Примеры использования Was not brought before a judge на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
During her 10 days of detention, the author was not brought before a judge, as required by article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
During the three days(72 hours) from the moment ofactual detention until the moment of her release, the author was not brought before a judge.
The author further affirms that throughout his detention, he was not brought before a judge or judicial officer to establish his guilt.
During the 2 days and 13 hours(61 hours) from the moment of actual detention until themoment of her release, the author was not brought before a judge.
Mr. Zhuk was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 6 June 2009, three months and five days after his arrest.
Also, in violation of Abdeladim Ali Mussa Benali's procedural rights, he was not brought before a judge or any other officer exercising judicial power.
Moreover, he was not brought before a judge or other judicial authority, either at the start of the lawful period of police custody or when it ended.
He was not informed of the charges against him,did not have access to legal counsel and was not brought before a judge at any time during his detention.
In addition, Mr. Rahman was not brought before a judge in accordance with international human rights obligations and was deprived of any legal assistance.
The author claims that her son is a victim of violations of article 9, as, after his arrest, he was not brought before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.
He was not brought before a judge until 11 years after his arrest, in flagrant violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, guaranteed under article 9, paragraph 3.
After his arrest on 15 October 2009, Mr. Al Mahdi was not brought before a judge, formally charged or tried, and was not served with an arrest warrant.
She noted that there was no administrative preventive detention, but remained concerned by the length of police custody, which could be as much as eight days,during which time the detainee did not have access to a lawyer or a doctor and was not brought before a judge.
Contrary to article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3,of the Covenant, he was not brought before a judge for more than eight months from the date of his actual arrest and the date when his case was transmitted to the court.
The Committee notes the author's claim that her rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant were violated, because on two separate occasions, from 9.30 a.m. on 29 September to 10.30 p.m. on 1 October 2005 and from 9 a.m. on 27 to 9 a.m. on 30 January 2006, i.e. for respectively 61 and72 hours from the moment of the actual detention until the moment of her release, she was not brought before a judge.
In case No. 1450/2006(Komarovski v. Turkmenistan),the Committee noted that the author was not brought before a judge or any other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power for the entire duration of his detention, i.e. almost five months.
With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the information before the Committee indicates that Maamar Ouaghlissi was arrested without a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest;that he was at no point informed of the criminal charges against him; that he was not brought before a judge or other judicial authority to challenge the legality of his detention, which remains indefinite.
As to the author's claim that he was arrested on 9 January 2008, but was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 8 April 2009, nearly one year and three months after his arrest, the Committee notes that the State party has failed to address that allegation.
It also notes the author's allegations that her son was not informed of the precise charges against him until he had been in detention for 50 days and that he was not brought before a judge or any other official empowered by law to exercise judicial functions during this period.
As to the author's claim that Mr. Zhuk was arrested on 1 March 2009, but was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 6 June 2009, three months and five days after his arrest, the Committee notes that the State party failed to address these allegations.
With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the information before the Committee indicates that Kamel Djebrouni was arrested without a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest;that he was at no point informed of the criminal charges against him; that he was not brought before a judge or other judicial authority to challenge the legality of his detention, which remains indefinite.
The author reiterates that his brother was not brought before a judge until 15 years after his arrest, in blatant violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, guaranteed under article 9, paragraph 3.
On 5 March 2012, the author submits that in its observations of 4 August 2008,the State party's did not challenge the fact that she was not brought before a judge on two separate occasions, i.e. during her detention from 29 September to 1 October 2005 and from 27 January to 30 January 2006.
Moreover, if a foreigner was not brought before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest so that the judge could order placement in temporary detention, or if the order for placement in temporary detention was not issued within 24 hours following his appearance before the judge, he must be released.
With regard to the possible violation of article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4,of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author was not brought before a judge or any other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power for the entire duration of his detention, i.e. almost five months.
They were not brought before a judge until 16 August 1995.
They were not brought before a judge within the statutory custody period;
It had been asked why those detainees were not brought before a judge.