{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014209591474245116, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.130434782608695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE COURT’S PRIORITY POLICY

With the Court’s increasing case-load this approach meant that certain very serious allegations of human rights violations were taking too long to be examined by the Court, in some cases several years. This was particularly true of applications coming from countries with the highest volume of complaints. Not only was this clearly unsatisfactory for the applicants concerned; it also meant that violations and their causes were going undetected which in turn could lead to more victims and potentially more applications to the Court.