their detention had no legal basis, that they were not informed about the reasons for their detention and were denied the opportunity to challenge its lawfulness before the Georgian courts. They further allege that their rights under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) were breached on account of the failure of the prosecution authorities to initiate a preliminary investigation of the circumstances of their allegedly unlawful detention, and the inability, as a consequence, to bring judicial review proceedings. Dvalishvili v. Georgia (no. 19634/07) The applicant, Revaz Dvalishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984 and lives in the village of Gvishtibi (Georgia). Arrested in December 2005 on suspicion of breaching public order, of which he was later convicted, he alleges that he was severely beaten at the police department by three police officers, who demanded that he confess to having assaulted a taxi driver. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Dvalishvili complains of having been ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession and alleges that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his complaints. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he further alleges that he was wrongly convicted in unfair proceedings. Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08) The applicant, Genadi Jeladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence for murder in Rustavi no. 6 Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was infected with a chronic form of viral Hepatitis C in prison and that the prison authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. Relying further on Articles 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and pre-trial detention and about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Preziosi v. Italy (no. 67125/01) – Revision The applicants in this case were owners of land which was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation, and on which building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of their land. The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). By a judgment of 5 October 2006, the Court held that the applicants’ loss of all ability to dispose of the land, coupled with the lack of a remedy, amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. In a letter sent in September 2012, the Government requested revision of the judgment, on the ground that the applicants had died in 2003 and 2004, before the Court had delivered its judgment, and their heirs had never expressed a wish to take part in the proceedings before the Court. Čuprakovs v. Latvia (no. 8543/04) The applicant, Aleksejs Čuprakovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison (Latvia). Diagnosed with bilateral destructive pulmonary tuberculosis, he was admitted to the prison hospital of the Central Prison in Riga in March 2005, where he spent a total of more than six months. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he 2