with the instructions of the Minister of the Interior given on 9 February 2010, if the applicant was traced, the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him. Deportation should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities. 99. In his application form to the Court the applicant stated that on 13 March 2004 he participated in a demonstration in his village concerning the Qamishli uprising. He had a camera and was taking photographs of the event when the civil police arrested him. He was blindfolded, placed in a police vehicle and transferred to the central detention centre of the village. There he was continuously tortured and ill-treated for one month. After his release, he was obliged to report to the police every two days. On 2 January 2005, nine months after his release, the applicant decided to leave Syria as he was no longer able to handle the feeling of insecurity. He applied to get a passport from the authorities but this was refused. He succeeded in getting one after bribing officials. 103.  His application was dismissed on 8 July 2008 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It noted that no form of discrimination or persecution transpired from the applicant\u2019s claims. There had been discrepancies between his application and the allegations made during his interview, which undermined his credibility. It held that the applicant\u2019s claims and his alleged fear of persecution on return to Syria were not credible. 106.  The Reviewing Authority noted that there were serious discrepancies between what he stated in his asylum application form and during his interview. For example, in his application he stated that he had left Syria because he was Kurdish and he had problems with the Syrian authorities. During the interview he had alleged that he had not left Syria for political reasons but because his family had reached an agreement with another family to marry against his wishes. The applicant had also claimed that he had to move about in the country in order to avoid being caught by the authorities but then stated that he did not face any serious problems. Further, he initially claimed during the interview that even though he had signed his application form he did not know the contents as this had been filled in by another person. He subsequently, stated, however, that the contents were of a political nature and that he had told the person filling in the form to write whatever he wanted. This undermined the applicant\u2019s credibility. 107.  The Reviewing Authority concluded that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. The letter of notification addressed to the applicant by the Reviewing Authority dated 29 September 2008 stated that its decision was subject to adjudication before the Supreme Court within seventy-five days from the date he was informed of the decision. 108.  The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against the Reviewing Authority\u2019s decision as he did not know he had the right to do so. 109.  The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 24 March 2009 which the Civil Registry and Migration Department had addressed to the applicant, informing him that following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority as well as the expiry of his temporary residence permit, he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 112.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that on 20 March 2007 he lit a fire with some friends to celebrate Nowruz. When the police came he managed to flee but his friends were arrested. He later found out from his family that the police were looking for him. He left Syria on 29 September 2007 through the border with Turkey after the taxi driver bribed the officials. 114.  He applied for asylum on 7 November 2007. He claimed that he had left Syria because he had participated in a demonstration concerning Kurdish rights and that for this reason he was sought after by the Syrian authorities. 115.  The Asylum Service held an interview with him on 4 November 2008. The applicant claimed, that following the demonstration the authorities had asked certain of the persons that had been arrested information about him. He had left Syria for this reason. He also claimed that if he returned to Syria he might not be allowed entry or he ran the risk of being arrested. Furthermore, he stated that he had never been detained, harassed or persecuted by the Syrian authorities and that he or his family did not belong to any, inter alia, political, religious or military group/organisation. 116.  His application was dismissed on 23 April 2009 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 and the 1951 Geneva Convention (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It observed that the applicant\u2019s allegations were general and vague. In particular, it noted that the applicant had failed to give any information/details about the demonstration he had allegedly participated in despite being asked during the interview. It concluded that his allegations had been unfounded and had not been credible. 119.  The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had admitted that he had not been subjected to any harassment or persecution. His allegations concerning his fears of arrest were vague and general. He was not in a position to specify when and which demonstration he had taken part despite being asked specific questions on this during the interview. Furthermore, he had been able to leave the country legally without any problems. There was no indication that the Syrian authorities were searching for him. 120.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 121.   The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as the Supreme Court dismissed all such cases. 123.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that when he was in the Syrian army he was detained for forty days on the basis of his ethnic identity. During that period he was subjected to ill-treatment such as standing still under the sun for long periods. There were also other Kurds detained with the applicant and they were all told that this was a preparation for what was going to happen to all the Kurds in the future. The applicant was also involved in cultural (folklore) activities of the Yekiti party. Participation in cultural groups such as dance, drama or folkloric groups that wear Kurdish traditional dress and participate in funerals or other social rites was considered by the authorities to be political and thus repressed. The Syrian government and authorities tended to politicise ordinary people who participated in these activities and therefore they ran a risk of being criminalised and exposed to persecution by the authorities. 128.  His application was dismissed on 8 August 2008 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 and the 1951 Geneva Convention (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It noted that the applicant, during the interview, had claimed that he had left Syria due to a long standing property dispute between his family and another family. Although the Asylum Service did not question the credibility of his allegations concerning the existence of this dispute as such it did not find the applicant\u2019s claims as to his involvement in this dispute credible and that his departure from Syria was justified on this ground. The statements made in his interview were contradictory and he had stated that his life was not in danger. Eventually, the applicant had admitted that he had left Syria for financial reasons and faced no danger if he returned. 131.  The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant\u2019s account of facts concerning the alleged family dispute were contradictory. Furthermore, in his asylum application form he had stated that he his life was not in danger and that he had left Syria lawfully and for financial reasons. It had also become clear during the interview that the applicant had not left Syria for the reasons he had initially claimed but for financial reasons; he could not find work with an adequate salary. He was therefore using the asylum procedure to extend his stay in Cyprus. New claims put forward by the applicant in his appeal that he was wanted by the Syrian authorities because he had taken part in the Nowruz celebrations and that had been detained for three months had not been substantiated and had not been raised by the applicant in his asylum application form or his interview with the Asylum Service. Lastly, the applicant had admitted that his life would not be in danger if he returned nor would he be punished. 132.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 134.  The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 30 July 2009 which the Civil Registry and Migration Department had addressed to the applicant, informing him that following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority, he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 136.  In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that on 20 March 2006 he and his mother lit a small fire to celebrate Nowruz. They also had the Kurdistan flag on their roof. The police raided their house during which they hit the applicant\u2019s mother. She fell and had a minor head injury. They arrested the applicant and put him in detention. There were no formal legal proceedings and the applicant was released after his family bribed the police. In 2007 he was arrested once again but was released with the help of his family who bribed the officers. He managed to obtain a passport through bribery and left Syria on 15 July 2007. 140.  His application was dismissed on 10 February 2009 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 and the 1951 Geneva Convention (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It noted that the applicant, during the interview, had claimed that he had left Syria because he had been persecuted by the Syrian authorities for being a member of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers Party, an illegal organisation). It held that the applicant\u2019s claims were not credible as he had not been able to reply satisfactorily to basic questions concerning the party. He was not therefore able to establish that his was a member of the party and therefore substantiate that this was the ground for which he was allegedly persecuted. 143.  The Reviewing Authority in its decision observed that the applicant\u2019s claims had not been credible and had been unsubstantiated. It noted that although the applicant claimed that he had been persecuted for being a member of the PKK and participating in activities and had fled for this reason, he was not able to give any information about the party. For example, he did not know who was the leader of the PKK, he was not able to draw the flag or to explain what the initials meant. Furthermore, he had a passport and had left the country legally without any problems. 144.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 146.  By a letter dated 26 January 2010 the Civil Registry and Migration Department asked the applicant, following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority, to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 149.  In his application form to the Court the applicant stated that he was a member of the banned Azadi Kurdish party. On 7 August 2003 he completed his military service and then went back to his village where he discovered that the Syrian authorities had changed the name of his village into an Arabic one. Along with four other persons they rewrote the original name over the Arabic one on the road signs. After this, the intelligence service detained two of his friends. The applicant and the others fled to Aleppo. From the two persons arrested, the one disappeared in the hands of the authorities and the second one was released after spending two years in detention and after disclosing the identities of the ones who managed to escape. After getting help from members of the Azadi party, the applicant managed to get a passport. 150.  The applicant left Syria on 23 September 2003 and came to Cyprus on 27 September 2003 with a tourist visa after travelling from Lebanon. 151.  He applied for asylum on 23 September 2004, about a year later. In his form he claimed that he had left Syria because of the inhuman treatment Kurds were subjected to and their difficult living conditions. 152.  The Asylum Service held an interview with him on 20 May 2008. During this he stated that he had left Syria because the Kurds had no rights and that a photograph had been taken of him during a demonstration of the Azadi party. He stated that he feared arrest and imprisonment upon his retrun. 153.  