5.  The first applicant is a former World Chess Champion. He and the other six applicants are political activists. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 24 November 2007 a group of opposition politicians organised protests rallies in several Russian cities, including Moscow. They were part of a public campaign “[f]or the consolidation of democratic forces in order to defend the Constitution and the legal order” initiated before the Presidential elections in March 2008. 8.  On that day the applicants attended a gathering on Academician Sakharov Prospekt, which had been organised by the second applicant and approved by the authorities. According to the applicants, at 3 p.m., at the end of the gathering, they started walking to the location of another authorised gathering which took place on Chistoprudnyy Boulevard between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. The Government alleged that some 1,500 people took part in the procession, a figure contested by the applicants as grossly overestimated. It appears that on their way, which ran past Myasnitskaya Street, the applicants also intended to take a petition to the Central Electoral Committee. However, their route was blocked by the riot police and they were arrested, with excessive force allegedly being used against them. 9.  At 3.45 p.m. the first and second applicants were taken to the Basmannyy District police station. A duty officer drew up an administrative offence statement (протокол об административном правонарушении) in respect of each of them on the basis of reports (рапорт) by police officers M. and U. The applicants were charged with breaching the established procedure for conducting public events and disobeying lawful police orders, offences under Articles 20.2 § 2 and 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (протокол об административном задержании). Their administrative detention was ordered with reference to Article 27.3 of the Code. The first applicant was detained until 6.20 p.m. that evening, and the second applicant until an unspecified time on 26 November 2007. 10.  Immediately after his release from detention the first applicant appeared before the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 382 of the Krasnoselskiy District of Moscow. According to the first applicant, members of the public who wanted to attend the hearing of his case were prevented from entering the court, which had been cordoned off by the riot police. He claimed that even his lawyers had experienced difficulties getting into court. He applied for the hearing to be adjourned until 26 November 2007 to allow him time to study the case file with his lawyer and prepare his defence. The hearing was adjourned, but only until 7.15 p.m. that evening. 11.  The first applicant applied for six witnesses to be called and examined. These included four police officers and two eyewitnesses waiting outside the courthouse. He also requested that certain video and photographic material be admitted as evidence. 12.  The Justice of the Peace examined police officers M. and U., who stated that after the public gathering the first applicant had participated in an unauthorised march down Myasnitskaya Street towards Chistoprudnyy Boulevard and had chanted “Down with Putin!”. The first applicant pleaded not guilty and disputed the police officers’ testimony and police reports. He testified that he had been arrested while walking alongside other people from one authorised gathering to another. When he had seen that the path had been blocked by the police he had turned back as ordered, but as he had walked away he had been arrested. He insisted that there had been no other way of complying with the police’s order to disperse than to turn back. He denied that there had been an organised march, or that he had called out to anyone to follow him. 13.  On the same day the Justice of the Peace found the first applicant guilty of both charges, establishing that he had marched among some 1,500 people in what had constituted an unauthorised public event. She based her findings on M. and U.’s witness statements and written reports, the administrative offence statements in respect of two charges and the report on the administrative arrest. She dismissed the applicant’s testimony as false, finding that it contradicted the police officers’ testimony and reports, and that the latter were trustworthy because they had “no vested interest”. She sentenced the first applicant to five days’ administrative detention, noting that he had a previous conviction for a similar administrative offence. 14.  On 26 November 2007 the same Justice of the Peace considered the administrative charges against the second applicant. He applied for six witnesses to be called and examined, including five police officers and one defence witness. The Justice of the Peace examined only police officer U., who gave essentially the same testimony as in the first applicant’s case. The second applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been arrested while walking from the authorised meeting to the metro station. As in the first applicant’s case, the Justice of the Peace based her findings on U.’s witness statements and the written police reports. She dismissed the second applicant’s testimony on the same grounds as in that case. She found him guilty of both charges and sentenced him to five days’ administrative detention. 15.  On the same day the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow examined and dismissed appeals lodged by the first and second applicant. 16.  The applicants served their sentences in detention centres for administrative offenders (спецприемник). 17.  The other applicants were arrested in the same circumstances and were also convicted of administrative offences.