Примеры использования His right to a defence на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
This is alleged to constitute a serious violation of his right to a defence.
In exercising his right to a defence, Djamel Ktiti requested a review of the extradition order via his attorney on 8 February 2010.
What is more, he did not have an opportunity to exercise his right to a defence against these punishments.
His right to a defence was affected by the fact that he had no opportunity to question Mr. G.A.P.G., owing to the negative reply from the Government of the United States.
From the start of the procedure, the author was assisted by counsel who exercised his right to a defence, exploiting all the remedies provided for under the law.
The State party also points out that, contrary to the author's assertions,the redefinition of the offences has in no way violated his right to a defence.
The Government adds that Zhou Yung Jun was assisted by three lawyers, that his right to a defence was fully respected and that his lawyers had freely expressed themselves during the trial.
The author filed an appeal to the Murcia Provincial High Court, claiming a violation of the principle of equality before the law and of equality of arms,as well as a violation of his right to a defence.
In his comments of 20 August 2000,the author argues that, throughout the proceedings, his right to a defence and to be heard by a court were mere formalities, as clearly reflected in the court's decision.
According to the complainant, during the proceedings,the magistrate of the State Security Court, Mr. Hechmi Zemmal, forced him to keep his statements brief, thus compromising his right to a defence.
The author alleges that he was tried in proceedings that allowed no means of exercising the right to question the evidence, with his right to a defence undermined and with attorneys threatened with being dragged into the trial.
The State party rejects the author's claims that his right to a defence was violated since in 2000- 2002 he was not allowed to familiarize himself with the entire case file and his relatives were not allowed to participate as defenders.
With regard to the alleged violations of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant,the author alleges a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence and his right to a defence inasmuch as he was relieved of his duties without having been brought before a competent court.
The author claims that his right to a defence under article 14, paragraph 3(b), of the Covenant was violated in that Murcia Criminal Court No. 3 did not allow his lawyer to question him properly, claiming that the interrogation was being conducted in a tendentious manner.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his claim of a violation of his right to a defence as enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant and that the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
With regard to the claims that his right to a defence was violated, the State party points out that, at the request of the Regional Court, a letter of request was sent to the authorities in the United States, where the witness, Mr. G.A.P.G., was being held, with a view to questioning him for the author's defence. .
The author also claimed that the main purpose of the new charge was to prevent his release, andthat his right to be presumed innocent, his right to a defence and his right to a fair trial had been violated as he had been convicted without sufficient evidence.
The author claims that his right to a defence, guaranteed in article 14, paragraph 3(b), was violated, since the court did not authorize the form which it called"tendentious" in which his lawyer wished to question him, nor did it permit the reenactment of the incident by one of the witnesses, which, according to the author, was crucial to his defence. .
The Committee also notes the author's assertion that these arguments formed the basis of his legal argument when he complained to the judicial authorities of violations of the system of guarantees for litigants, his right to a defence, the principle of equality before the law and, in particular, the right to freedom.
The author further claims that the redefinition of the offences violates his right to a defence insofar as the aggravating circumstance of membership of an"organized gang" should have been subject to formal supplementary notification prior to committal, as recommended in the March 1994 circular from the Ministry of Justice.
Moreover, the Government had approved a set of rules on the expulsion of aliens pursuant to which no one could be expelled to a country in which he had been persecuted on account of his sex, race, nationality, language, beliefs, political or other opinions or his social or national origins, and in which he would not be guaranteed his right to a defence.
The author further disputes the State party's argument that he has not been deprived of the right to appeal the court decision and that his right to a defence was respected, since the fact that his attorney submitted an appeal does not mean that his right to a defence was ensured at all stages of the investigation and during pretrial proceedings.
China's judicial authorities acted in strict compliance with the law: throughout the investigation of Zheng's crime, his arrest, the hearing and judicial proceedings,they observed due process, took due note of the evidence and upheld the defendant's legitimate interests, allowing him to fully exercise his right to a defence and a hearing.
He also states that during the court hearings phase of the extradition proceedings before the Supreme Court, his right to a defence and due process was breached because of a refusal to produce the evidence requested by both the defence and the Public Prosecutor with the aim of fully meeting the procedural requirement to make a full identity check of the person sought.
On 2 January 2008, the author applied to the Constitutional Court for amparo against the judgements issued by the National High Court and the Supreme Court on 2 February and 2 November 2007, respectively,alleging violations of his right to effective judicial protection, his right to a defence, his right to be informed of the charges against him,his right to a public hearing subject to all legal safeguards and his right to equality before the law and also of the principles of legality and legal certainty.
On 7 May 2009, the Supreme Court found that the author was never properly indicted on the embezzlement charge and that his right to be included in the corresponding investigation had been curtailed,in violation of his right to a defence, his right to be heard and his right to be presumed innocent, in that the Attorney-General's Office did not inform him that a new offence had come to light and failed to summon him to give a statement.
The State party claims that the author has in fact had every opportunity to exercise all his rights to a defence, insofar as all his claims have received repeated consideration by the highest Spanish courts.
In this respect, the State party contends that the argument that the author was innocent of the charges andthat the investigation methods used violated his rights to a defence, as well as the issue of public pressure were all reviewed by the Supreme Court in its capacity as an Appeal Court, which considered them to be unfounded.
With regard to article 14 of the Covenant,the author claims that there were serious irregularities in the criminal proceedings brought against him, to the detriment of his rights to a defence, to effective access to justice,to a trial by an impartial and independent court and to the presumption of innocence.