His application was dismissed on 30 May 2008 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service found that the asylum application had not been substantiated. It noted that there had been discrepancies in his account of the facts which undermined his credibility in so far as he claimed that he had taken part in a demonstration during which his photo had been taken by the Syrian authorities. Further, it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. 156.  The Reviewing Authority in its decision observed that the applicant in his application had claimed that he had left Syria because of the conditions of living and human rights violations of Kurds. In his interview he also claimed that he had left as the authorities had taken a photo of him during a demonstration of the Azadi party in 2001 and if he returned he would be imprisoned as this is normally the case. The applicant was not able to give a more specific time frame for the demonstration The Reviewing Authority noted that the applicant had not had any problems with the authorities following that demonstration. At the same time he had claimed that he worked on and off in Lebanon for a period of two years and occasionally returned to Syria without any problems. He alleged that only on one occasion did the authorities force him and some friends to break up a meeting for Nowruz. The applicant\u2019s account of facts and claims were full of discrepancies and unsubstantiated, undermining his credibility. 157.  In conclusion, the Reviewing Authority held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 158.  The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as the Supreme Court dismissed all such cases. 159.  It appears that the applicant\u2019s wife also applied for asylum. Her application was rejected on 24 July 2008 and her appeal on 25 September 2008. She was then asked, in a letter dated 23 June 2009 sent by the Civil Registry and Migration Department, to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 162.  In his application form to the Court the applicant stated that on 12 March 2004 during the events at the football match in Qamishli, he got scared and left the town. He went to his home village, Amer Capi, where he stayed for seven months. When the situation improved he returned to Qamishli. On 1 June 2005 the civil police killed a prominent Kurdish religious leader. During the demonstration at the mosque the police officers took pictures of the demonstrators and two days later went to the applicant\u2019s house searching for him. On 14 June 2005 the applicant left Syria. He travelled from Qamishli to Aleppo and then obtained a visa after bribing someone to issue a visa for Turkey. 166.  His application was dismissed on 23 October 2008 on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 and the 1951 Geneva Convention (see paragraph 20 above). The Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. It noted that the applicant, during the interview, had claimed that he had left Syria because he was wanted by the Syrian authorities for participating in an illegal demonstration. His allegations, however, were unfounded and not credible, as during the interview his account of facts was full of discrepancies, contradictions and untruths. Furthermore, there were discrepancies between his written application form and the allegations made during the interview. In particular, the grounds he gave in his interview for leaving Syria where not the same as those he had given in his application. This undermined his overall credibility. 167.  The applicant claims that he was not informed of the decision and in August 2009 he asked a non-governmental organisation to follow up his case. It was then that he discovered that his application had been dismissed. 168.  In the meantime it appears that his temporary residence permit granted to him on the ground that he was an asylum seeker expired. 170.  On 3 March 2010 his appeal was dismissed under Section 28 F (2) of the Refugee Law 2000-2009 (as amended up to 2009) on the ground that it had been filed out of time. The Reviewing Authority observed that the letter informing the applicant of the dismissal of his asylum application dated 23 October 2008 was served through a private messenger and that the delivery slip was signed by his fellow lodger. It noted that on 10 August 2009 a letter had been sent by a non-governmental organisation requesting information about the stage of proceedings of the applicant\u2019s application. A letter was sent dated 17 August 2009 informing the NGO that the applicant\u2019s claim had been examined, the decision had been sent to the applicant by registered post and according to the file it had been received. The appeal deadline was twenty days from the date the applicant was notified of the decision on the basis of section 28 F (2) of the Refugee Law (see paragraph 237 below). The appeal was filed on 9 December 2009, more than thirteen months following the date he had been notified of the decision. 171.  The Government submitted that a letter was sent on 19 March 2010 informing him of this decision by double registered mail to the address given by the applicant. The letter had been returned. They provided a copy of the receipt on which it was noted \u201cunclaimed\u201d. 173.  The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated 27 May 2010 which the Civil Registry and Migration Department had addressed to the applicant, informing him that following the negative decision of the Reviewing Authority he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus at once. 174.  On 17 May 2010 the Yekiti Party and other Kurds from Syria organised a demonstration in Nicosia, near the Representation of the European Commission, the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance and the Government Printing Office. They were protesting against the restrictive policies of the Cypriot Asylum Service in granting international protection. About 150 Kurds from Syria, including the applicants, remained in the area around the clock, having set up about eighty tents on the pavement. According to the Government, the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic. The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance. The protesters performed their daily chores on the pavement, including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions. The sewage pits had overflown, causing a nuisance and offensive odours. The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and, as a result, were continuously overflowing. Furthermore, the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from the Printing Office. Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities. The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave, but to no avail. As a result, the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area. 175.  On 28 May 2010 instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers in the normal way. According to the Government these instructions superseded the ones given by the Minister of the Interior on 9 February 2010 (see paragraphs 22, 43 and 96 above). 176.  On 31 May 2010 the Minister requested the Chief of Police, among others, to take action in order to implement his instructions. Further, he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have Ajanib or Maktoumeen status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters. The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest. 177.  According to the Government, letters were sent by the Civil Registry and Migration Department to a number of failed Syrian-Kurdish asylum-seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave Cyprus in view of their asylum applications being turned down (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, \u00a7 32, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). The letter sent to H.Sw. was dated 27 May 2010, in thirteen cases, including those of H.S., A.T., M.S, A. Hu, H.H. and M.Y the letters were dated 1 June 2010, in respect of AM, the letter was dated 9 June 2010 and in respect of M.K., the letter was dated 28 June 2010. Another letter was dated 16 June 2010 (the asylum procedures having been completed in early 2008) and one letter was dated 5 February 2011 in a case where the asylum procedure had been completed on 22 April 2010 and the person in question had voluntarily agreed and did return to Syria on 24 September 2010. Letters had been sent out to the remaining applicants much earlier (see paragraphs 42, 74, 109 and 134 above). 178.  From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from 31 May until 7 June 2010 the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the protesters\u2019 daily activities and of all comings and goings. In the relevant records it is noted that invariably, between 1.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m., things were, in general, quiet, and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard. During the above-mentioned period a large-scale operation was organised by the Police Emergency Response Unit, \u201cERU\u201d (\u201c\u039c\u039c\u0391\u0394\u201d), and a number of other authorities, including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ERU headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case-by-case basis. 179.  In the meantime, between 28 May 2010 and 2 June 2010 orders for the detention and deportation of forty-five failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks. These included applicants A.T., F.T. and H.H. in respect of whom the orders were issued on 2 June 2010 pursuant to section 14 (6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that they were \u201cprohibited immigrants\u201d within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of that Law. Letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person. This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service, the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority, where lodged, and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201cstop list\u201d (a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from Cyprus is banned or subject to monitoring). The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The Government submitted copies of two such letters with information concerning thirteen people. 180.  The letter that included information on F.T. and another four of the persons detained stated that they all appeared to lead the political group, YEKITI, which was active in Cyprus and that they organised demonstrations complaining about their rights in Cyprus. It was considered that if the opportunity was given to them to organise themselves they could constitute a future threat to the security of Cyprus. 181.  On 2 June 2010, letters were also prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them. These included applicants A.T.., F.T. and H.H. The Government submitted that, at the time, the authorities did not know whether the individuals concerned by the decisions were among the protesters. 182.  The removal operation was carried out on 11 June 2010, between approximately 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. with the participation of about 250 officers from the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, the ERU, the Nicosia District Police Division, the Traffic Division, the Fire Service and the Office for Combating Discrimination of the Cyprus Police Headquarters. The protesters, including the applicants, were led to buses, apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part. At 3.22 a.m. the mini buses carrying the male protesters left. The women, children and babies followed at 3.35 a.m. A total of 149 people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ERU headquarters: eighty-seven men, twenty-two women and forty children. Upon arrival, registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed the day before. The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by 6.40 a.m. the identification of approximately half of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by 4.30 p.m. The applicants do not contest the Government\u2019s account. 183.  It was ascertained that seventy-six of the adults, along with their thirty children, were in the Republic unlawfully. Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews. Those who had appealed to the Reviewing Authority had had their appeals dismissed. Some final decisions dated back to 2006. A number of people had also been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201cstop list\u201d. Deportation orders had already been issued for twenty-three of them (see paragraph 34 above). 184.  