Примеры использования Real risk of being subjected на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Canadian authorities consequently concluded that the author did not face a real risk of being subjected to the treatment to which article 7 refers.
Although under the old Act a real risk of being subjected to torture also constituted grounds for admission, this was not specifically mentioned in the Act.
The Aliens Act of the State party provides for the protection of the applicant if there is a"real risk of being subjected to serious harm.
The State party considers that the author does not run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant if returned to Bangladesh.
The Committee recalls that the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the person in question was personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Tunisia.
The Committee recalled that"the individual concerned must face a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he/she is being returned, and that this danger must be personal and present." Emphasis added.
The author maintains that in the light of these past breaches, and taking into account the ongoing campaign of China against Falun Gong practitioners,he would incur a real risk of being subjected to similar violations if returned to China.
The Committee notes the author's claim that he faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if he were to be forcibly returned to Pakistan, where no State protection would be offered to him.
The test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that an Appellant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3.
Consequently, the author has not substantiated that he faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the mujahideen or other actors in Afghanistan because of his previous involvement in the communist regime.
However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return.
Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion.
However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return.
As concerns the author's claim that he faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Afghanistan by the mujahideen due to his activities in the PDPA, the State party recalls that this claim was examined by the Migration Board on three occasions and by the Migration Court on two occasions.
However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return.
Please provide information on measures taken by the State party to ensure that these foreign nationals did not run a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of destination, and that they would not subsequently be deported to any other country where they might run a real risk of being subjected to such forms of ill-treatment.
However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned.
Concludes therefore that the transfer of a person to a State where that person faces a real risk of being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or extrajudicial killing would be a breach of customary international law;
With reference to the Committee's general comment No. 1(1996) on the implementation of article 3,the State party adds that the complainants must establish the existence of a personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin.
The Committee recalls that States parties are under an obligation not to expose individuals to a real risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.
The Court concluded that a violation of article 3 of the Convention had occurred by the transfer of a person in time of war by a Contracting State to a nonContracting State where that person faced a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty.
Expulsion by a Contracting State may engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported,faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3.
The Court recalled that article 3 of the above-mentioned Convention prohibits the return of a refugee who would be at real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in his or her country, while nevertheless considering that in the case in question the persons being returned would not run such a risk. .
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment of the Council of Europe has also recognized the"State's fundamental obligation not to send a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would run a real risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
Please provide information on measures taken by the State party to ensure that these foreign nationals did not run a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of destination, and that they would not subsequently be deported to.
The Human Rights Committee has stated that the non-refoulement obligation arises"where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm",while the European Court of Human Rights requires"substantial grounds… for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3.
Those issues were of major concern to his delegation,since the Portuguese constitution prohibited expulsion of aliens to countries where they faced a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty.
In support of its interpretation of article 3 of the Convention, the State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Commission of Human Rights, establishing that a decision to expel an asylum seeker may give rise to an issue under article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he faces a real risk of being subjected to torture.
It follows from the Committee's jurisprudence that for a violation of articles 6 or 7 to be found,it must be established that the individual concerned faced a real risk of being subjected to acts under articles 6 and 7 in the country to which he or she is returned.