Примеры использования Complainant's removal на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
considers that the complainant has not substantiated her claim that she would be subjected to torture upon return to Iran and therefore concludes that the complainant's removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee observed, however, that a finding, as requested by the complainant, that torture had in fact occurred following the complainant's removal to Egypt(see paragraph 5.8) would amount to a conclusion that Egypt,
concludes that the complainant's removal to Libya by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
to the State party's authorities at the time of the complainant's removal that Egypt resorted to consistent
concludes that the complainant's removal to Tunisia would not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.
concludes that the complainant's removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
concludes that the complainant's removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
considers that the complainant's removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
Punishment, considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon his return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and therefore concludes that the complainant's removal to that country would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
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.
considers that the complainant has not substantiated her claim that she would be subjected to torture upon return to Egypt, and therefore concludes that the complainant's removal to that country at the present time would not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.
Punishment, considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran 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.
However, it is of the opinion that the very fact that the complainant suffers, at present, from psychological problems as reported by a medical expert, cannot be seen as constituting sufficient grounds to justify an obligation, for the State party, to refrain from proceeding with the complainant's removal to Turkey.
The Committee noted that the complainant had provided no evidence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture following his removal to Haiti, that all his allegations were examined by the State party's authorities during the asylum procedure and that the latter carried out the necessary checks, including with regard to the complainant's access to health facilities in Haiti, before proceeding with the complainant's removal.
For these reasons, the Committee concludes that the complainant's removal to Lebanon would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
In the light of the above considerations, the Committee concluded that the complainant's removal to Turkey would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
the complaint over 1(1/2) years after the complainant's removal was that for a long period it was uncertain who was able to represent him.
of the Convention, concludes that the complainant's removal to Pakistan by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.
On 3 September 2012, the State party stated that the complainant's removal had been stayed pending the finalization of requisite background checks(including criminal,
The enforcement of the complainant's removal had thus already begun,