The authorities deported twenty-two people on the same day at around 6.30 p.m. (nineteen adults and three children). Forty-four people (forty-two men and two women), including the applicants, were arrested. Applicants A.T., F.T.. and H.H were detained under the deportation and detention orders that had been issued on 2 June 2010 (see paragraph 181 above). The remaining applicants were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the Republic under section 19(2) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see M.A., cited above, \u00a7 65). The applicants, along with the other detainees, were transferred to various detention centres in Cyprus. H.S., A.T., F.T., and M.S. were placed in the Limassol Police Station Detention Facility; A.M. in the Larnaca Police Station Detention facility; M.J. and H.Sw. in the Paphos Police station Detention facility; A.Hu., H.H., A.Ab., I.K. and M.Y. in the immigration detention facilities in the Nicosia Central Prisons (Block 10); M.K. in the Paralimni Police Station Detention facility and H.M. in the Xilofagou Police Station Facility. All those detained who were found to be legally resident in the Republic returned to their homes. Further, on humanitarian grounds, thirteen women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of twenty-seven children between them were not arrested themselves. This included M.Y\u2019s wife (see paragraphs 159-160 above). 185.  According to the Government, the applicants and their co-detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the Republic unlawfully and were thus \u201cprohibited immigrants\u201d (see M.A., cited above, \u00a7 62). They were also informed of their rights pursuant to the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained Law 2005 (Law no. 163(I)/of 2005) (see M.A., cited above, \u00a7 93) and, in particular, of their right to contact by phone, in person and in private, a lawyer of their own choice. The applicants submitted that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention on that date. 186.  On the same day letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status. This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service and the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority where lodged. Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201cstop list\u201d. The Government submitted copies of letters concerning thirty-seven people (most of these letters referred to groups of people). 187.  Deportation and detention orders were also issued in Greek on the same day in respect of the remaining fifty-three people detained (see paragraph 183 above), including the remaining eleven applicants (see paragraph 179 above), pursuant to section 14 (6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that they were \u201cprohibited immigrants\u201d within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of that Law. These were couched in identical terms. The order issued in respect of A.Ab. also referred to 6(1)(l) of the Law. In respect of one more person the order mentioned sections 6(1)(i) (see M.A., cited above, \u00a7 41). 188.  Subsequently, on the same date, letters were prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing all the detainees individually, including the remaining applicants (see paragraph 187 above), of the decision to detain and deport them. The Government submitted thirty-seven copies of these letters, including those addressed to the applicants, the text of which was virtually identical, a standard template having been used.\nThe text of the letter reads as follows:\n\u201cYou are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph (k). section 1, Article 6 of the Aliens and Immigration law, Chapter 105, as amended until 2009, because you of illegal entry [sic]\nConsequently your temporary residence permit/migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated 11th June 2010 against you.\nYou have the right to be represented before me, or before any other Authority of the Republic and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter.\u201d 189.  The only differences was that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to 2 June 2010 as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders (see paragraph 181 above). 190.  On the copy of the letters to the applicants provided by the Government, there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letters were served on the applicants on 18 June 2010 but that they refused to receive and sign for them. The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date, stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and/or receive the letter. In a letter dated 7 September 2010 the Government stated that the applicants had been served on 18 June 2010. In their subsequent observations the Government submitted, however, that this was the second attempt to serve the letters, the first attempt having been made on 11 June 2010, that is, the day of the arrest. 191.  The applicants submitted that they had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing. They claimed that it had only been on 14 June 2010 that they had been informed orally that they would be deported to Syria on the same day but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on them on that date or subsequently. They submitted that they had eventually been informed by their lawyer, following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the Court in the context of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that deportation and detention orders had been issued against them. 192.  From the documents submitted by the Government, it appears that at least another fourteen of the detainees were to be deported on 14 June 2010 (this figure is stated in documents submitted by the Government with no further details). 193.  On Saturday, 12 June 2010, the applicants, along with twenty-nine other persons of Kurdish origin, submitted a Rule 39 request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to Syria. 194.  On 14 June 2010 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to Syria until the Court had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim. The parties were requested under Rule 54 \u00a7 2 (a) of the Rules of Court to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation. 195.  On 21 September 2010 the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule 39 in the light of information provided by the parties. He decided to lift Rule 39 in thirty-nine applications, including the present ones. He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of five applications (for further details see M.A., cited above, \u00a7 58). Rule 39 was subsequently lifted with regard to three of the applications. 196.  Following this decision the applicants who were not covered by Rule 39 were deported to Syria on various dates (see section D below). 198.  By a letter dated 27 December 2010 the applicant\u2019s representative informed the Court that she had received information from the Kurdish Organization for the Defence of Human Rights and Public Freedoms in Syria (\u201cDAD\u201d) that the applicant had been arrested and detained in Adra prison in Damascus. 199.  By a letter dated 24 July 2012 the applicant\u2019s representative informed the Court that the applicant was living in the Kurdish area of "}
+{"target": "the Leningrad Region", "prompt": "9.  On 13 October 2004 Mr B. was arrested on suspicion of robbery. The next day the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised his detention pending investigation. He was then taken to remand prison no. IZ\u201147/6 in "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "87.  In similar letters of 11 June and 9 August 2004 respectively, the regional prosecutor\u2019s office notified the fourth and second applicants of the status of the proceedings in cases nos. 916725 and 292025 and stated that, following its requests of 2002, work had been carried out to clean up "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "125.  A decision of 17 November 2003 terminated the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/00/0008-03. It provided a description of the situation in the Chechen Republic and, more specifically, in the vicinity of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "29.  On 5 September 2013 the second and third applicants asked the Centre to rule on their contact rights in respect of M.M., which the Centre did by a decision of 21 January 2014 (it specified supervised meetings on the Centre\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Nikitskoe", "prompt": "52.  On 8 July 2010 the applicant and a journalist went to Nikitskoe and saw Mr M.A. and M.\u2019s cousin. Mr M.A. told the applicant that her son was not in the village. On the same date the police established that M. resided at the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "11.  On 7 May 2013 X. filed her written statement confirmed on oath (affidavit), as well as that of her mother. In her affidavit X. claimed that she had been born in London of a relationship between her mother (Y.) and the applicant, and that as of her young age she had always been told that the applicant was her father. After her sixteenth birthday she had sent a letter to him, which remained unanswered. She claimed that in 1978 on having knowledge that the applicant was going to be in Malta she went to meet him at the airport \u2013 on that day she had seen him arrive with his family, and noted the resemblance between herself and one of the applicant\u2019s daughters. On that occasion she had not approached him, but they met some time later before a lawyer. She stated that the applicant greeted her warmly and that, after that, they met various times. She also met the applicant\u2019s wife. According to X. the applicant had told her that he would not inform his children about her in order not to disrupt their schooling and she agreed. X. stated that the applicant started visiting Malta regularly on his own and when she had become pregnant he had offered her one of his properties to live in, and in this way they lived there together on his visits to the island. On the birth of X.\u2019s daughter in 1979, the applicant had been the latter\u2019s god parent as shown by relevant certification. She claimed that upon the applicant\u2019s suggestion she moved to the U.K. only to return sixteen months later because she missed Malta. At that stage the applicant had given her the keys to another property for her to reside in. She remained in close contact with him until 1985. In 1998 she was evicted from the property and thereafter their relationship deteriorated. X. explained that during the eviction proceedings the applicant had promised her a sum of money to leave the "}
+{"target": "Nadterechniy", "prompt": "63.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr E.A. who stated that about two or three weeks after the apprehension of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev he had been detained on the premises of the FSB office in the "}
+{"target": "Balkans", "prompt": "15.  On 15 May 1992 the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, demanded that all units of the JNA and all elements of the Croatian Army either be withdrawn from Bosnia and Herzegovina, or be subject to the authority of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or be disbanded and disarmed with their weapons placed under effective international monitoring (see Resolution 757). While the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, the United Nations Secretary General and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (\u201cthe ICTY\u201d), a United Nations court of law dealing with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "27.  On 17 May 2005 the \u010cakovec County Court allowed the applicant's appeal in the part concerning the qualification of certain offences and reduced the sentence to six years and four months' imprisonment while dismissing the remainder of his complaints. The relevant parts of the appeal judgment read as follows:\n\u201cIn his personal appeal the defendant complains of serious breaches of the provisions regulating criminal proceedings, [these being] his inability to consult the case file; reliance of the impugned judgment on evidence under Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, the written record of the search of his flat and other "}
