Alleged victim(s) The petitioners

8.6 The State party submits that, in light of the above changes in the State party's laws and their effect on the authors as potential victims , the Committee should reconsider its decision on admissibility, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 6, of its rules of procedure, at least as far as the communication raises questions regarding the general legal effects of the Supreme Court's judgement.o

Alleged victims The complainant

On behalf of The complainant

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim Konstantin Vedeneyev (the author's son)

Alleged victim Vazgen Arutyuniantz, the author's son

The alleged victim is not represented by counsel.

The victims were allegedly killed by Serbs on 21 May 1992.

Alleged victims The complainant and her daughter S.T.

Alleged victim Mr. Deolall (the author's husband)

Alleged victim The author's son, Angelos Celal (deceased)

Alleged victim Canadian unborn children

However, the Committee notes that although a subpoena order had been issued to bring the alleged victim to testify in court, neither the alleged victim nor his parents could allegedly be located.

Alleged victim Mr. Validzhon Alievich Khalilov (author's son)

Alleged victim Mr. Vladimir V. Zhurin (the author's son)

Considering that the author was unable to cross examine the alleged victim, although he was the sole eyewitness to the alleged crime, the Committee concludes that the author was the victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e).

Wherever possible, the number and type of the victims, as well as the violations of human rights to which they were apparently subjected, have also been indicated.

He also argues that the evidence based on what the alleged victim had told police officers, social workers and the doctor was not considered hearsay and thus admissible evidence, whereas the affidavit of desistance signed by the alleged victim, and the testimony of the district public attorney who administered it, was considered hearsay by the judge, because the alleged victim had not come to court to confirm its contents.

According to the author, the only effective test which the court has laid down to test the veracity of the alleged victim's allegation is the willingness of the victim to submit herself to a medical examination and endure the ordeal of court proceedings.

Police inflicting beatings allegedly often placed bullet proof vests upon victims, so as to reduce the visible evidence of physical injury.

Moreover, most of the alleged victims were abducted prior to being killed.

According to the source, a medical examiner allegedly reported that the autopsy had shown that the victim was shot in the back, though a police spokesperson had allegedly stated that the victim was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a quot gun stance quot .

According to the source, the victim was shot 24 times while he was entering his car.

2.9 On 7 December 1995, the author filed a demurrer to the evidence, mainly based on the fact that the prosecution rested its case on the statements made to others by the alleged victim, who was the only eyewitness of the events and who, despite a subpoena order, was not present for cross examination.

The police had found the author and the alleged victim naked in the hotel room when entering it.

However, the Committee noted that although a subpoena order had been issued to bring the alleged victim to testify in court, neither the alleged victim nor his parents could allegedly be located.

2.11 On 2 February, the author filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that, in the absence of testimony of the alleged victim, the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses constituted hearsay, and that there was no proof of the minor age of the victim.

One of the 29 year old men was reported in critical condition the other two victims were listed in stable condition, according to CBS Philadelphia.

The author or authors of a communication or the individuals who are alleged to be the victim or victims of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention may request that the names and identifying details of the alleged victim or victims (or any of them) not be published.

In the absence of remaining physical evidence on the body of the victim, there is usually no evidence left other than the victim apos s account of his or her ordeal.

Considering that the author was unable to cross examine the alleged victim, although he was the sole eyewitness to the alleged crime, the Committee concluded that the author was the victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph (e).

Victims were said to come from various backgrounds although many were alleged to be members of racial minorities.

3.8 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of his right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him (art. 14, para. 3 (e)), as the alleged victim, who was the only eyewitness of the events which led to his conviction, was never present in court for cross examination.

In September 1996, the family reportedly pardoned the accused, but it has been alleged that they were pressured by the suspects.

In cases where the author can justify such action, communications may be submitted on behalf of an alleged victim without her consent.

2.4 The author appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging errors in the assessment of the evidence and violation of the right to be presumed innocent, based on the allegedly contradictory testimonies of the victims.

The State party is requested also to give wide publicity to the Committee's Opinion.

It argues that the author's defence that he was framed was not considered credible by the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal, in view of the overwhelming evidence obtained through the testimonies of the police officers who caught the author in the hotel room with the alleged victim, and the testimonies of the social workers, public prosecutor and doctor who interviewed him after the author's arrest.

The Court considered that these accounts by the alleged victim, although made out of court, were not simple hearsay.

On the issue that the alleged victim did not appear in court for cross examination, the Court of Appeal considered that this case constituted an exception to the general rule of non admissibility of hearsay evidence, because the alleged victim's statements took place immediately after the alleged facts, and were therefore natural and spontaneous.

These have allegedly resulted in disappearances and killings.)

In addition, the judge did not admit the affidavit of desistance of the alleged victim as evidence while she admitted his first statement, although both were equally confirmed by the same witnesses.

He recalls that the police officers did not testify that they actually saw him commit sexual acts with the alleged victim.