Примеры использования Constitutional motion на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Vi The victim orcomplainant/relatives can apply to the courts on a constitutional motion;
Mr. Mendes asked the author whether he wanted a constitutional motion to stop his execution to be filed, and the author replied in the affirmative.
However, despite repeated requests from counsel until March 1994, the constitutional motion was never filed.
In his comments, counsel reiterated that the constitutional motion was not an effective and available domestic remedy in the author's case.
Since July 1992 no further information has been received from the State party in respect of the author's constitutional motion.
The Committee notes that it appears from the facts before it that the author filed a constitutional motion before the High Court of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
The Committee notes that the issues raised by the author in his communication are related to the grounds of appeal raised in his constitutional motion.
During the interview,counsel asked the author whether he wanted a constitutional motion to be filed on his behalf or not.
The Committee notes that the issues raised by the author in his communication are related to the grounds of appeal raised in his constitutional motion.
It observed that the constitutional motion filed on behalf of the author had become moot with the commutation of his death sentence by the President of Trinidad and Tobago.
The State party,by submission of 6 February 1991, maintains that the communication is inadmissible because of the author's failure to file a constitutional motion.
It adds,"nevertheless, a constitutional motion may be brought for relief on these grounds, as was the case in Pratt& Morgan.
Leave was granted to apply to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for constitutional redress. On 16 March 1993,the author's constitutional motion was dismissed.
It challenges the Committee's finding that a constitutional motion does not provide an adequate and effective remedy in the absence of legal aid.
In this context, he refers to the Committee's jurisprudence that,in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion is not an available remedy.
Moreover, the authors claimed that, even if the constitutional motion were an available remedy, it would entail an unreasonable prolongation of the application of domestic remedies.
Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern the findings of the Court of Appeal of Barbados in respect of the author's constitutional motion, referred to in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 above.
In his comments, counsel reaffirms that a constitutional motion would not be an effective remedy for Mr. Bailey, due to the unavailability of legal aid for the purpose.
Since Mr. Francis alleges unfair treatment under the law, andnot that post-constitutional laws are unconstitutional, the constitutional motion is not available to him.
It is submitted that, for these reasons, a constitutional motion is not an available remedy which the author is required to exhaust for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol.
Since the author claims unjust treatment under the law, andnot that post constitutional laws are unconstitutional, a constitutional motion would not be an effective remedy in his case.
The Committee considered that,in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not, in the circumstances of the instant cases, constitute an available remedy which needed to be exhausted for purposes of the Optional Protocol.
In the cases under examination, the complainants had been sentenced to death andno legal aid was available to them for the filing of a constitutional motion to seek review of irregularities during their trial.
The State party argued that because of the author's pending constitutional motion, the complaint should be held inadmissible on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In the instant case, while a constitutional motion to the Supreme(Constitutional) Court might in theory still be available, it would not be an available remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 8.1 above.
As to the claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the author contends that a constitutional motion would not be an effective remedy within the meaning of the Optional Protocol.
By submission of 9 August 1991, counsel contests that the constitutional motion is a remedy available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
They invoke the Committee's jurisprudence to the effect that in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not constitute an effective remedy for the indigent author in that case.
In the view of the Committee, this supports the finding that a constitutional motion is not an available and effective remedy for an author who has no means of his own to pursue it.
It states that the author's execution will not take place before the constitutional motion(which at the time of the State party's submission was pending before the court of first instance) had been heard.