+{"target": "the Far East", "prompt": "6.  On 28 July 2015 the applicant published on YouTube a video with the title \u201cKolkhoz TV on Ukrainian crisis\u201d (\u041a\u043e\u043b\u0445\u043e\u0437\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043e\u0431 \u0443\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c \u043a\u0440\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0441\u0435) where he made comments on Ms F.\u2019s speech as follows:\n\u201cMs F.: Nobody in the whole world has ever thought that Russia would become such a strong country and ... that Russia would reach new horizons...\nThe applicant (Mr R.): Nodding ironically, showing the brochure \u201cLife of a galley slave\u201d.\nMs F.: ... would organise worldwide renowned Olympic Games...\nMr R.: Nodding ironically, showing brochure \u201cWinter Olympic Games in subtropics\u201d.\nMs F.: ...and would host the Eurovision competition and, at the same time, would become a leading leader among gases (\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0442 \u043b\u0438\u0434\u0438\u0440\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0438\u043c \u043b\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0440\u043e\u043c \u0441\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438 \u0433\u0430\u0437\u0430).\nMr R.: Yet today, according to the latest reports of the Mendeleyev international rating agency, Russia has reached the top of the list, drawing ahead of such gases as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.\nMs F.: ...There is a war against Russia, which has become a first-rate power and everybody is annoyed by this fact...They want us to die of drug and alcohol abuse and poverty etc.\nMr R.: But it is not true that we die of alcohol, drugs and poverty... poverty?\nMs F.: ... Ukraine is, so to say, our Russian belly...\nMr R.: I am afraid of asking what "}
+{"target": "Leninskiy district", "prompt": "37.  On 13 July 2006 the investigators interviewed officer V.S. as a witness. She stated that from 9 a.m. on 8 June 2006 she had been on duty at the checkpoint of the Leninskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office. At about 10.10 a.m. servicemen from checkpoint no. 1 had called her and informed her that Khamzat Tushayev had come for an appointment with T.M., the prosecutor of the "}
+{"target": "the Zavodskoy District", "prompt": "39.  On 10 August 2001 the commander of the Chechen OMON drew up a report on the result of the internal investigation into the death of their officer, Aslanbek Kukayev. The report stated that on 26 November 2000 Aslanbek Kukayev and D. had left for "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "80.  On 18 February 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 responded to the first applicant, informing her that, as with her previous requests, this was not a matter for the military prosecutor\u2019s office. The letter further informed her that the criminal investigation into her son\u2019s abduction would only be transferred from the "}
+{"target": "the Magadan Region", "prompt": "91.  The Regional Court noted in its decision that all of the applicant\u2019s arguments had been examined and dismissed previously when extending his detention on remand. It also noted that its decision to announce the break in the hearing from 1 July to 18 August 2008 criticised by the defence had been justified by the jurors\u2019 summer leave outside "}
+{"target": "Ordzhonikidzevskiy District", "prompt": "9.  In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor re-opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17 November 1998 an investigator of the "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "94.  The applicants brought five separate sets of civil proceedings against the Primorskiy Region and Vladivostok City authorities and \u2013 save for the second and fifth applicants \u2013 the Water Company, seeking damages for their lost property as well as compensation for the anguish and distress they had suffered during the flood of 7 August 2001. They claimed that the flood had had such devastating effects mainly because of the poor state of the channel of "}
+{"target": "Kavkaz", "prompt": "8.  At the material time, the village of Assinovskaya was under the total control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. One of the checkpoints, called "}
+{"target": "West", "prompt": "53.  In his expert report of 31 January 2014 to the Board, B.S. had given the following assessment of the situation:\n\u201cAccording to information received, the father is currently in Iraq. If he returns to [Norway], he must expect to be arrested to serve the prison term he was sentenced to for the abduction. [I do] not know if he would then be expelled from the country. The present situation resembles the situation that the High Court deemed to be associated with less risk for the children [(see paragraph 49 above)].\n[I do] not necessarily agree with the High Court\u2019s assessment. This is a complex issue, and to the extent that the question of risk can be clarified with a sufficient degree of certainty, that would require extensive investigation which would also involve the parents\u2019 relatives and other networks in countries other than Norway. That is far beyond the remit of the expert examination. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some general reflections based partly on knowledge about what is common in the parents\u2019 culture, and partly on information provided by the parents themselves.\nThe children belong to the father\u2019s family. Not just to the father, but to his family. The mother has main responsibility for bringing up the children as long as they are regarded as children. It is therefore unproblematic for the father to accept that the children be returned to the mother to grow up with her. Once they are grown up, however, they will still belong to their father\u2019s family. They will be considered \u2018adult\u2019 long before the Norwegian age of majority; age of sexual maturity is a more relevant criterion than chronological age.\nFor a family that is concerned with the honour code, the actions of an adult daughter have a bearing on the whole family\u2019s honour. If she leads a life in conflict with the family\u2019s norms, particularly as regards her sexual life, this affects the whole family, which will lose all prestige in the eyes of the surrounding world. In extreme cases, the family may feel forced to track down the woman and kill her to restore the family\u2019s honour and prestige. This does not necessarily diminish with time and distance. Nor does this only apply in conservative religious families; it is more a question of culture than of religion. There are several examples of relatives tracking down women living in Western countries and committing so-called honour killings despite the family having lived in the "}
+{"target": "the Ferghana Valley", "prompt": "113.  The chapter entitled \u201cUzbekistan 2011\u201d in the Amnesty International annual report for 2011, released in May of the same year, in so far as relevant, states as follows:\n\u201cReports of torture or other ill-treatment continued unabated. Dozens of members of minority religious and Islamic groups were given long prison terms after unfair trials ...\n...\nTorture and other ill-treatment\nDespite assertions by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased, reports of torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated. In most cases, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations.\nSeveral thousand people convicted of involvement with Islamist parties or Islamic movements banned in Uzbekistan, as well as government critics and political opponents, continued to serve long prison terms under conditions that amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.\nUzbekistan again refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the country despite renewed requests.\n...\nCounter-terror and security\nClosed trials started in January of nearly 70 defendants charged in relation to attacks in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "43.  The applicant was granted victim status and questioned on numerous occasions. She submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been a member of a paramilitary group. She had no information about his fate after his release from the "}
+{"target": "South Hook", "prompt": "53.  In the meantime, on 21 January 2003, Qatar Petroleum and ExxonMobil applied to Pembrokeshire County Council and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority for hazardous substances consent for the storage and gasification of LNG at the "}
+{"target": "\u042e\u0436\u043d\u043e\u043c \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u043c \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0435", "prompt": "29.  Since 13 June 2001 the applicant has repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at different levels, district and regional military commanders, local and regional administrative authorities of Chechnya, the Federal Security Service of Russia, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit (\u041f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0420\u0424 \u0432 "}
+{"target": "the Groznenskiy District", "prompt": "53.  On 22 June 2007 the Groznenskiy ROVD replied to the investigators that it had no information concerning the officers who had worked in its detention facility in 2000 and recommended that they contact the Operational Task Force of the Russian federal forces in "}
+{"target": "Primorskiy", "prompt": "7.  On 19 March 2014 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg on suspicion of murdering a Chinese policeman in 1996. He was in possession of a Russian national passport in the name of A.L., born in 1972 in the "}
+{"target": "Achkhoy-Martan", "prompt": "13.  On 29 September 2003 the Civil Registry Office of the Achkhoy-Martan district issued a death certificate to the effect that Alaudin Gandaloyev had died on 17 September 2003 in the village of Yandi of the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "8.  On 9 March 2010 two police officers went to the applicant\u2019s workplace to enforce the warrant to appear. According to the report produced by the police officers and signed by the applicant, he was shown the warrant to appear and was informed that he would be taken to the N.A.D.\u2019s "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "32.  On 21 July 1998 the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE)[2] to the European Commission issued Opinion no. 11 \u201cOn Ethical aspects of human tissue banking\u201d. Its relevant parts read:\n\u201c2.3 Information and consent\nThe procurement of human tissues requires, as a principle, the prior, informed and free consent of the person concerned. This does not apply in the case of tissue procurement ordered by a judge in the context of judicial, in particular criminal, proceedings.\nWhile consent is a fundamental ethical principle in "}
+{"target": "Caucasus", "prompt": "58.  The applicant submitted a number of copies of press articles and flyers concerning the events. A copy of a newspaper edited by the RNKA called Natsionalnaya Mysl (National Thought), issue no. 1(7) 2002, contained an article in which the events in Chastoozerye were described as a justified reaction by the local population, which was \u201censlaved\u201d and \u201coccupied\u201d by \u201caliens from the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "20.  The majority therefore examined whether the detention regime under Part 4 of the 2001 Act was a proportionate response to the emergency situation, and concluded that it did not rationally address the threat to security and was a disproportionate response to that threat. They relied on three principal grounds: firstly, that the detention scheme applied only to non-nationals suspected of international terrorism and did not address the threat which came from United Kingdom nationals who were also so suspected; secondly, that it left suspected international terrorists at liberty to leave the United Kingdom and continue their threatening activities abroad; thirdly, that the legislation was drafted too broadly, so that it could, in principle, apply to individuals suspected of involvement with international terrorist organisations which did not fall within the scope of the derogation.\nOn the first point, Lord Bingham emphasised that SIAC\u2019s finding that the terrorist threat was not confined to non-nationals had not been challenged. Since SIAC was the responsible fact-finding tribunal, it was unnecessary to examine the basis for its finding, but there was evidence that \u201cupwards of a thousand individuals from the UK are estimated on the basis of intelligence to have attended training camps in Afghanistan in the last five years\u201d; that some British citizens were said to have planned to return from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom; and that the background material relating to the applicants showed the high level of involvement of British citizens and those otherwise connected with the United Kingdom in the terrorist networks. Lord Bingham continued:\n\u201c33.  ... It is plain that sections 21 and 23 of the 2001 Act do not address the threat presented by UK nationals since they do not provide for the certification and detention of UK nationals. It is beside the point that other sections of the 2001 Act and the 2000 Act do apply to UK nationals, since they are not the subject of derogation, are not the subject of complaint and apply equally to foreign nationals. Yet the threat from UK nationals, if quantitatively smaller, is not said to be qualitatively different from that from foreign nationals. It is also plain that sections 21 and 23 do permit a person certified and detained to leave the United Kingdom and go to any other country willing to receive him, as two of the appellants did when they left for Morocco and France respectively ... Such freedom to leave is wholly explicable in terms of immigration control: if the British authorities wish to deport a foreign national but cannot deport him to country \u2018A\u2019 because of Chahal their purpose is as well served by his voluntary departure for country \u2018B\u2019. But allowing a suspected international terrorist to leave our shores and depart to another country, perhaps a country as close as France, there to pursue his criminal designs, is hard to reconcile with a belief in his capacity to inflict serious injury to the people and interests of this country. ...\n... 35.  The fifth step in the appellants\u2019 argument permits of little elaboration. But it seems reasonable to assume that those suspected international terrorists who are UK nationals are not simply ignored by the authorities. When [the fifth applicant] was released from prison by SIAC on bail ... it was on condition (among other things) that he wear an electronic monitoring tag at all times; that he remain at his premises at all times; that he telephone a named security company five times each day at specified times; that he permit the company to install monitoring equipment at his "}
