Примеры использования His right to defence на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party rejects the author's allegation about a violation of his right to defence.
These facts restricted his right to defence and also cast doubts on the impartiality of the judge and lay judges.
He maintains that the above facts violated his right to defence.
In connection with the violation of his right to defence, the Deputy Prosecutor-General of the Russian Federation made a request for supervisory review on 22 April 2010.
He was discharged from hospitalon 20 March 2008, and was not hindered in any way in the enjoyment of his right to defence.
There are no complaints orpetitions regarding the violations of his right to defence or torture addressed to the Kazakhstan courts by the author.
The author further claims that his cassation appealwas considered in the absence of his lawyer, in violation of his right to defence.
He dismissed as irrelevant the State party's reference to the possibilityof hiring a lawyer, given that his right to defence had already been violated by the State party.
Mr. Bialatski is making use of his right to defence under article 17, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the assistance of a professional lawyer as defence counsel.
During the investigation andthe Court hearing, Mr. Gao's legal rights, including his right to defence, were fully protected according to law.
The author challenges the State party's assertion that the participation of an ex officio lawyer in the review of the case by the court of cassation on 16 March 2011 fully rectified the violation of his right to defence.
In any event, the author's right to access materials in the case file and his right to defence were not restricted in a manner incompatible with article 14, paragraph 3(b), of the Covenant.
The source alleges that the sentencing of Mr.Al Alili followed an unfair trial during which the basic norms of fair trial, including his right to defence, were violated.
The author claims that his right to defence was violated because despite his request to be present,his appeal was examined in his absence by the appeal court.
The State party adds that the above-mentioned report was signed a fortiori by the lawyer,which proves that the author was represented and his right to defence was respected.
His right to defence was also violated, as he was not represented by a lawyer during the preliminary investigation, and he was not able to acquaint himself with the content of the criminal case file before the beginning of the court trial.
In the light of the above, the State party maintains that the author's claims regarding his ability to familiarize himself with the materials and his right to defence are unsubstantiated.
The author concludes that the violation of his right to defence had a negative impact on the legality and validity of his sentence, as he was denied the possibility to defend himself by all lawful means and methods.
Further, in his requests for supervisory review of the 16 March 2011 cassation decision, dated 14 June 2011 and 22 August 2011,the author did not raise any alleged violations of his right to defence.
Accordingly, the author maintains that the violation of his right to defence was not completely rectified at the 16 March 2011 cassation court hearing, since the right to a fair trial includes equality before the courts.
On 26 November 2007,the author submitted a complaint to the Moscow Prosecutor, requesting a supervisory review of his case based on the violation of his right to defence by the court of cassation. The Prosecutor rejected the complaint on 29 February 2008.
The Committee further takes not of the author's allegations that his right to defence under article 14, paragraph 3(d), of the Covenant was violated during the second review in cassation, because he participated in the hearing through a video conference connection.
The Court annulled the European Commission regulation implementing the Security Council resolutions and decisions related to the targeted sanctions regime insofar as it applied to the applicant, Mr. Kadi,on grounds that the regulation violated his right to defence.
The State party rejects the author's claim that his right to defence was violated since the court refused to question some witnesses and maintains that neither the accused, nor his attorney made such requests either prior to or during the trial.
By note verbale of 16 November 1999, the State party argues that the Committee has no justifiable grounds to examine the communication, because the Supreme Court has already dealt with the case on three occasions,giving particularly close attention to the author's claim that he was convicted on the basis of unsound evidence and his right to defence was violated.
The Committee takes note of the State party's submission that the author's allegations that his right to defence under article 14, paragraph 3(d), of the Covenant was violated during the second review in cassation of his verdict were inadmissible, because he failed to raise those allegations in a request for supervisory review.
The Committee takes note of the author's allegations that his right to defence under article 14, paragraph 3(d), of the Covenant was violated during the second review in cassation, because he only saw his ex officio lawyer three times, his counsel was not present during the period when he reviewed the case file, he did not have the opportunity to consult her regarding his defence and she did not diligently fulfil her obligations on his defence. .
With regard to the author's arguments that he was never able to exercise his right to defence during the police investigation, the Committee considers that the author has been unable to substantiate for the purposes of admissibility that this constitutes a violation of article 14(3)(b); it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Felix Greencu himself stated in court that imprisonment violates his right to defense.