The authors contend that the appeal court wrongly believed they did not want to adduce any evidence.

In addition, the author's lawyer at the time who wrote the original complaint was told by the author that he did not want to get involved with a complaint against the police, so that the lawyer did not sign the complaint but handed it to the author to file on his own behalf.

The first defence witness, an acquaintance of the author, corroborated the author apos s story.

Nugent apparently tried to disengage the author, who had taken hold of Brown apos s blouse, upon which the author stabbed Nugent with a knife.

The source, to which those comments were transmitted, made observations on them.

Before domestic courts, each author's case was presented separately.

According to the State party, the author should have submitted an application for amparo to the Constitutional Court.

2.8 The file that the authors submitted to the Committee contains a copy of the application to the European Court.

The source could not provide any details regarding the trial of these persons.

The author considers that the judge invented a scenario based on simple remarks made by the author during the trial which were subsequently used to support a trumped up charge, despite all the lies told by Ms. Gascon.

The source, to which those comments were transmitted, made observations on them.

However, the author has not substantiated his claim that the court acted arbitrarily or that it discriminated against him.

The author basically alleges that Ms. Gascon said in her written statement that the motive for the crime was that she wanted to put an end to their relationship, but the author contests this and claims rather that she wanted to obtain ownership of their joint residence.

It's based on the idea of communication as selection.

It reiterates that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies, given that he himself mentioned his refusal to exhaust all domestic remedies in his submission dated 22 May 2001.

It was noted that, as a working assumption, the draft text before the Working Group had been presented by the Secretariat in the form of model legislative provisions.

Each time the District Court dismissed the author as liquidator it did so in the author's absence, and allegedly refused to allow the submission of evidence to support his case.

According to the author, this was contrary to Polish law, because the District Court's ruling should not have been officially recognized until the author had had an opportunity to pursue an appeal.

2.2 Proceedings against the author were conducted by a judge who was allegedly biased against him.

4.4 The State party concedes that the author has exhausted available domestic remedies in his case.

3.3 The author did not make any application to the Constitutional Court for amparo.

The author was indicted by the First Chamber of the Provincial Court of Malaga (Sección Primera de la Audicencia Provincial de Malaga).

The Court allegedly refused the author's request to testify and to present documentary evidence.

6.3 The State party argues that it is clear that the authors mainly seek to challenge before the Committee a question of burden of proof in Canadian law.

I would like to remind the Council that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of indicted persons transferred to the Tribunal  indeed, 24 since the end of last year.

Nonetheless, one should note that the courts of the Czech Republic have, ultimately, sought to provide an effective remedy to the authors, in the consideration of their claims.

The author maintains that the Committee's precedent has established that it is necessary only to exhaust effective remedies actually available to the author.

(g) On 12 April 1999, the Constitutional Court rejected another application for amparo submitted by the author against the decision issued on 10 June 1998 by the Provincial High Court of Huelva concerning a complaint by the author that the prison authorities were not providing him with daily newspapers.

It submits that the author apos s case was examined by both the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council and that therefore it cannot be said that the author did not have sentence and conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal, according to law.

The author claims that not a single request made by the defence and by his son were considered or granted by the court.

2.4 On 22 June 1990, the author filed an appeal (recurso de amparo) with the Constitutional Tribunal.

2.7 The first author submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

2.4 A petition for reversal was then lodged with the Supreme Court.

The proceedings in the domestic courts against the author's first lawyer were brought by the person acting as the author's representative before the Committee.

In our culture, it is better to be a tester who supports someone else's idea than it is to be just the idea guy.

I imagine he will develop those ideas in his next report to the Council.

6.3 The State party has asserted that domestic remedies have not been exhausted since the author did not submit an application for amparo to the Constitutional Court.

The Prosecutor brought an indictment against Gábor Fehér for violence against the authorities and the case was before the court.

In its orders, the Court did in fact take the nature of the author apos s extended family into account when providing for the possibility for the children to stay with the family rather than with the author himself if he were not in a position to supervise them.

3.3 As regards the requirement that domestic remedies must be exhausted, the author maintains that it was pointless to apply to the Constitutional Court for amparo.

10.3 As regards the author apos s claims concerning his representation at the preliminary enquiry and at the trial, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the legal aid lawyer assigned to the author did not attend the preliminary enquiry, that the author was consequently represented by counsel of his co accused with whom he had a conflict of interest, and that the author met his lawyer only one day before the commencement of the trial.

The author was heard in the presence of the two judges.

In the State party's view, such action by the author's representative is inconsistent with the author's claim that there was no need to submit an application for amparo.

And you have no idea how hard it is to talk to somebody or take care of somebody you can't talk to.

The author also claims that by hearing these motions in the absence of the author, the District Court violated article 379, paragraph 5, of the Civil Proceedings Code.