+{"target": "Andijan", "prompt": "14.  On 22 June 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office issued an extradition order against the applicant. The text of the decision included the following:\n\u201c... the Andijan Region Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior is investigating a criminal case against U. Ergashev ...\nThe charges against U. Ergashev state that between 22 May 1999 and 2007, in the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "12.  According to the statement by M.K., all of the people present in the applicants\u2019 house heard the noise of departing vehicles and, after untying the second applicant, they tried to follow the vehicles by their noise but did so in vain. Their attempt brought them to the centre of "}
+{"target": "Sunzhenskiy", "prompt": "10.  In the evening of 17 June 2004 the Medovs were informed that their son, Mr Adam Medov, was being detained at the Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior (the Sunzhenskiy ROVD). At about 8 p.m. several of Mr Adam Medov\u2019s relatives, including his father and two brothers, arrived at the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya (also called Sleptsovskaya) \u2013 the administrative centre of the "}
+{"target": "Aegean and Vardar Macedonia", "prompt": "15.  On 4 March 1999 sixty\u2011one members of the Bulgarian parliament requested the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant party unconstitutional, more specifically, contrary to Articles 11 \u00a7 4 and 44 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution of 1991. They argued that the party had in fact been formed in 1990 and was a successor of the \u201cillegal\u201d UMO Ilinden. They further argued that the party\u2019s ultimate aim was the formation of an independent Macedonian state through the secession of Pirin Macedonia from Bulgaria. The party\u2019s members and leaders had on numerous occasions declared such goals. The party\u2019s original constitution, amended in the course of the proceedings before the Sofia City Court, contained language to the effect that it would \u201cprotect the interests of the population of Pirin Macedonia [and] of the refugees from "}
+{"target": "Transdniestria", "prompt": "11.  On 23 June 1990 Moldova proclaimed its sovereignty; on 23 May 1991 it changed its name to the Republic of Moldova; and on 27 August 1991 the Moldovan parliament adopted the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova, whose territory included "}
+{"target": "South Hook", "prompt": "92.  He noted that the essence of the applicants\u2019 case was:\n\u201c... that the decision-makers did not adequately consider what are called \u2018marine risks\u2019, namely the risks to those in the Milford Haven area from an escape of LNG from a ship. In particular, concern is expressed about the risk of the formation, in the event of such an escape, of a flammable gas cloud. It is stressed that a population of some 20,000 lies within a radius of just over 4 miles of the "}
+{"target": "Southern Russia", "prompt": "34.  Insofar as Russian political support for Transdniestria was concerned, the Moldovan Government pointed to, inter alia, the statement by the Russian Duma that the Transdniestrian electoral code was in accordance with Russian legislation and European requirements in that field, the statement made in October 2005 by the Russian Ambassador in Moldova during the celebration of the anniversary of the city of Tiraspol proclaiming that \u201cTiraspol was and continues to be an integral part of "}
+{"target": "\u0160imi\u0107eva Street", "prompt": "27.  Following a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti) by the Principal State Attorney, on 12 July 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Administrative Court\u2019s judgment and remitted the case. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Court and the administrative authorities had wrongly applied the relevant military housing standards to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court also held that the issue of whether the flat in "}
+{"target": "the Sunzhenskiy mountain ridge", "prompt": "33.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, the first applicant complained on 21 June 2002 to the district prosecutor's office that her sons had been abducted. In her letter she stated that her sons had been abducted by Russian servicemen who had arrived in APCs; that they had been detained for some time at the checkpoint located on "}
+{"target": "the Central District of Yerevan", "prompt": "6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "71.  According to the Government, the newspaper article submitted by the applicant about the discovery of several corpses in the Urus-Martan district had no connection with the applicant\u2019s case; no criminal proceedings had been initiated in connection with these discoveries. The Government submitted that in June 2002 four other corpses had been found in the orchards on the outskirt of "}
+{"target": "Kalvarija", "prompt": "39.  V.M., K.M. and A.P. were accused of a serious breach of public order during the riot, under Article 283 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor maintained that on 21 May 2003, at around 11.50 a.m., approximately 1,500 people had gone onto the Kaunas-Marijampol\u0117-Suvalkai highway at the ninety-fourth kilometre. At about 3 or 4 p.m. the above-mentioned applicants had driven three tractors onto the highway and had left them on the carriageway. The three applicants had refused to follow police instructions not to breach public order and not to leave the tractors on the road. The tractors had remained on the road until 4.15 p.m. on 22 May 2003. As a result, the highway had been blocked from the eighty-fourth to the ninety-fourth kilometre. Due to the resulting increase in traffic on neighbouring roads, congestion had built up and road transport in the region had come to a halt. The normal functioning of the "}
+{"target": "Yedig\u00f6lller", "prompt": "61.  The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into the alleged abduction and killing of Sava\u015f Buldan. 1.  Official documents\nThe documents listed below concern the statements taken from various witnesses and the investigation in relation to the kidnapping and subsequent killing of the applicant's brother.\n(a)  Witness testimonies\n(i)Statement of Sabahattin Uz, doorman of the \u00c7\u0131nar Hotel, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y public prosecutor's office.\n(ii)Statement of H\u00fcseyin K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, security guard of the \u00c7\u0131nar hotel, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y public prosecutor's office.\n(iii)Statement of Serdar \u00d6zdemir, dated 5 June 1994, taken by the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y public prosecutor's office.\n(iv)Statement of H\u00fcseyin Durmazer, dated 5 June 1994, taken by the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y public prosecutor's office.\n(v)Statement of \u0130smail Ta\u015fcan, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(vi)Statement of Ay\u015fe Ara\u00e7, a villager, dated 6 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(vii)Statement of Beng\u00fcl \u00dcnsal, a student, dated 4 June 1994, taken by Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(viii)Statement of Nuriye Cesur, a student, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(ix)Statement of Ay\u015fe Uzun, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(x)Statement of Haz\u0131m Y\u0131ld\u0131z, driver of the school bus, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xi)Statement of Mehmet Ba\u015f, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xii)Statement of Seyfettin Akmak, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xiii)Statement of Fevzi Ayd\u0131n Aslan, a villager, dated 6 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xiv)Statement of Bayram Y\u0131lmaz, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xv)Statement of \u0130rfan Kur\u015funlu, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xvi)Statements of Hasan Ba\u015f; a villager, dated 4 June 1994 and 6 June 1994 taken by theY\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xvii)Statement of Mehmet Be\u015fir Erdo\u011fan, a villager, dated 4 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie. \n(xvii)Statement of Mehmet Y\u0131ld\u0131z, a villager, dated 6 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xviii)Statement of \u015eevket \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, a villager, dated 6 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xix)Statement of Yunus \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, dated 6 June 1994, taken by the Y\u0131\u011f\u0131lca District Gendarmerie.\n(xx)Statement of Ruhi Aldal, who works at the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "79.  Sometime later the applicants received information from unidentified sources that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Vladikavkaz. During one of the applicants\u2019 visits to that prison, a senior officer, who introduced himself as \u201cYuriy Borisovich\u201d, confirmed that the applicants\u2019 relative had indeed been detained on their "}
+{"target": "Shchelkovo", "prompt": "24.  The article criticised a local entrepreneur, G.A., one of N.\u2019s opponents in the campaign, and suggested that the authorities should investigate his business activities. The article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201c... One of the covert heads of the limited liability company Roads of the XXI Century, who is also the head of the Prince Casino, a certain G.A., who is in direct contact with the mayor of Fryazino, U., and connected to him by a dubious financial relationship linked to the construction of housing and commercial car parks in Fryazino, arranged for a criminal case opened against U. to be terminated. Meanwhile, in conversation with me, G.A. was open about the fact that he had personally paid \u2018werewolves in epaulettes\u2019 [corrupt policemen] one million U.S. dollars!!!\nIn reply to my question as to where he had got such a huge [amount of] money, G.A. said he was a \u2018person of immense authority\u2019 in Fryazino and the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "55.  In the meantime, the investigators asked various authorities, including the FSB in Ingushetia and the Ministry of the Interior to provide them with information about the special operation in Nazran, the alleged detention of Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov on the "}
+{"target": "A.C.", "prompt": "17.  In addition, there were two dissenting opinions. According to the first one, in view of the fact that the National Radio and Television Council had considered that the broadcasting of news that had been recorded by secret means had constituted a legitimate exercise of the right to impart information, the same considerations should be extended to the broadcasting of the relevant image. The reason for this was the special nature of television, in comparison with the other media, owing to which the broadcasting of the image went hand-in-hand with broadcasting the news itself. Therefore, the application for annulment should have been allowed, given that the National Radio and Television Council\u2019s decision had been based solely on the fact that the image of "}
