Примеры использования Mourad chihoub на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Mourad Chihoub was arrested in the presence of the authors and his five sisters.
Article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; article 9; article 10, paragraph 1; andarticle 16 with regard to Djamel and Mourad Chihoub.
They also claim that Mourad Chihoub is the victim of a violation of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
According to the authors,this constitutes gross failure by the State party to meet its obligations under article 9, paragraph 1, with regard to Djamel and Mourad Chihoub.
Djamel and Mourad Chihoub(their children, born in 1977 and 1980 respectively) and the authors.
The Committee has found a direct violation of article 6 of the Covenant,in concluding that the State Party has failed in its duty to guarantee the right to life of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub.
The authorities of the State party would also later confirm that Mourad Chihoub had not been wanted by the authorities and that there had been no warrant for his arrest.
The Committee has found a direct violation of article 6 of the Covenant,in concluding that the State party has failed in its duty to guarantee the right to life of Kamel Djebrouni and Mourad Chihoub.
The Committee notes that the disappearances of Djamel Chihoub and Mourad Chihoub were reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
The Committee notes, however, that on 9 October 1999 Saadi Chihoub filed a formal complaint with the investigating judge of El Harrach regarding the abduction anddisappearance of his son Mourad Chihoub.
They submit the communication on behalf of their two sons, Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, born on 8 January 1977 in Hussein Dey(Algiers) and 29 September 1980 in El Harrach(Algiers) respectively.
On 9 October 1999, Saadi Chihoub filed a formal complaint with the investigating judge of El Harrach regarding the abduction anddisappearance of his son Mourad Chihoub, who was a minor at the time of his arrest.
The authors also claim that the enforced disappearance of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, and the resulting anguish and suffering, constitute treatment violating article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the two victims.
The Committee noted that the State party had not provided any information to refute those allegations andconcluded that the State party had failed in its duty to guarantee the right to life of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, in violation of article 6 of the Covenant.
Concerning the claim that Djamel and Mourad Chihoub were detained incommunicado, the Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world.
In case No. 1811/2008(Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria),the Committee noted that the disappearances of Djamel Chihoub and Mourad Chihoub were reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
Pointing out that Mourad Chihoub was 16 years old when he was arbitrarily arrested at his parents' home and placed in incommunicado detention, the authors maintain that the State party acted in violation of article 24, paragraph 1 with regard to him.
An objective reading of the provisions in force thus shows that not only would any complaint regarding the violations of the rights of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub have been declared inadmissible, it would also have been criminally punished.
The authors maintain that the facts show that their sons Djamel and Mourad Chihoub were victims of enforced disappearance from the moment they were arrested by agents of the State party on 16 May 1996 and 13 November 1996 respectively.
On 13 November 1996 at around 11 p.m., about a dozen soldiers from the Baraki barracks broke down the door of the authors' residence andarrested their youngest son, Mourad Chihoub, then 16 years old, without showing any arrest warrant or even providing any explanation.
The authors claim that Djamel Chihoub and Mourad Chihoub are victims of enforced disappearance by Algeria, in violation of article 2, paragraph 3; article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; article 9, paragraphs 1 to 4; article 10, paragraph 1; article 16; article 17 and article 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
As the State party did not take the necessary measures to protect the rights set out in articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23 and 24, the authors are of the view that the State party acted in independentviolation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with regard to Djamel and Mourad Chihoub.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of the cases of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision.
The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any information to refute these allegations, andconcludes that the State party has failed in its duty to guarantee the right to life of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, in violation of article 6 of the Covenant.
According to the authors,the chances of finding Djamel and Mourad Chihoub alive 15 years after their disappearance are negligible, and their prolonged absence, as well as the context and circumstances of their arrest, suggest that they died in detention.
I fully agree with the decision of the Human Rights Committee in the case of Chihoub v. Algeria, communication No. 1811/2008, andwith the finding of violations of the human rights of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub and of their parents Taous Djebbar and Saadi Chihoub resulting from the enforced disappearance of the former.
With regard to themselves,the authors maintain that the disappearance of Djamel and Mourad Chihoub was and remains a paralysing, painful and distressing experience given that they know nothing of the fate of their two sons or, if they are dead, of the circumstances of their deaths or in the event of their place of burial.
As the State party authorities themselves admitted that there were no charges against Djamel Chihoub and no warrant for his arrest, and in the absence of any further explanation by the State party,the Committee concludes that the detention of Djamel Chihoub and Mourad Chihoub was in violation of article 9.
The Committee also takes note of the many steps the authors took to shed light on the fate of their sons Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, including petitions to politicians, the public prosecutor's office of El Harrach, the investigating judge and the competent administrative authorities.
The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9; 10, paragraph 1; and16 of the Covenant with regard to Djamel and Mourad Chihoub, and read in conjunction with article 24 of the Covenant with regard to Mourad Chihoub.