Hearing of petitioner

Nor repulse the petitioner (unheard)

Alleged victim(s) The petitioner

For the petitioner and the deprived

For the petitioner and the deprived

The facts as presented by the petitioner

Hearing of petitioner (A C.4 52 6)

And as for the petitioner, do not repel him .

These two statements by the petitioner reflect two important issues.

Thus, the Committee considers that the petitioner has exhausted domestic remedies.

And from their properties was given the right of the needy petitioner and the deprived.

And from their properties was given the right of the needy petitioner and the deprived.

The petitioner contends that the following statements were made at the meeting from the podium b

In the meantime, the petitioner contacted the company again and was rejected on the same grounds.

59. The CHAIRMAN requested the petitioner to observe the Special Committee apos s rules in that regard.

Firstly, to what extent were the petitioner and Fair Insurance A S able to communicate in the present case?

3.1 The petitioner alleges two counts of violation of articles 2, subparagraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention.

The petitioner requested the Special Committee to assist Puerto Rico in becoming the fifty first state of the United States.

The Chairman asked the petitioner whether the cases he had cited had been brought before the Commission on Human Rights.

2.2 In late July 2002, the petitioner contacted DRC, which requested confirmation of the petitioner's allegations from Fair Insurance A S.

The Registrar is directed to remove the Petitioner from Court and commit him to prison on the sentence that is imposed .

6.3 Turning to the State party's argument that the petitioner should have initiated a private prosecution under the general provisions of section 267 of the Criminal Code, the Committee recalls that, in its Opinion in Sadic,i it indeed required the petitioner in that case to pursue such a course.

The petitioner also stated that the necessary intent of the States to create an international act was not present in this case.

58. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Davidson (Human Rights Watch Asia) took a place at the petitioner apos s table.

The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, observed a party political broadcast on public television in which a series of party members made offensive remarks.

5.1 By letter of 2 August 2004, the petitioner disputes the State party's submissions on admissibility and reiterates his earlier submissions on the merits.

In the case of Quereshi v. Denmark (No. 2) (No. 33 2003), the petitioner brought a follow up petition to a petition earlier declared admissible.

On admissibility, it submits that, although the petitioner has exhausted available remedies under criminal law, there remain two civil actions which he has not pursued.

The petitioner could have claimed damages under general rules of Danish law, both for the financial loss allegedly suffered by him and for non pecuniary loss.

The Committee stated in the same decision that mere doubts about the effectiveness of available civil remedies do not absolve a petitioner from pursuing them .l

Admissible communications shall be considered by the Committee in the light of all information made available to it by the petitioner and the State party concerned.

4.6 As to whether the Commissioner should have investigated the extent to which the petitioner and Fair Insurance A S could communicate, the State party argues that it was not decisive to clarify whether the petitioner and Fair Insurance A S had been able to communicate adequately, but rather whether section 1 of the Act against Discrimination had been violated intentionally.

In addition, the petitioner claims that if this civil legislation covered the situation in the current case there would have been no necessity for the State party to adopt a new Act on Equal Treatment, which was implemented and took effect on 1 July 2003 after the incident addressed in the present case. The petitioner maintains his arguments on the merits.

The existing procedures contain a provision that the treaty body shall forward its views and recommendations, if any, to the State party concerned and to the petitioner.

So far only one petition has been submitted to the Chancellor or Justice where the petitioner complained that the requirements for applying for Estonian citizenship were discriminating.

7. The Fourth Committee granted the following requests for hearing in connection with its consideration of the item Meeting at which request Petitioner for hearing was granted

In case No. 32 2003 (Sefic v. Denmark), the petitioner, a Bosnian citizen residing in Denmark, sought to buy third party liability insurance from a local insurance company.

3.3 The petitioner highlights the following questions and issues, which in his view the Danish authorities failed to consider in examining whether the language requirement constituted racial discrimination.

It also follows that the petitioner was not deprived of the right to an effective remedy for an act of racial discrimination in respect of Mr. Andreasen's statement.

The Court thus stipulated that the Fund must provide women with the same rights as men within the retirement arrangements and that the Fund discriminated against the petitioner.

The operative part of the Order stated as follows The petitioner was informed that he cannot abuse the process of Court and keep filing applications without any basis.

The petitioner is Kamal Quereshi, a Danish national born 29 July 1970 and a current member of the State party's Parliament (Folketinget) for the Socialist Peoples Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti).

2.1 On 22 July 2002, the petitioner contacted Fair Insurance A S to purchase insurance covering loss of and damage to his car, as well as third party liability insurance.

2.8 The petitioner argues that he has exhausted domestic remedies. Any decision by the regional prosecutors relating to the investigation by the police departments cannot be appealed to other authorities.

Firstly, the petitioner only appealed the DPP decision of 14 August 2003 related to Mr. Andreasen, and did not appeal any of the DPP decisions on the other individuals concerned.