Examples of using Derogable in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Political
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Iii. habeas corpus as a non- derogable right and as.
The injunction that persons deprived of their liberty should be treated withhumanity should probably not be derogable.
Iii. habeas corpus as a non- derogable right 77- 79 15.
Other derogable rights include the right to liberty of movement and the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own.
Distinction between derogable and non-derogable rights.
While the draft did not take exactly the same position, it did discuss what kinds of proceduralprotection should be seen as non- derogable.
Covenant rights derogable in times of public emergency 19- 20 7.
As a result,the Committee regards particular elements of the potentially derogable article 9 as being, in effect, non-derogable.
Valid derogations from other derogable rights may also be relevant when a deprivation of liberty is characterized as arbitrary because of its interference with another right protected by the Covenant.
It should also distinguish between procedural guaranteesin relation to non-derogable rights and those in relation to derogable rights.
Although the effect of armed conflict on derogable human rights provisions is not as clear as with the non-derogable provisions, there is growing acceptance of the proposition that these provisions may also apply during armed conflict.
Indeed, there have been otherimportant developments in the general understanding of non- derogable rights which would justify a revision of the general comment on article 4.
The Human Rights Committee has, however, never considered a complaint on its merits regarding deportation of a person who feared a lesser humanrights violation in the receiving State(e.g. violation of a derogable right) by the receiving State.
(c) The distinction between derogable and non-derogable rights.
An Amnesty International study on torture and violations of the right to life during states of emergencies is very interesting in this respect, as it emphasizes the way in which states of emergency can, in fact,facilitate the violation of non- derogable rights.
The mere fact that a right was derogable did not mean that articles 9 and 14 could not be invoked.
Under general comment No. 29, the Committee provides some guidelines as regards the protection of the human rights of women during a state of emergencyamounting to a threat to the life of the nation justifying derogable measures, as strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
The test should be whether the violation of a derogable article involved the violation of an article that was nonderogable.
In this precedent, and in the opinions set forth in the confidential summary records of the debates on communications from individuals, the members of the Committee generally took the view that a State may not derogate from those judicial guarantees whichare essential to ensure the observance of non- derogable rights such as the right to life, the right not to be tortured, etc.
The Special Rapporteur has included this remedy among the non- derogable guarantees because it is an essential legal guarantee for the protection of certain non- derogable rights.
(14) The Committee notes the State party ' s explanation in its replies to the list of issues that since provisions on the right to life, the prohibition of torture and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are not listed in article 18(10)of the Constitution as derogable rights in a state of emergency, it follows that these rights are non-derogable in a state of emergency.
Each measure taken thereunder, including the suspension of and restrictions on derogable fundamental rights and freedoms, must also pursue a legitimate goal, be necessary and appropriate to the goal to be achieved.
Apart from the right to survival as a group, persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have the right" in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their culture, to profess and practise their own religion or use their own language". International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,art. 27. This right is a priori derogable under the International Covenant, which also appears to sanction some discrimination during grave threats to the life of the nation.
In addition, the fact that the standards contained in such aDeclaration are intended to be non- derogable and must be respected by all persons, groups and authorities, irrespective of their legal status, helps ensure compliance by non-State actors and thus greater protection for individuals.
The important guarantees of due process and to a certain extent the humane treatment of detainees,are largely derogable rights according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Most studies on derogation point to only three elements ofdue process which could be considered derogable, in conformity with the principle of necessity: the right to be tried in public, without delay and" equality of arms" in the examination and presentation of witnesses. The Turku Declaration is more cautious, proposing a smaller list of due process guarantees modeled on those protected by the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.
That the fact that the prohibition of any form of discrimination is not included among the rights set forth in article 4(2) of the Covenant and in article 27(2) of the American Convention does notconstitute an obstacle to regarding it as implicitly non- derogable, since both texts consider the principle of non- discrimination as an essential condition for exercising the right of derogation which those instruments accord to States parties.
Referring to the Committee ' s previous discussions with the Sub- Commission on the subject of a possible third Optional Protocol making articles 9 and 14 non- derogable, he recalled that the Committee had opposed the Sub- Commission ' s suggestion to that effect and, by so doing, had committed itself to developing its position on the question of non- derogable rights, especially those related to articles 9 and 14.
Views were expressed that creating a discrepancy between the levels oftransparency in the publication of documents under article 3, and a derogable provision regarding open hearings in article 6, might lead to the circumvention of transparency by disputing parties.
While the Working Group was pleased to note, as emphasized by the Human Rights Committee(CCPR/C/74/Add.2, para. 11), that under the Constitution ofNepal habeas corpus is not derogable under any circumstances, several sources indicated that it was very difficult in practice to secure the protection or release of a person by habeas corpus when the Public Offence Act was applied.