Примеры использования Complainant's return на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Complainant's return to the State party.
A number of allegations of mistreatment emerged after the complainant's return to Egypt.
It contends that the complainant's return to Bangladesh would not be in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The period of deprivation of liberty was subsequently regularly extended until the complainant's return on 2 September 2009.
The State party contends that the complainant's return would not violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention.
Thus, his relationship with S.M. would not appear to have any negative consequences affecting the complainant's return.
The State party claims that the complainant's return to Bangladesh would not entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The Federal Office for Migration carefully weighed the relevant factors to assess the legality of the complainant's return to Turkey in its decisions of 20 January and 28 April 2009.
The State party claims that the complainant's return to the State party would not entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The Refugee Appeals Board also decided to request the Immigration Service to help facilitate the complainant's return to Denmark for a renewed consideration of his asylum case.
The State party concludes that the complainant's return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The State party reiterated its previous submissions that considerations based on a deficient retrial are outside the scope of the present case,which is concerned with whether the complainant's return to Egypt was in breach of the absolute ban on torture.
The State party denies that the complainant's return to Bangladesh would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The envoy met with the Egyptian Deputy Minister of Justice and the Minister in charge of the General Intelligence Service(GIS),voicing the State party's concerns over the alleged ill-treatment in the first weeks following the complainant's return to Egypt.
The State party contends that the complainant's return would not violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention.
In the circumstances and in the absence of anyother pertinent information on file, the Committee finds that the complainants have failed to provide sufficient evidence that in case of the main complainant's return to his country of origin, he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured.
Thus, in the event of the complainant's return to Turkey, she would not be prosecuted for any other crime than the one mentioned in the arrest warrant.
In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it to conclude that the complainant's return to Turkey would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
It therefore found that the complainant's return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a breach by Switzerland of his rights under article 3 of the Convention.
In relation to the merits, the State party contends that the complainant's return to Algeria would not contravene article 3 of the Convention.
The PRRA officer also noted that the complainant's return to Canada on 16 October 2002 did not prove that there was any subjective fear on his part, since he had been planning to return all along, having left all his family belongings in the apartment that he had been renting in Canada since 1999.
The Committee noted that the Belarusian authorities' failure to act increased the risk of illtreatment after the complainant's return to Belarus, since the perpetrators of the rape had not been investigated, let alone prosecuted, and could mistreat the complainant again with impunity.
Consequently, the Committee is not able to conclude that the complainant's return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
This failure to act increases the risk of ill-treatment upon the complainant's return to Belarus, since the perpetrators of the rapes have never been investigated and can mistreat the complainant again in all impunity.
The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there are no substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant's return to Ethiopia would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, and invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention.
The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there is no indication that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant's return to Ethiopia would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture and invites the Committee against Torture to find that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the international commitments of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention.
The State party submits that, in the light of the above, there is no indication that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant's return to Ethiopia would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, and invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention.
Given the complainant's voluntary return to Mexico, the Committee decides to discontinue consideration of this case under the follow-up procedure.
However, this does not suffice to establish that the complainant's forced return would violate article 3.
However, this does not suffice to establish that the complainant's forced return would violate article 3.