Procedural issues Failure to substantiate the alleged violation

Procedural issues Substantiation of the alleged violation exhaustion of domestic remedies

Procedural issues Adequate substantiation of the alleged violation exhaustion of domestic remedies

Subject matter Alleged failure to redress damages caused to owners of a company arising from the alleged violation of contracts for public works constructions

6.3 With regard to the alleged violation of equality before the courts (art. 14, para.

The Committee therefore considers that an application for amparo could not be effective with regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, and that the author had exhausted domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation.

Nor has she explained any link between this ground for exclusion and the alleged violation of article 18 of the Covenant.

In view of this finding, the Committee need not pronounce itself on the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b).

4.11 As for the alleged violation of article 16, the State party asserts that the complainant has utterly failed to establish that the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division constituted such a violation.

Accordingly, DPP concluded that it was dubious that the alleged statement could be proven to be in violation of section 266 (b).

That supply was alleged to constitute for the exporting State a violation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The Committee considers that where the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant is concerned, the author has exhausted the domestic remedies.

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).

The decision was based on the author's alleged negative attitude towards the professors and on a violation of the provisions of the regulations of the Institute.

4.2 The State party argues that domestic remedies were not exhausted in regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant.

8.2 As to the alleged violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, with respect to the author's alleged torture and his conditions of detention, the Committee notes that these issues are currently pending before both the Magistrate Court and the Supreme Court.

5.3 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, the author emphasizes that he was first convicted by a court of appeal.

The alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, or its equivalent under the European Convention on Human Rights, was never submitted to the Commission.

With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, the Committee notes that this issue was not raised in the appeal (cassation) in the Supreme Court.

6.3 As to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee finds that the author has not shown how the State party's refusal to grant her a residence permit while at the same time failing to deport her, amounts to a violation of article 16.

The alleged surprise findings of the tribunal did not constitute a violation of the right to be heard in the sense of  1059 (2) Nr. 2 lit. b ZPO.

7.7 In relation to the alleged violation of the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, it is uncontested that the author was arrested without a warrant.

4.6 The State party concludes that the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, should be found inadmissible as constituting an abuse of the right to submit a communication.

The case concerned the alleged violation of the principle that only the law can define a crime (nullum crimen sine lege) by a French statute implementing an EC directive.

6.6 The Committee's established jurisprudence states that article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant is a lex specialis in relation to article 2, paragraph 3 (a) of the Covenant, such that since the Committee has decided that the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, is admissible, it is unnecessary for it to take a decision on the alleged violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

In urgent situations, a body which has received a communication alleging a human rights violation may, after receipt of a communication and before adopting its views, request a State party to take certain interim measures to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation.

3.4 The authors also refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that recognize the right of a potential victim to bring a claim against alleged human rights violation.

6.6 The State party also maintains that the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant should be found inadmissible as an abuse of the right to submit communications.

7.2 The Committee observes that neither the author nor the State party has disputed the facts related in connection with the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.

At the hearing, the first author did not invoke the alleged violation of his basic rights, but awaited notification of the judgement in order to do so before the Constitutional Court.

In the application, the author alleged both violation of his right not to be compelled to testify against himself, given that the only evidence on which he was convicted was his acknowledgement of a debt to the company, and violation of his right to be tried without undue delay.

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.

4.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, the State party asserts that it is inadmissible on the grounds that domestic remedies were not exhausted.

Pursuant to article 4, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee finds that the facts alleged reveal a violation of article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Consequently, also with regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, and article 26 of the Covenant, the communication is unfounded in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

On that basis, the latter could request a copy of the investigation file and other documentation not merely relating to the alleged primary violation but also relating to the domestic examination of the issue.

He also alleged that the appeal (cassation) did not fulfil the requirements of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, and that he was sentenced in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence.

7.3 As for the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant's allegations that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived him of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation.

5.5 As for the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant's allegations that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived him of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation.

6.7 The State party asserts that the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, in connection with article 26 of the Covenant, should be found inadmissible on the ground that it has not been sufficiently substantiated.

6.8 As to the alleged violation of article 14, the State party indicates that the complainant received the full amount of compensation ordered by the trial court and claims that the Convention has therefore not been violated.

The Committee reiterates that the requirement that an author exhaust domestic remedies attaches to each allegation of an alleged violation of the Covenant, not simply to the decision of a court or tribunal unfavourable to an author.

4.5 The State party further notes that the original claim made in September 1997 did not include the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which the author first referred to in December 1999.

The State party concludes that the author's claim should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that at no time did he invoke the substance of the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, before the domestic courts.

6.2 Regarding the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (g), the Committee notes that the author admits to having signed the document acknowledging his debt of his own free will, before the trial against him began.