+{"target": "Africa", "prompt": "6.  At 1.30 p.m. on 7 February 2008 a French Navy vessel, the helicopter carrier Tonnerre, intercepted the Junior. A press release from the Maritime Prefect for the Atlantic seaboard, entitled \u201cInterception of a boat transporting drugs off "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "9.  Following the prosecutor\u2019s order of 16 June 2008, a special police operation was carried out on 18 June 2008 in two of the company\u2019s offices located in the same street in Varna. The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor. Ya.K., a CSCOC officer and the head of the operation, had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began. Those instructions were to enter the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "30.  Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants started to search for them. The search was primarily carried out by the mothers of the detained men, together with Marzet Imakayeva, the applicant in application no. 7615/02. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, they applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for rights and freedoms, to military commanders, the Federal Security Service (FSB), to the administrative authorities in Chechnya, to the media and to public figures. The applicants also personally visited detention centres, police stations, military bases and prisons in Chechnya as well as further afield in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "37.  At about 4.30 a.m. on 13 June 1990 members of the police and gendarmerie brutally charged the demonstrators in University Square. The arrested demonstrators were driven away and locked up at the Bucharest municipal police station. The 263 arrested individuals (or 262, according to the decision to commit for trial of 18 May 2000) included students from the Architecture Institute, who had been on the "}
+{"target": "Northern Finland", "prompt": "15.  Concerning the evidence, the Market Court noted that evidence in competition law cases could be either direct or indirect, such as economic evidence. As direct evidence was not always available, an assessment was to be made of whether indirect evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of a cartel. The court found that, in the present case, the economic evidence alone was not sufficient to prove the existence of a cartel. The court also found that the existence of a cartel could not be proved on the basis of hearsay evidence. In the present case, the Market Court reached its conclusion in respect of the central government asphalt contracts by relying, inter alia, on the testimonies of eight witnesses. However, to the extent that those testimonies contained hearsay evidence, such evidence was not taken into account. As far as local government and private sector contracts were concerned, the Market Court analysed the evidence for restrictions of competition region by region and found it sufficient in respect of certain regions while insufficient in respect of others. As regards the regions where the applicant company was doing business ("}
+{"target": "Starye Atagi", "prompt": "45.  On an unspecified date in 2002 (the exact date on the copy of the document at the Court's disposal is illegible) the district prosecutor's office sent a letter to the VOVD and the ROVD, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n\u201cOn 18 February 2002 four charred corpses of unidentified men were found in a demolished house ... in Mesker-Yurt. According to statements by the servicemen of military unit no. 3179, they killed the said men in the course of an armed clash.\n... There are grounds to assume that the bodies were transferred to the said place in order to stage armed resistance to hide evidence of a murder.\n Accordingly, I would ask your unit to take the following investigative measures:\n... 2. To identify the killed men (they were most probably brought from "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "50.  By a letter dated 18 August 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that it had examined his complaint and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the FSB officers. The refusal to institute criminal proceedings was enclosed in the letter and, in so far as relevant, stated as follows:\n\u201c...\nOn 6 August 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office received the [first applicant\u2019s] request to institute criminal proceedings against FSB officers ... The complaint alleges that upon admission to the district FSB Zelimkhan Isayev was tortured with electric wires, beaten up and made to sign unspecified documents ...\nFollowing the examination of the submissions contained in the complaint it has been established:\nOn 10 May 2004 ... Zelimkhan Isayev was arrested in the village of Goi-Chu ... in connection with the proceedings in criminal case no. 37045 ... During his arrest Zelimkhan Isayev offered resistance and the officers of the district division of the FSB had to apply physical force. According to statements of servicemen of the 13th military commander\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "the Northern Caucasus", "prompt": "18.  On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated that the investigators had: questioned three neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, as well as several salespersons from the kiosks located next to the place of his abduction; put Said-Magamed Tovsultanov's VAZ-2107 car on the search list; checked the registration log of the \u201cVolga\u201120\u201d border police checkpoint concerning the passage of vehicles on the day of the abduction; and forwarded information requests to various law\u2011enforcement agencies in various regions of "}
+{"target": "Gorky Park", "prompt": "44.  On various dates those reports were examined by the Kharkiv Dzerzhinsky District Court (\u201cthe District Court\u201d). During the hearings, the applicants pleaded not guilty. They submitted, in particular, that on the morning of 28 May 2010 they had been in "}
+{"target": "Attica", "prompt": "6.  The applicants refer to the factual circumstances of that judgment for the period up to October 2007 and in particular to the following:\n\u201c29.  On 20 June 2006, the third constituency of the West Attica Primary Education Council sent a letter to the director of "}
+{"target": "the Ob River", "prompt": "345.  In the second applicant\u2019s submission, the Government\u2019s argument that there was a direct railway connection with Kharp township and direct flights between Salekhard and Moscow was certainly true. However, the train journey usually took 48 hours, while to reach Kharp from Salekhard airport one had to cross "}
+{"target": "C\u00fcm Hill", "prompt": "21.  On 8 October 1996 Feyzi Do\u011fan, the father of H\u00fcrriyet Do\u011fan, and the applicant gave statements to the sergeant. The applicant's statement was as follows:\n\u201cOn 7 October 1996, at around 3 a.m., I heard guns being fired from the direction of "}
+{"target": "the Kaliningrad Region", "prompt": "22.  The first and second applicants complained to the State Labour Inspectorate about the reassignment of DUR members to the special teams. On 25 August 1998 the head of the State Labour Inspectorate for "}
+{"target": "Sepah", "prompt": "15.  On 18 June 2007 the Migration Court held an oral hearing. In response to his lawyer's questions the applicant stated, inter alia, that he had participated in demonstrations critical against the regime since 1988 and that, in 1997 or 1998, he had started to notice that his criticism was not appreciated. He had participated in yearly demonstrations, such as on women's day and on labour day. Mostly he had participated in meetings on various premises. A relative of his wife had been an official at the intelligence agency and thus he had been assured that nothing would happen to him. He had been one of 4-5,000 participants in the demonstration in 2001 and he had played no special role, but it had been monitored by the authorities. He had been arrested and accused of being against Islam and the regime. In connection with a visit by his wife to "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "59.  On unspecified dates the investigators forwarded requests to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 in Khankala and the Chechnya FSB, asking whether the abducted men were being detained on their "}
+{"target": "the Oktiabrskiy District", "prompt": "23.  On the dates specified in Annex I the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and remitted the cases for a fresh consideration. In each case the Presidium concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. They also found that the Novocherkassk Town Court had lacked territorial jurisdiction to examine the cases. The arrears were awarded against the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region and thus the cases should have been examined by a court in "}
+{"target": "Gekhi", "prompt": "43.  On unspecified dates the investigators questioned three military servicemen, Mr G., Mr U. and Mr O. all of whom provided similar statements concerning the events. According to Mr G., who had been the head of the military intelligence group, on 16 May 2000 his group had been taking search measures in the area next to "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "27.  After that the first applicant went to the district department of the FSB and managed to speak to one of the officers, Mr K., and the deputy head of the department, named Sergey. They advised the first applicant to search for his son in the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "22.  The court heard the applicants, four witnesses (who had watched the rehearsals) produced by the applicants, namely, P.M. a consultant psychiatrist, J.S. an educator, child psychologist and actress, K.D. a tourism marketing executive and actor, a priest who was a former film classifier for the Archdiocese of Malta, as well as the author of the play. The latter testified that the play had been performed uninterruptedly in all parts of the world and extensively in "}
+{"target": "Schengen", "prompt": "20.  The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining his claims and adding that the spelling of his name differed in the various documents because the transcriptions from Arabic had been made by different persons. He had his passport but had been afraid to hand it over to the Migration Board for fear of being returned to Libya. His relationship with N. was serious; they were married and lived together. It would also become known in Libya that he was homosexual if he were to apply for a residence permit from there, which would expose him to a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment. Moreover, he would not be able to apply for a residence permit from Libya since Sweden had a consulate only in Benghazi. He submitted a copy of his passport, from which it appeared that he had been granted a "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martanovskiy District", "prompt": "65.  With a view to examining the possibility that representatives of the State had been involved in the applicant's son's abduction, on unspecified dates the investigating authorities made enquires with various State bodies, including the commander of military unit no. 6779, the military commander of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "66.  When questioned by the trial court, the two taxi drivers who had signed the report of 25 February 2004 on the handing in of the PSM pistol by the woman and her son stated that they had been taken to the main police headquarters under coercion, on pain of having their driving licences confiscated by the police, in order to take part as witnesses in an investigative procedure. They were told by an officer that a woman and a child were going to bring in a weapon, and they would have to confirm that fact by signing a record. They had waited in vain for an hour and a half for the woman and child to arrive. The two policemen had then taken a weapon equipped with a silencer out of a drawer in a table, explaining to the taxi drivers that it was the weapon in question. The police officers had drawn up a report saying that a woman and child with non-Georgian names had brought the weapon to the station. The two taxi drivers had signed the fabricated document in order to get their driving licences back and leave the "}
