{"word_count": 217, "character_count": 1359}
- Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, 1ère section, Témoins de Jéhovah de Moscou et autres c. Russie, 10 juin 2010, n° 302/02, § 144.- Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, 4ème section, Yarar c. Turquie, 19 décembre 2006, n° 57258/00, § 8.- Commission Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, 1ère chambre, Wanyonyi c. Royaume Uni,  décision du 20 mai 1998,  n° 32713/96. The facts:“In the course of the strip search, the applicant bit one of the male police officers through the latter's shirt and vest and inflicted a wound. The applicant, being a Luhya who have a strong cultural tradition against nakedness following circumcision carried out when reaching adulthood, felt greatly humiliated by being exposed naked, in particular as one of the officers present was a woman.”- Commission Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, V., W., X., Y. et Z. c. Royaume Uni,  décision du 18 janvier 1995,  n° 22170/93. “2. The applicants also allege that they are suffering from discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. They refer to the fact that other activities which involve infliction of actual bodily harm are excepted from the ruling eg. ritual circumcision, boxing, tattooing, body piercing.”- Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, 1ère section, K.A. et A.D. c. Belgique, 23 mai 2002,  n° 42758/98 et 45558/99.&#160;Gérard GONZALEZ.&#160;