Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 1:22:40 GMT -5
Aand CR had a heated discussion and that after the incident the applicant presented slight injuries to his left hand however the connection between the two events has not been established. According to the coroners conclusions a possible cause of the injury was overwork which did not necessarily imply aggression. . in the alternative the Government refers to the particular circumstances of the case including in particular the conclusions of the forensic doctor the nature of the injury suffered by the applicant the minor consequences on his health and the lack of special indications of.
Vulnerability in his regard and considers that the injuries Country Email List suffered did not reach the minimum threshold of severity necessary to enter the scope of application of art. of the Convention. . Also in the alternative it indicates that the statements of the persons heard in the case were contradictory and insufficient to establish the existence of a crime emphasizes the contradictions between the applicants statement and that of SG which differ in the description of CPs behavior as well as in the question of whether or not he took the phone from.
The applicants hand. In this regard the that the applicant was lefthanded given that he stated that he was holding the phone in his left hand. As for CP he could not present any objective evidence as he was alone in the office and there was no video surveillance. Moreover CP expressed his fear that the applicant is trying through this incident to obtain his recusal in the criminal case opened against SG . The government concludes on the absence of a violation of art. of the Convention under material aspect. b The Courts reasoning . The Court refers to the general principles applicable to the material aspect of art. of the Convention which he recently reiterated in the Bouyid Judgment quoted.
Vulnerability in his regard and considers that the injuries Country Email List suffered did not reach the minimum threshold of severity necessary to enter the scope of application of art. of the Convention. . Also in the alternative it indicates that the statements of the persons heard in the case were contradictory and insufficient to establish the existence of a crime emphasizes the contradictions between the applicants statement and that of SG which differ in the description of CPs behavior as well as in the question of whether or not he took the phone from.
The applicants hand. In this regard the that the applicant was lefthanded given that he stated that he was holding the phone in his left hand. As for CP he could not present any objective evidence as he was alone in the office and there was no video surveillance. Moreover CP expressed his fear that the applicant is trying through this incident to obtain his recusal in the criminal case opened against SG . The government concludes on the absence of a violation of art. of the Convention under material aspect. b The Courts reasoning . The Court refers to the general principles applicable to the material aspect of art. of the Convention which he recently reiterated in the Bouyid Judgment quoted.