Примеры использования Complainant's deportation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Risk of complainant's deportation to Togo.
By letter of 12 March 2003,the Ministry replied that it found no reason to postpone the complainant's deportation.
Risk of complainant's deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On 30 May 2006, the Special Rapporteur for Interim Measures denied a renewed request for interim measures to prevent the complainant's deportation to Pakistan.
The HRC agreed that the complainant's deportation would breach Article 7 in two ways.
On 29 June 2010, the Rapporteur on new complaints andinterim measures decided not to request interim measures from the State party to suspend the complainant's deportation to Ethiopia.
The Committee therefore found that the complainant's deportation did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
It reminds the Committee that the decision of 2 December 2003 was cancelled by the Court of Federal Appeal of 6 July 2005 and that the complainant's deportation was based on the decision of 11 May 2006.
The Committee considered that the complainant's deportation to the Congo or to Côte d'Ivoire would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
In its written submission dated 30 October 2002,the State party reported that it had not been in a position to comply with the Committee's request, since the complainant's deportation was already taking place when the request for interim measures reached the Government.
Ms. GAER said that, at the time of the complainant's deportation, the State party had maintained that the complainant was well and that there was therefore no need for a monitoring mechanism.
Based on the above, the Opinion weighs the danger that the complainant poses to the Canadian public against the risk to which he would be exposed in the event of his deportation to Lebanon, and concludes in favour of the complainant's deportation to Lebanon and of withdrawal of his permanent resident status.
Counsel also submits that the complainant's deportation to India would subject him to severe emotional trauma without the possibility of obtaining appropriate medical treatment, which is said to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment within the terms of article 16 of the Convention.
In this connection, the Committee considers that a distinction must be made between(a) the complainant's deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic in January 1997 and(b) the expulsion order currently pending against him.
With regard to the complainant's deportation in 1997, the Committee takes note of the State party's argument that even assuming that the complainant was tortured on return to the Syrian Arab Republic, such risk of torture must have been foreseeable at the time of the enforcement of the expulsion order against the complainant on 5 January 1997 for a violation of article 3 of the Convention to be found.
In complaint No. 373/2009(Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden), the complainants, the husband and daughter of the complainant who submitted a similar communication to the Committee registered as case No. 349/2008, claimed that that the first-named complainant's deportation to Turkey would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee must decide whether the complainant's deportation to Burundi would violate the State party's obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return("refouler") a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Regarding the effectiveness of judicial remedies available under the Canadian immigration review scheme,the Committee notes that the final decision on the complainant's deportation was taken after a lengthy and detailed assessment of the risk of returning the complainant to India, in four subsequent proceedings.
There were substantial differences between the complainant's deportation in 1997 and the Agiza case, where the Committee had found that the Swedish authorities knew or ought to have known that Mr. Agiza, who had been sentenced in absentia and was wanted for alleged involvement in terrorist activities in his country of origin, would run a real and personal risk of being tortured if returned to that country.
The Committee is aware that a number of States parties have expressed concern that interim measures of protection have been requested in too largea number of cases, especially where the complainant's deportation is alleged to be imminent, and that there are insufficient factual elements to warrant a request for interim measures.
In its decision on complaint No. 183/2001(B.S.S. v. Canada),the Committee found that the complainant's deportation to India, 13 years after he had allegedly been tortured by the Punjabi police, would not violate article 3 of the Convention, given that the evidence submitted by the complainant exclusively referred to his risk of being tortured in Punjab.
In the light of the deterioration of the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic in connection with the Government's crackdown on protests for political reforms earlier in 2011, the Committee found that the complainant's deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic would expose him to a risk of being subjected to torture and would therefore amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
The complainant argues that the State party's submissions, in substantial part, merely repeat the arguments stated in the immigration officer's final decision, dated 13 October 2000, without explaining why the conclusion in two decisions of the Federal Court, that the complainant's deportation to India would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, was disregarded in that decision.
The Committee is aware that a number of States parties have expressed concern that interim measures of protection have been requested in too large a number of cases alleging violations of article3 of the Convention, especially where the complainant's deportation is alleged to be imminent, and that there are insufficient factual elements to warrant a request for interim measures.
The complainant left Togo, he arrived in Europe and requested asylum in Switzerland on 30 May 2000. On 11 October 2000, the Federal Refugee Office refused his application and ordered his deportation from Switzerland. On 19 November 2001, the Asylum Appeals Commission dismissed his appeal and, on 15 July 2003, it confirmed the decision of the Federal Refugee Office ordering the complainant's deportation. On 18 September 2003, the Asylum Appeals Commission rejected his request to review its decision of 15 July 2003.
The complainant's date of deportation was set for 17 March 1999.
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;
Deportation of the complainant to Ethiopia.
Deportation of the complainants to Afghanistan.
Deportation of the complainant to Algeria.