(d) Grounds of appeal before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal

An appeal may be made within three months by the Prosecutor and will be examined by the Appeal Court in Cyangugu.

The Court of Appeal based its decision on the following grounds.

Yet the Court of Cassation found that that ground had been discussed in the Appeal Court.

If the complainant is a public authority under the Government, the appeal is still handled by the Government.

The State party repeats that the complaint should be deemed inadmissible for the reasons set out above.

On 26 April 2000, the Appeals Court Prosecutor ruled that there was no reason for lodging an appeal.

Tell me why. Please. One reason.

It is submitted that other grounds of appeal, based on the above matters, should have been argued.

2.3 The author appealed to the Hague Court of Appeal and, at the beginning of the hearing, sought referral of the case to another Court of Appeal, for the same reason as in 2.2 above.

9.3 As regards the claim that Mr. Burrell apos s representation on appeal was inadequate, the Committee notes that it appears from the judgement of the Court of Appeal that Mr. Burrell apos s legal aid counsel for the appeal (who had not represented him at the trial) conceded at the hearing that there was no merit in the appeal.

Switch his charge to embezzlement and squeeze him harder.

2.6 Throughout the trial and appeal, the author was represented by legal aid attorneys.

Even though counsel for the author did not argue the grounds for appeal, the Court should have considered the grounds ex officio.

9.2 Counsel further claims that the issues were in fact raised on appeal, since the appeal filed by the author was based, inter alia, on the ground of unfair trial.

An amended notice of grounds of appeal was filed on 7 May 1992.

b The author was represented by the same attorney at all stages of the judicial proceedings against him, i.e. preliminary hearing, trial and appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Important cases were heard by general courts consisting of three judges, and convicted persons had the right to appeal to the Court of Cassation, where the case was heard by five judges, and subsequently to the Higher Council where it was again heard by five judges.

Pursuant to article 325 of the Military Proceedings Act, which refers to articles 741 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Chamber confined itself to hearing the arguments put forward in the appeal to decide whether or not they were well founded.

Those causes and grounds were set out in the notice of appeal itself.

2.8 The author subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Hungary, on the following grounds

He is represented by counsel.

10.4 On 15 June 2004, the Aliens Appeals Board granted the complainant's wife and her five children permanent resident status in Sweden on humanitarian grounds.

On 27 September 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Nyiramasuhuko's request for reconsideration of the appeal decision on the ground that the reason advanced by the appellant that certification had been granted before the Appeals Chamber's decision of 5 July 2004 and that she had presented arguments on the admissibility of the evidence of witnesses did not constitute good cause within the meaning of rule 116 (A).7

The author's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10 February 2003, on the ground that it did not raise a point of law.

Tell me why she is crying.

2.9 The authors challenged these rulings in the Court of Cassation on the following grounds

Accordingly, the claim under article 16 is inadmissible ratione materiae, as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.

This increase is further compounded by the fact that the Appeals Chambers considers ICTY appeals as well.

On 7 October 1991, the Versailles court of appeal acquitted X. on the following grounds.

The Appeals Chamber noted that the reasons for which the Trial Chamber had certified the appeal were unclear, as the matters contained therein appeared to relate to the admissibility of the diary as evidence, which should be dealt with by the Trial Chamber in accordance with rule 89 (C).

6.3 Concerning the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party holds that the notice of appeal did not adequately substantiate the grounds for the appeal, and that this lack of grounds was not rectified during the oral hearing owing to counsel's failure to appear.

He wrote to the President of the Court objecting to the proceedings, on the grounds that the 6 October ruling could be challenged only by appeal.

He argues that, owing to the special nature of the appeal process, the Chamber may not hear or review the entire proceedings of the court of first instance, but only analyse the grounds referred to by the applicant to decide whether or not they are in conformity with the law.

The decision may be appealed on very limited legal grounds only.

Vanuatu noted that in principle the appeal rested with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, while, as an exception, there was an escape clause.

The vast majority of cases are expected to be tried by the Gacaca community court and appeals process.

The author's appeal to the Supreme Court was declared inadmissible on 26 September 1996, and an appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed on procedural grounds on 7 October 1998.

Rather, author apos s counsel has provided information which indicates that the author sought actively to pursue his appeal, and that responsibility for the delay in hearing the appeal must be attributed to the State party.

The Appeals Court thus accepted the proposal of the prosecutor to declare the appeal inadmissible for failure to appoint a process agent between the filing of his initial claim on 7 April 1998 and the entry of acquittal by the Misdemeanours Court in 2000.

The Court of Appeal accepted that social assistance receipt was a ground of discrimination recognised in the Charter.

In addition, 636 appeals on the ground of lack of conformity were lodged with the Institute.

The complainant is represented by counsel, Mr. Didier Rouget.

3.5 Counsel also submits that, on appeal, the author apos s attorney pursued only one of four grounds of appeal, i.e, that the trial judge failed to put the issue of manslaughter to the jury.

Anticipating his arrest, Cesti had previously lodged an appeal of habeas corpus, on the grounds that he felt threatened in his right to personal liberty, which was duly received by the competent court.