Примеры использования Complainant asserts на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The complainant asserts that his wife, Mrs. Karin Berg, visited him after he had been deported and imprisoned in Colombia.
With regard to article 15 of the Convention, the complainant asserts that the trial leading to his conviction was unfair.
The complainant asserts that his return to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.
In response to the State party's argument concerning the possibility of judicial review of the decision to deny him relief on humanitarian grounds, the complainant asserts that such a remedy would be based on the same facts as his application for refugee status.
The complainant asserts that the violation of article 3 of the Convention took effect on 2 September 2009, when the deportation was carried out.
The State party emphasizes, however,that in his complaint to the Committee, the complainant asserts that after he left the Congo he became active in CERDEC, an association founded in Paris by members of the opposition in exile, and that he started a Swiss branch.
The complainant asserts that he was a member of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC) and of the United Confederation of Workers CUT.
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant asserts that there is no procedure in Morocco whereby an individual who complains of having been tortured can compel the State to conduct an impartial and speedy investigation.
The complainant asserts that his rights were grossly violated in Mexico, and considers that should he return to Mexico he would again be tortured, or even executed, by the Mexican Army.
In the present case, the complainant asserts that he runs the risk of being tortured by Liberian rebels in Côte d'Ivoire, by villagers in Para and by the authorities who may be informed of his case.
The complainant asserts that he would be at risk of being tortured for betraying the Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola(MPLA) if he was returned to Angola, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
Concerning his conditions of detention, the complainant asserts that he was held in complete isolation for several months, during which time he could not correspond with his lawyers, his family or his relatives.
In conclusion, the complainant asserts that she has been consistent and has provided numerous details and that her version of events is therefore credible, and has been since the start of the proceedings.
The complainant asserts that if he is deported to Burundi he will be subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, on account of his membership of and work for PA-Amasekanya.
The complainant asserts that he is in danger of being immediately arrested by the police, tortured or ill-treated or even condemned to death or summarily executed if he is deported to Pakistan.
In the present case, the complainant asserts that, in 2000-2001, he was threatened by his former employer, a retired Algerian army general, and that, in 2002, he was arrested, held incommunicado for one week and ill-treated.
The complainant asserts that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if he was returned to Bangladesh and that his expulsion to that country would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention.
The complainant asserts that his abandonment in the desert without suitable equipment by the Moroccan gendarmes was an intentional act by the State party authorities, because the gendarmes were acting with the support of their superiors and the competent political authorities.
Although the complainant asserts that other members of his family have had problems because of their relationship to G.D.B., the Committee has no information about or evidence of these problems and no objective indication that the complainant's possible relationship to G.D.B. would place him at risk of torture.
The complainant asserts that his and his children's deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture because of their Rwandan Tutsi origins, for which they would be persecuted by State agents and members of the community.
The complainant asserts that her application to Geneva in 1995(sic) concerned only the events that predated the application, namely the impossibility to obtain a judicial review of her arrest on 26 August 1995 and therefore could not touch upon the facts which happened afterwards and were submitted to the Court in November 1998." emphasis added.
Concerning the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant asserts that the removal of his name from the Swedish Population Registry on 25 January 1988, the alleged revocation of his permanent residence permit on 10 May 1995, and the issuance of a new expulsion decision on 7 January 1997 were a plot to unfairly and unlawfully deprive him of his asylum status.
The complainant asserts that Switzerland would violate her rights under article 3 of the Convention by forcibly deporting her to Ethiopia, where she would"be at a real risk of being subjected to state persecution and inhumane treatment" due both to her own active participation in Ethiopian dissident activities in Switzerland, and to her father's and brother's association or imputed association with the political opposition.
In the present case, the complainant asserts that there is a risk that he will be tortured if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran because he is from the persecuted Arab minority and from the B. clan, several members of which have already reportedly been killed, with others having gone missing; because of the political activities of his brother, who is wanted by the authorities; and because he took part in a demonstration in front of the Iranian embassy in Bern.
The complainant asserts that the charges, although related only to the destruction of public property with home-made inflammable substances and, therefore, bearing no direct relation with the activities of armed groups, are deemed to fall within the scope of anti-terrorism laws because they are politically motivated, which in turn leads automatically to placement in incommunicado detention.
Throughout the appeal process, the complainant asserted that he did not commit the offence.
The complainant asserted that the State party had not been able to demonstrate that remedies were effectively available to victims in Tunisia.
It was found that her leave had been agreed with the management and that the authorization to take leave which the complainant asserted that she had received had been recorded in the company files.
In additional comments submitted on 30 June 2010, the complainant asserted that the action brought before the Federal Court and the communication before the Committee were two different matters.
The complainants assert that their forcible return to Mexico would constitute a violation by Canada of their rights under article 3 of the Convention.