+{"target": "Doktorlar Sitesi", "prompt": "99.  The Report contains one page on which information on Yusuf Ekinci's personal background and activities is set out. This pages states:\n\u201cYusuf Ekinci\nSon of Kamil, and born in Lice-Diyarbak\u0131r in 1942.\nIn June 1963 he was a second year student at the Ankara University, Faculty of Law. He was known as a pro-Kurdish socialist. In December 1963 he was a member of the \u201cyouth branch\u201d of the TIP (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Partisi - Turkish Workers Party) which was established in Ankara. He was further the editor of the \u201cEmek\u00e7i\u201d newspaper, the official bulletin of that party. \nAfter his graduation in April 1969, he went to Diyarbak\u0131r in order to finish his traineeship. In Diyarbak\u0131r he participated in an organised demonstration against the Law on the Protection of the Constitution. \nHe was detained on remand in 1970 <or> 1971 and subsequently prosecuted on charges of involvement in pro-Kurdish activities in the Eastern Revolutionary Cultural Grouping (Do\u011fu Devrimci K\u00fclt\u00fcr Ocaklar\u0131). \nAs from 1972 he worked as a lawyer in Diyarbak\u0131r, where he tried to direct the Kurdish movement. \nIn April 1971, during the 4th TIP General Assembly, he declared that he opposed the ideas of his brother Tar\u0131k Ziya Ekinci, and added that his own objective was the creation of Kurdistan and that he was a Kurdish nationalist. \nSince 1984 he worked as a lawyer in Ankara. \nIn February 1990 he was expelled from the SHP (Sosyal Demokrat Halk\u00e7\u0131 Parti - Social Democrat People's Party). He became involved in establishing a Marxist party together with M. Ali Eren. \nHe was found dead on 25 February 1994 close to the "}
+{"target": "Gajeva", "prompt": "16.  Following an appeal by the applicant, by a decision of 20 May 1983 the relevant second-instance administrative authority quashed the first\u2011instance decision and remitted the case. It held that the applicant retained the status of a holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat in question. Instead of seeking her eviction, the first-instance housing authority should have followed the procedure stipulated for situations where a tenant held a specially protected tenancy in respect of two flats (see paragraph 48 below). That procedure provided for the possibility of exchanging the two flats for a single one if neither flat satisfied the housing needs of the tenant\u2019s household (but would if taken together). It instructed the first-instance housing authority to examine whether the flats in "}
+{"target": "the Urus-Martan District", "prompt": "52.  The Government further submitted that the investigating authorities had granted the status of victim to the applicant, but failed to specify the date. According to them, the applicant had been questioned on 30 June and 18 October 2001 and then at some point in late 2005. During her interview, the applicant had stated that, following her son\u2019s apprehension, she had found out from the head of the local administration that he was being held in the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB and would be released three days later. She had also talked to Mr G., the military commander of "}
+{"target": "Zone D", "prompt": "18.  Ms Moxamed Ismaacil, the first applicant, was initially detained in Zone D and later moved to an unspecified Zone in Lyster Barracks, in conditions which she considered prison-like and basic, although she considered "}
+{"target": "Alkhan-Kala", "prompt": "85.  On 6 October 2004 the military prosecutor\u2019s office in charge of investigating Yandiyev\u2019s kidnapping opened a criminal investigation into Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev\u2019s involvement in an illegal armed group, a crime under Article 208 part 2 of the Criminal Code. On the same day Yandiyev was charged in absentia with the above crime and his name was included on the federal search list. This investigation was assigned case file number 34/00/0040-04.\ni)  Information related to the discovery of bodies in "}
+{"target": "the Radomsko District", "prompt": "7.  In issue no. 33 of 18 August 2004 the applicant published an article entitled \u201cElegantly wrapped dung\u201d (\u201c\u0141ajno \u2013 elegancko opakowane\u201d). It read, in so far as relevant:\n\u201cA poser is someone who does everything to produce external effects by his conduct, speech and, in particular, with the populism he preaches. He is a numbskull posing as the people\u2019s tribune. The only panacea, or universal cure, for such a person is to recognise his intentions and take up a bloodless fight using arguments. An argument against any kind of tricks by a poser or populist will be always a counter\u2011argument based on reality, logic and the opportunity to put one\u2019s intentions into practice.\nI remember when, not so long ago, the author of the proposal to develop a quail farm as a panacea against rural unemployment had a go at me in an accommodating local newspaper, accusing me of malice, a willingness to discredit every good idea, and mindlessness leading to nasty mental disease and many other irreversible disorders of the mind. At the same time he declared that he would continue doing his job, that is, condemning farmers to breeding nice little birds in order to collect their eggs. His boss considered the quail business very important, because it would eliminate the need for viagra. There has not been a sideshow like it in "}
+{"target": "Oktyabrskiy district", "prompt": "8.  At the same time the applicant enclosed a copy of her application to the Chairman of the National Public Commission for Investigation of Offences and Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus of 25 August 2000 where she provided a detailed account of the circumstances of her husband\u2019s alleged detention and contended that he had been apprehended while queuing at a centre of distribution of foodstuffs. The application read as follows:\n\u201cI ... ask you for help in searching for my husband, the father of my children, Magomed Uvaysovich Dzhabayev, born in 1953, a resident of Grozny.\nDuring the attack at Grozny and the military campaign my husband... stayed at home in Grozny at the address "}
+{"target": "Volga", "prompt": "12.  The article concerned a joint press conference held by Mr P., the Chief Federal Inspector for the Kirov Region, and Mr K., the Mayor of Kirov. The press conference was about the media coverage of the regional project \u201cKirov, cultural capital of the "}
+{"target": "the Pionerskaya river", "prompt": "52.  On 28 January 2003 the district prosecutor\u2019s office of the Leninskiy District of Vladivostok (\u201cthe district prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d) brought criminal proceedings in case no. 292025 against officials of the Vladivostok municipal and Primorskiy regional authorities under Article 286 (1) of the Russian Criminal Code (abuse of power) on suspicion on them having, in excess of their power, allocated plots of land for individual housing construction within a water protection zone of "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "28.  On 13 March 2009 the Varna District Public Prosecutor, to whom the file was sent for competence reasons following a legislative amendment, refused to open criminal proceedings (see paragraph 37 below) against the police officers. She found that a special police operation aimed at gaining access to the offices of the company and seizing unlicensed software had been carried out on 18 June 2008. The initial information available had been that the company had connections with organised criminal groups and that its main activity was the collecting and disseminating of unlicensed software. Officers from CSCOC had been in charge of the operation; masked officers from CSCOC Sector \u201cOperational Intervention\u201d (\u0441\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u201c\u041e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f\u201d) and officers from different units of the Varna Regional Police Directorate, had taken part in the operation. Following a preparatory briefing session, at around 3.30 in the afternoon the officers had tried to enter the office premises of the company. Someone on the inside had locked the front door; following this, the company\u2019s employees had gone to their computers and started deleting data sought by the police. The employees had not complied with several orders by the police officers to open the doors. Acting upon the instructions to enter the company\u2019s "}
+{"target": "the Achkhoy-Martan District", "prompt": "95.  On 2 May 2002 a prosecutor at the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic drew up a report \u201con the results of the internal inquiry into the actions of the officials of the prosecutor's office of the Achkhoy-Martan District during the examination of the applicants' complaint about inhuman treatment in the Achkhoy-Martan VOVD and the Chernokozovo SIZO between 12 April and 5 October 2000\u201d. The report stated that the internal inquiry had been carried out in connection with the complaint by the SRJI lodged on the applicants' behalf against the decision of the district prosecutor's office dated 7 January 2002 to dispense with criminal proceedings as regards the applicants' allegations that they had been ill-treated while in detention. The report stated that the internal inquiry had established the following:\n\u201cIn January 2002 [the second applicant] and his father were invited to the prosecutor's office of the Achkhoy-Martan District in connection with information about the use of illicit methods of investigation in respect of [the applicants]. [The second applicant] personally did not complain that any pressure had been put on him to extract any statements. Therefore he voluntarily gave explanations to investigator Ch. to the effect that no illicit methods of investigation had been applied to him and that he had no claims against law-enforcement bodies.\nNeither the investigator nor the prosecutor put any pressure on him to extract this explanation. No threats were made in his respect.... Moreover, he talked to prosecutor A.-K. after he had given his explanations to investigator Ch.\nHis father refused to give any explanations. Presently he is undergoing medical treatment outside the territory of the republic. He refused to give any explanations, as he is fed up with all this.\n[The second applicant] does not know whether [the first applicant] has applied to any human rights organisations. At present [the first applicant] lives in Poland and [the second applicant] has no contact with him.\nApparently, it was his younger brother ... who had met a representative [of the SRJI] in Moscow and provided the information in question. Thereafter he spoke to [his younger] brother and forbad him further from applying to human rights organisations with unverified information.\nThe investigator of the prosecutor's office of "}
+{"target": "Kareli", "prompt": "7.  The applicant was a member and one of the leaders of a group which called itself the National Religious Movement, which was founded in Tbilisi on 11 May 2011. On 26 May 2011 a police officer drew up a report, which stated that he possessed information that twenty-four individuals, including the applicant, were plotting a violent overthrow of the Government of Georgia. According to the report, all the alleged plotters were located at the Kintsvisi Monastery, in the "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "18.  By an order of 5 February 1999 the applicant was committed for trial in the Paris Criminal Court for involvement \u2013 in France and in England, from an unspecified date until 4 November 1995 \u2013 in an association or conspiracy formed with a view to the preparation, in the form of one or more material acts, of one of the terrorist acts in question. The investigating judge stated, in particular, as follows:\n \u201c- [the applicant] was responsible for distributing the journal Al Ansar, a propaganda outlet of the Armed Islamic Group;\n- ... was involved on this account in disseminating propaganda for that organisation, which is banned in France;\n- ... was the main contact person in "}
+{"target": "Nivas", "prompt": "34.  On 26 January 2006 the investigators also questioned Officer Yu.E. of the ROVD who stated that he had been driving in the vicinity of the airport when he had seen a group of five or six people standing next to a white VAZ-2107 car. They had told him that unidentified men in "}
