Sopin v. Russia (no. 57319/10) The applicant, Aleksandr Sopin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Moscow. Arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of aggravated fraud, his pre-trial detention was extended a number of times until his release in September 2011, while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his right to trial within a reasonable time was breached and that the orders for his detention were not founded on sufficient reasons. B.Z. v. Sweden (no. 74352/11) The applicant, B.Z., is an Eritrean national who was born in 1942. Having arrived in Sweden in April 2006, he applied for asylum, submitting that he had been imprisoned in Eritrea for being unable to inform the authorities of the whereabouts of his sons who had allegedly deserted from military service, and that he had been beaten in prison. His asylum request having been rejected in a decision upheld by the Swedish Migration Court in November 2011, he alleges that he would face treatment in breach of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) if forced to return to Eritrea. F.N. and Others v. Sweden (no. 28774/09) The applicants, Mr F.N., his wife and their two minor children, are Uzbek nationals who were born in 1960, 1970, 1998 and 2006 respectively. Having arrived in Sweden in December 2005, they applied for asylum and residence permits, submitting that Mr and Ms N. had been persecuted in Uzbekistan. In particular, Mr N. had been tortured following his participation in a demonstration in Andijan in May 2005. Their request for asylum and residence permits having been rejected by the Swedish Migration Board in a decision eventually upheld in June 2009, the applicants complain that if deported to Uzbekistan they would be persecuted, arrested, ill-treated and maybe even killed. They also allege that one of the couple’s children is in very poor health and would not receive proper medical treatment in Uzbekistan. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). P.Z. and Others v. Sweden (no. 68194/10) The applicants, P.Z. and her two children, are Afghan nationals who were born in 1975, 1995 and 2004 respectively. Having arrived in Sweden in May 2007, joining P.Z.’s husband and their other children who had arrived there earlier, they applied for asylum, alleging that in Afghanistan the family had been persecuted by the Taliban. The applicants’ asylum request having been rejected in a decision upheld by the Swedish Migration Court of Appeal in June 2010, they allege that they would face treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) if forced to return to Afghanistan. Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 3111/10) The applicant, Ahmet Yıldırım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul. He is the owner and manager of a website, hosted by the “Google Sites” portal, on which he publishes his academic work and his opinions on various matters. On 23 June 2009 the Denizli criminal court issued a decision ordering that access be blocked to another site; this was presented as a preventive measure, adopted in the context of criminal proceedings brought against the owner of the other site for insulting the memory of Atatürk. The blocking order was submitted for execution to the Telecommunications and Electronic Data Authority (the PTI), which, shortly afterwards, asked for it to be revised, with a view to blocking access to “Google Sites”, which hosted not only the other site in question, but also Mr Yıldırım’s site. The PTI stated that this was the only means of blocking the other site, as its owner, who lived abroad, did not 4