▾

External sources (not reviewed)

It was agreed that the discussion of collusion should include the following elements: (a) collusion occurs where two or more suppliers or contractors, or one or more supplier(s) or contractor(s) and the procuring entity, work in tandem to manipulate the market in a way detrimental to obtaining an optimal outcome in the given procurement; (b) the manipulation might affect the price, keeping it artificially high, or other elements of a submission (such as the quality offered); alternatively, it could involve an agreement to share the market by artificially inflating prices or artificially distorting other elements of a submission, or an agreement not to present submissions or otherwise to distort fair competition; (c) collusion would probably violate the law of the State; (d) collusion involved the intention of the parties concerned to collude; and (e) the complicity of representatives of the procuring entity in collusion was not uncommon.

The Trial Chamber has continued to take rigorous measures to ensure the expeditiousness of the proceedings by, inter alia, limiting the time within which the Defence teams may present their evidence; liaising with the Conference and Language Services Section to ensure the timely translation of documents; engaging with the parties to efficiently schedule witnesses to prevent breaks in the trial schedule; obtaining waivers from ill accused so that the trial can continue in their absence; encouraging the Defence to present evidence in written form; strictly enforcing time limits on examination of witnesses; discouraging duplicative evidence; and entertaining Defence motions for the admission of documents from the bar table rather than requiring each document to be tendered through a witness on the stand.

In cases where counselling does not yield expected results and the life or health of a child are in danger if they continue to live with parents, a child protection worker may initiate removal of a child from a parent or deprivation of parental rights.

Before the looting of the Iraqi [...] [...]

On 4 August 2009, defendant ZHAO Lianhai had also used hot issues in society to incite and gather many people at the east gate of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau to provoke troubles on the pretext of reporting a case, hence seriously disrupting social order in such place.

They suggested that UNESCO ought to develop activities and programmes which would seek to persuade governments which have restricted the freedom of expression that free information was a key to durable political, economic, social and cultural development and to long-term peace and stability.

Some of the allegations are as follows: The Beijing Municipal Daxing District People's Procuratorate alleges that: "Between September 2008 and September 2009, defendant ZHAO Lianhai made use of hot issues in society to incite and gather people in public places of the city of Shijiazhuang in Hebei province, Beijing Municipal Daxing District and the Fengtai District.