+{"target": "CPA South\u2019", "prompt": "80.  He then examined whether, on the facts, it could be said that British troops were in effective control of Basra City during the period in question, such as to fix the United Kingdom with jurisdiction under the \u201ceffective control of an area\u201d doctrine. On this point, Brooke LJ concluded as follows:\n\u201c119.  Basra City was in the [Coalition Provisional Authority] regional area called \u2018"}
+{"target": "Nord-Ost", "prompt": "33.  On the next day the first applicant had called investigator Ya. of the Shalinskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office and he had assured her that he had not arrested Khamzat Tushayev and had not instructed any authority to do so. Lastly, the first applicant also stated that her husband\u2019s brother had been an active member of illegal armed groups and had been killed in a special operation in 2002. She also submitted that after her husband had been arrested by officers of Operational and Search Bureau no. 2 (ORB-2) in March 2006, he had told her that they had asked him about their daughter, A.T., who had been killed in 2002 in Moscow along with other rebel fighters during the rescue operation of "}
+{"target": "Krajina", "prompt": "9.  On 26 September 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Sisak Municipality and the Sisak Market in the Sisak Municipal Court, seeking payment of a sum of money on account of his investments in certain premises. The applicant stated that in July 1991 he left the town of Sisak fearing for his personal safety. He returned to Croatia in 1996. As a result, he was not able to lodge his claim within the five-year statutory time-limit. In his oral evidence given on 19 February 2002 the applicant said that after having left the town of Sisak, he had first moved to Glina, in the territory of the "}
+{"target": "the Sabail District", "prompt": "6.  The BCEA refused to authorise the demonstrations at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku \u2013 the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th habitable area of "}
+{"target": "European Economic Area", "prompt": "6.  The first version of the scheme required that in order to marry, persons subject to immigration control had to have either entry clearance expressly granted for the purpose of enabling them to marry in the United Kingdom or a Certificate of Approval. The definition of \u201cpersons subject to immigration control\u201d excluded "}
+{"target": "Seine", "prompt": "11.  The novel recounts the trial of a Front National militant, Ronald Blistier, who, while putting up posters for his party with other militants, commits the cold-blooded murder of a young man of North African descent and admits that it was a racist crime. He is defended by a Jewish, left-wing and homosexual lawyer, Pierre Mine.\nThe novel is based on real events and in particular the murders, in 1995, of Brahim Bouaram, a young Moroccan who was thrown into the "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "90.  On the same date the investigators questioned Mr M.D. who stated that on 17 April 2002 unidentified armed men had abducted his son Mr Sh.D. On 24 April 2002 human remains had been discovered on the outskirts of Goyty village in "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "11.  Ms. A.M., one of M.M.'s neighbours, residing at 47 Lomonosova Street, was woken up at about 10 p.m. on 23 November 2002 by the sound of heavy military vehicles in the street. She looked out of the window and saw an APC (armoured personnel carrier) and two military UAZ vehicles (\u201c\u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430\u201d) parked in the street. A.M. did not go outside because of the curfew. According to A.M., at the material time APCs were frequently driven in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "43.  On 6 and 8 January 2003 the Shali ROVD replied to the investigators\u2019 requests of 19 December 2002, stating that they could not establish the perpetrators of Abdul Kasumov\u2019s abduction and that he was not detained on their "}
+{"target": "Lachin", "prompt": "14.  At the time of the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an autonomous region (oblast) of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (\u201cthe Azerbaijan SSR\u201d). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at the time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (\u201cthe Armenian SSR\u201d), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, the district of "}
+{"target": "Gazi", "prompt": "38.  On 10 July 1995 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ey\u00fcp Assize Court against twenty police officers who had been on duty during the demonstrations between 12 and 13 May 1995. The indictment involved the death of Dilek \u015eim\u015fek Sevin\u00e7, Reis Kopal, Zeynep Poyraz, Fevzi Tun\u00e7, Fadime Bing\u00f6l, Ali Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m and Mehmet G\u00fcnd\u00fcz. In his indictment, the prosecutor relied on witness statements, medical reports, police reports, autopsy reports, video footage and newspaper clippings. He stated that, following the attack on the caf\u00e9s located in the "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "49.  The statement by Captain D.Y., commander of the CGP, on that matter can be summarised as follows:\n\u201cThis affair did not begin on 2 September [1999]; its origins go back into the distant past. In Ulucanlar, but also in all the other prisons housing \u2018terrorists\u2019, the prison authorities had no control over the sections reserved for such prisoners; this is a well-known fact. In those sections ... the \u2018terrorists\u2019 ruled the roost ...; TV and the other media covered this: the State Prosecutor sitting down with the prisoners and negotiating with them, and the latter then taking hostages and obtaining everything they had been demanding. Despite all the denials, whole pages of such agreements have been published in the newspapers ...; it was obvious that a lot of weapons and mobile phones were circulating in the prison; during ordinary body searches, even where prison guards felt a weapon, they were all too scared to confiscate it ... An incident was sure to occur if gendarmes raided the \u2018terrorists\u2019\u2019 dormitories ... because no gendarme had ever entered those "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "52.  In 1996 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation no. R(96)10, on \u201cThe Guarantee of the Independence of Public Service Broadcasting\u201d, which stated as follows:\n\u201cThe Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,\nConsidering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage;\nRecalling that the independence of the media, including broadcasting, is essential for the functioning of a democratic society;\nStressing the importance which it attaches to respect for media independence, especially by governments;\nRecalling in this respect the principles endorsed by the governments of the member states of the Council of Europe set out in the declaration on freedom of expression and information of 29 April 1982, especially as regards the need for a wide range of independent and autonomous means of communication allowing for the reflection of a diversity of ideas and opinions;\nReaffirming the vital role of public service broadcasting as an essential factor of pluralistic communication which is accessible to everyone at both national and regional levels, through the provision of a basic comprehensive programme service comprising information, education, culture and entertainment;\nRecalling the commitments accepted by the representatives of the states participating in the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994) in the framework of Resolution No. 1 on the future of public service broadcasting, especially respect for the independence of public service broadcasting organisations;\nNoting the need to develop further the principles on the independence of public service broadcasting set out in the aforementioned Prague resolution in the light of the challenges raised by political, economic and technological change in "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "30.  Ms S.G. called the third applicant and together with him, Ms A.K. and other relatives they went to the GOM-2 in Nogmov Street. Upon arrival at the police station Ms S.G. knocked at the door and tried to obtain information about her husband, the second applicant, from the on-duty officers. She also tried to explain to them that her husband had a stomach ulcer which could start bleeding at any moment if aggravated. The policemen refused to speak to her, but they did not deny that the first and the second applicants were detained on their "}
+{"target": "premises", "prompt": "24.  By a final judgment of 25 January 2010 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant organisation\u2019s appeal on points of fact and law and upheld the decisions of the prosecutor\u2019s office and the judgment of the first-instance court. It held, among other things, that the police officers had acted within the context of a criminal investigation and in their professional capacity. According to the relevant criminal procedure rules, police officers were entitled and had a duty to carry out operations seeking to identify and investigate unlawful acts and to gather and seize relevant evidence. Furthermore, any natural and legal person had a duty to turn over impugned evidence. The applicant organisation\u2019s submissions that the police officers had entered its "}
+{"target": "Europe", "prompt": "48.  The first-instance court noted that A.G., K.O., \u015e.\u00d6., H.K., N.Y., M.\u015e., A.Y., C.P. and V.T. had asserted in their statements that the applicant was a member of the PKK and the leader of the organisation in "}
+{"target": "Sokolovi\u0107 kolonija", "prompt": "31.  Further to the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 4 October 2008 (see paragraph 27 above), on 17 November 2008 the State Court assessed the national security evidence and upheld the Ministry of Security\u2019s decision of 27 July 2007 mentioned in paragraph 22 above. It relied on the applicant\u2019s conviction of May 2000 (see paragraph 20 above), his public threats against State authorities, his standing in the mujahedin community which allowed him to issue a binding ruling (fatwa), his lectures at a mosque in "}
+{"target": "Eastern", "prompt": "12.  On 7 January and 2 February 2009 respectively, the applicant lodged a second asylum request with the Federal Office for Migration (hereinafter \u201cthe FOM\u201d), indicating that he had in the meantime become a political activist in Switzerland in such a way that he would face a real risk of persecution if expelled to Sudan. He explained that he had become an active member of the Sudan Liberation Movement-Unity (hereinafter \u201cthe SLM\u2011Unity\u201d) in Switzerland, had been appointed its human rights officer, and had participated in several of its public activities since 2006. In addition, he also had become a member of the newly-founded Darfur Peace and Development Centre (hereinafter \u201cthe DFEZ\u201d) in Switzerland. He stated that because of an interview broadcast on a local TV channel in "}
+{"target": "the Pervomayskiy District", "prompt": "9.  On 28 August 2003 at around 9.15 a.m. the applicant was transferred to the Kirov IZ-43/1 remand centre, where he underwent a medical examination which attested to the presence of a large haematoma on the inside of his left thigh and two bruises on the left side of his forehead. The applicant was furnished with a certificate reflecting the results of the examination. He explained that he had sustained his injuries as a result of the beatings by the police; this information was then forwarded to the prosecutor\u2019s office of "}
+{"target": "Urus-Martan", "prompt": "59.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by representatives of Russian power structures and pointed out that there was irrefutable evidence to this effect, such as: the abductors had used armoured military vehicles; the abductors must have obtained the permission of the Russian military to move around in the area during curfew; the large number of the abductors and their unaccented Russian had also demonstrated that they were military servicemen; when on the morning of 12 April 2002 the applicant had complained about the abduction to the law enforcement agencies, they had failed to block the roads or arrest the culprits; after the abduction the military vehicles had driven away in the direction of the Russian military checkpoint; at the material time the town had been under the full control of Russian federal forces and all roads leading to and from the city were blocked by checkpoints. The applicant requested the investigators to take, inter alia, the following measures: to establish the identity of the owners of the APCs and URAL vehicles in "}