Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 0:22:43 GMT -6
Apreviously points . . The Court points out that in this case the versions of the parties are contradictory regarding the incident of July although he does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff suffered a sprain of the left ring finger that required between and days of medical care the parties do not agree on the causes of the sprain. The government refers in particular to the lack of evidence in support of the plaintiffs accusations supra.pt. . . However the Court recalls that it has reiterated the principle that the burden of proof of the facts committed.
Rests with the authorities when a person is in the hands of the police Country Email List or a comparable authority it also states that this principle applies even if the person is in a different context than actual deprivation of liberty such as an identity check or a simple interrogation Bouyid previously cited point . At the same time he also emphasized that the prohibition of the use of physical force when it is not strictly necessary imposed by the behavior of the person concerned is applied when the latter is deprived of freedom or more generally when confronted with point . Although unlike the previously cited Bouyid Case the applicant in this case presented.
Himself at the police station on his own initiative the Court notes that he was confronted by a law enforcement officer in his capacity as a lawyer for a client who wanted information about to a criminal case opened against him. . in this regard the Court attaches particular importance to the fact that the plaintiff intervened in his capacity as a lawyer. The Court has previously recognized the special status of lawyers who as intermediaries between the litigants and the courts occupy a central position in the administration of justice Morice v. France MC no.
Rests with the authorities when a person is in the hands of the police Country Email List or a comparable authority it also states that this principle applies even if the person is in a different context than actual deprivation of liberty such as an identity check or a simple interrogation Bouyid previously cited point . At the same time he also emphasized that the prohibition of the use of physical force when it is not strictly necessary imposed by the behavior of the person concerned is applied when the latter is deprived of freedom or more generally when confronted with point . Although unlike the previously cited Bouyid Case the applicant in this case presented.
Himself at the police station on his own initiative the Court notes that he was confronted by a law enforcement officer in his capacity as a lawyer for a client who wanted information about to a criminal case opened against him. . in this regard the Court attaches particular importance to the fact that the plaintiff intervened in his capacity as a lawyer. The Court has previously recognized the special status of lawyers who as intermediaries between the litigants and the courts occupy a central position in the administration of justice Morice v. France MC no.