Примеры использования Deportation to pakistan на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Deportation to Pakistan.
The author claims that he has exhausted all remedies available to him,which would have the effect of preventing his deportation to Pakistan.
Deportation to Pakistan following denial of asylum claim.
His asylum application had been rejected in Canada, andat the time of submission of the communication, he faced imminent deportation to Pakistan.
He initially claimed that his deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Norway of article 3 of the Convention.
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.
He claims that his deportation to Pakistan would amount to a violation by Canada of articles 6, paragraph 1; 7 and 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The author of the communication is Mr. Dawood Khan, born on 31 July 1950, a Pakistani national,currently residing in Canada and awaiting deportation to Pakistan.
The Committee found that the author's deportation to Pakistan despite a standing request for interim measures constituted a breach of article 22 of the Convention.
According to the author's interpretation of that case,the Committee did not consider the allegation based on the risk of gender-based violence upon deportation to Pakistan as a ground of inadmissibility.
The complainant initially claimed that his deportation to Pakistan would violate article 3 of the Convention, as there were substantial reasons for believing that he would be subjected to torture or other inhuman treatment if returned to Pakistan. .
The Committee observes that the pending H&C application does not shield the author from deportation to Pakistan, and therefore cannot be described as offering him an effective remedy.
While acknowledging the fact that he filed an H&C application in mid-March 2009 which is still pending, the author rejects the State party's contention that domesticremedies were not exhausted, as the renewed H&C application does not protect him from deportation to Pakistan.
The Committee notes the numerous applications of different nature made by the author to prevent his deportation to Pakistan, and particularly a third humanitarian and compassionate grounds(H&C) application.
The author claims that her and her family's deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of their rights under articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 12 and 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, read in conjunction with the Committee's general recommendation No. 19.
The Committee further observes that the pending H&C application does not shield the author from deportation to Pakistan, and therefore cannot be described as offering him an effective remedy.
The author initially claimed that her deportation to Pakistan would constitute, and later did constitute, a violation of article 6 and article 7 of the Covenant, since she has been placed at severe risk of mistreatment and torture in her country, where the military and the police are routinely persecuting political activists.
The Committee further observed that the pending Humanitarian andCompassionate application did not shield the author from deportation to Pakistan, and therefore could not be described as offering him an effective remedy.
He now claims that his deportation to Pakistan despite the Committee's request for interim measures constituted a violation by Norway of its obligation to cooperate in good faith with the Committee, under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Committee notes that the complainant has freely withdrawn that part of the complaint under article 3 relating to his protectionby the State party, i.e. the issue whether his deportation to Pakistan in the future would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
In view of the fact that the complainant, who was not tortured during his stay in Pakistan, had returned to the State party, where he received a residence permit for three years, the Committee considered that the issue as to whether his deportation to Pakistan constituted a violation of article 3 was moot.
Subject matter: Deportation of complainant to Pakistan.
The author submits that his deportation from Canada to Pakistan would expose him to the risk of almost certain death and a real risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution.
The author and her family sought asylum in Denmark; their application was rejected and, at the time ofsubmission of the communication, they were awaiting deportation from Denmark to Pakistan.
They claim that their deportation from Canada to Pakistan would violate their rights under articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9, paragraph 1; 18; 24, paragraph 1; and 27, of the Covenant.
In conclusion, the author submits that his deportation by the State party to Pakistan would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, paragraph 1; 7, and 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Afghans who continue to flee to Pakistan are reluctant to declare themselves for fear of arrest and deportation.
On 9 January 2004, in view of the State party's reply dated 8 January 2004, and taking into account the fact that the author had gone into hiding, the Special Rapporteur on New Communications andInterim Measures denied the author's request for interim measures to prevent her deportation from Canada to Pakistan.
The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,considers that the deportation of the complainant to Pakistan despite standing interim measures, constituted a breach of article 22 of the Convention, as long as the complainant was under the jurisdiction of Pakistan from 22 September 2005 to 31 March 2006.
On 16 January 2006,the complainant's newly appointed counsel informed the Committee that he had been deported to Pakistan on 22 September 2005. On 15 February 2006, the State party acknowledged the deportation.