Примеры использования Complainant's allegation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Board accepted the complainant's allegation as to the incidents with the Taliban.
In view of these inconsistencies, the State party considers that it is justified to question the veracity of the complainant's allegation that she has worked with the pastor.
The Committee takes note of the complainant's allegation that his treatment constituted torture within the meaning of the Convention.
With respect to the State party's statement that the Egyptian authorities rejected the allegations made by the complainant in March 2003, counsel observes that any contrary reaction would have been surprising, and that such refutation does not disprove the complainant's allegation.
In 1997, the Uppsala District Court did not carry out any investigation into the complainant's allegation that his deportation would expose him to a risk of torture;
The Committee considers that the complainant's allegation under article 3 has been sufficiently substantiated, declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits.
The State party maintains that the above statement does not provide any substantial grounds to support the complainant's allegation that he would be subjected to torture or mistreatment upon his return to China.
Nevertheless, it maintains that the complainant's allegation that she will be subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention fails to substantiate the claim for purposes of admissibility.
The State party refers to the Committee's recent jurisprudence involving prospective deportations to Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran andnotes that the problematic human rights situation in Uzbekistan is not in itself sufficient to substantiate the complainant's allegation that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in the event of his return.
In addition, the State party challenged the complainant's allegation that a civil lawsuit would not have had a deterrent effect on the perpetration of the criminal offence of abuse of authority.
The State party reiterates that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the"same matter" has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and as manifestly unfounded.It contests the complainant's allegation that the expulsion order has become statutebarred under the Aliens Act, because it had not been enforced within four years.
It also notes the complainant's allegation that this fear was not merely subjective, but that it was based on his previous experience in 1993, when his term of imprisonment was increased.
In contrast, the Refugee Appeals Board was unable to accept as fact the complainant's allegation of having been detained and subjected to acts of violence by the Afghan authorities.
The complainant's allegation that plainclothes policemen took part in the event was not proven by the investigation and such presumption"is not in conformity with the applicable regulations of the Republic of Serbia.
The State party concludes that, even ifthese reports corroborated the complainant's allegation that he had been tortured in the past, this did not occur in the recent past, the decisive issue being whether a risk of torture continued to exist.
It challenges the complainant's allegation that applications to the Government and the Parliamentary Ombudsman can replace an appeal to the ordinary courts for purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The Committee also takes note of the complainant's allegation that statements and confessions obtained under torture remained in his case file and served as the basis for his conviction.
Regarding the complainant's allegation that there were translation errors in her application form, she had submitted previously to the authorities that there had been one error, namely the year of the death of her nephew had been translated mistakenly.
The Committee further observes that the complainant's allegation that he showed to the Board sequelae of the violence inflicted by the Afghan authorities on his hands and one leg or foot was not contested by the State party.
Here the complainant's allegation that her husband reacted to the complainant's admission of rape by humiliating her and forbidding her to mention it in their asylum proceedings adds credibility to her claim.
The State party has also not refuted the complainant's allegation to the effect that his apprehension and subsequent police detention remained undocumented for at least two days, and that he was not represented by a lawyer during this period of time.
As to the complainant's allegation that she would be arrested and interrogated upon return, the Committee recalls that the mere risk of being arrested and interrogated is not sufficient to conclude that there is also a risk of being subjected to torture.
However, the Committee observes that, even if the complainant's allegation that he was severely tortured during his detention at the Trincomalee military camp in 1996 were sufficiently substantiated, these alleged acts of torture did not occur in the recent past.
In response to the complainant's allegation of a violation of article 4, paragraph 1, by the State party, the latter submits that article 117 of its Criminal Code defines torture and that it could not be confirmed that the complainant had been subjected to torture.
In the case in question, the Committee has noted the complainant's allegation that he was admitted to hospital twice in connection with the abuse to which he was subjected and that he is still suffering from the after-effects(see para. 2.7), but that he has not benefited from any form of redress.
With regard to the complainant's allegation that she was suspected of having helped her sister to escape, the Swiss migration authorities have rightly pointed out that the complainant cites statements of fact which would normally lead to a criminal charge.
As to the claim under article 16,the State party contests the complainant's allegation that because of his"fragile psychiatric condition and severe PTSD", his deportation would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16, paragraph 1.
In its assessment of the complainant's allegation of violence committed by the authorities, the Board focused mainly on certain inconsistencies in his statements that were not relevant enough to reject his application, and that were produced due to problems with interpretation.
In its decision on complaint No. 293/2006(J.A.M.O. et al. v. Canada),concerning the complainant's allegation that his expulsion to Mexico would constitute a breach by Canada of his rights under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee noted the absence of objective evidence pointing to the existence of risk of torture by the complainant, his wife and his daughter.
In response to the complainant's allegation that the French authorities refused to deport him to a country other than Tunisia, the State party recalls that the complainant at no time designated a country that could take him and to which he could be legally admitted.