Примеры использования To torture upon return на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Many of them were subjected to torture upon return.
It endorses the arguments advanced by the Federal Office for Refugees and the Asylum Review Commission, and concludes that the author has failed to substantiate that he would be at a real andpersonal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
Among the factors contributing to a personal risk of the complainant to be subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia was the complainant's degree of involvement in political activities in the early 1990s in Ethiopia.
In their latest submission, the authors have raised other grounds for fearing to be subjected to torture upon return to their country.
The Committee has noted the claim that the complainant runs the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey, in particular on account of his affiliation with the PRK and his failure to complete military service.
The State party concludes that the author has failed to show that he would risk to be subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
On the claim that the complainant's involvement in the theft of funds would expose him to torture upon return, the State party affirms that there are no grounds to believe that he would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia.
In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to India.
Although the International Obligations andHumanitarian Concerns Assessment of 13 February 2006 considered that it was possible that he might be exposed to torture upon return to Lebanon, subsequent assessment of the complainant's situation by the Australian authorities led to the conclusion that there were no substantial grounds for such conclusion.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to India.
The Committee should not substitute its own findings on whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the communicant would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture upon return, since the national proceedings disclose no manifest error or unreasonableness and were not tainted by abuse of process, bad faith, manifest bias or serious irregularities.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey.
He maintained that his deportation would amount to a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention,since he would be arrested and subjected to torture upon return as he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in the United Republic of Tanzania in 2002. On 4 November 2010, the Committee, through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, rejected his request for interim measures of protection.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to China.
The State party contends that the Committee should not substitute its own findings on whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture upon return, since the national proceedings disclose no manifest error or unreasonableness and were not tainted by abuse of process, bad faith, manifest bias or serious irregularities.
The Committee must decide, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 3,whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subject to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention,since the complainants' claim that they are at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Azerbaijan fails to rise to the level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility.
The State party considers that, although human rights conditions in the Islamic Republic of Iran are a cause for concern in several respects, the country is not affected by generalized violence, and that the complainants have not demonstrated that they incur a foreseeable, personal andreal risk of being subjected to torture upon return there.
The Committee Against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention,considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Azerbaijan and therefore concludes that his removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee therefore concludes that the complainants have not adduced sufficient grounds for believing that they would run a substantial, personal andpresent risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
However, it contends that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention,on the basis that the complainant's submission that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Bangladesh fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility, and is therefore manifestly unfounded.a.
With regard to the complainant's claims that most likely he would be imprisoned upon return and subjected to torture, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin.
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 complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to Turkey and therefore concludes that the complainant's removal to that country would not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.
It follows that, irrespective of whether a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights can be said to exist in Sri Lanka,such existence would not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka.
The complainant reiterates thatasylum should be granted to victims of past torture, regardless of the risk that they would be subjected to torture upon return to their country of origin.
Counsel further argues that the fact that the author was conditionally released from detention does not diminish the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Uzbekistan.
According to general comment No. 1, the complainant's previous political activities in the country of origin must be taken into account in order to assess the risk of her being subjected to torture upon return to that country.