▾

External sources (not reviewed)

Does a threat count only when it is imminent and at hand as is the normal requirement with private defence, or can this be broadened under certain circumstances in the context of law enforcement operations, so that a future or more remote threat (e.g., where it appears in the context of an arrest that the suspect may in the future again decide to attack someone) can be regarded as a threat to life that justifies the use of lethal force by the police?

[...] [...] unnecessarily deprived of their rights as [...]

Anyone who, for one of the abovementioned reasons, refuses to give a person access on the same terms as others to a venue, performance, exhibition, meeting or similar event open to the public is liable to the same punishment.

Nothing in this Protocol shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or to afford mutual legal assistance if the requested Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for offences set forth in Article 15 subparagraphs 1 (a) to (c) or for mutual legal assistance with respect to offences set forth in Article 15 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any of these reasons.

As regards proportionality and adaptation to the circumstances of a person with disabilities, article 760 of the Civil Judgements Act No. 1/2007 (LEC), taken in conjunction with articles 267, 289 and 290 of the Civil Code, require the declaration of incapacity to specify the extent and limits thereof, the acts which the person concerned can perform unaided and those requiring the intervention of a guardian or the assistance of a curator.

However, asking a person about their previous convictions forthe consideration of that person’s suitability to do regulated work (and consideration of a person’s suitability for any of the other related purposes specified in the 2007 Act) is still deemed to be asking an exempted question because it is these types of positions are excluded from the provisions of the ROA by amendments made to the 2003 Order.

(h) To bring to the Committee’s attention new or noteworthy circumstances that may warrant a delisting, such as publicly-reported information on a deceased individual

Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.

Accordingly, although the law may give a person the right to say at all stages of the process 'Ask me no questions, I shall answer none', in relying upon this right, he would be wise to have regard to how people are likely to interpret his conduct.

The Equal Rights for Women Law 5711-1951, (the “Equal Rights for Women Law”) was also amended in 2008, to add two important sections relating to the collection and processing of information: Section 3A determines that any person or an entity requiring a person to state, in a form or other document, the names of one his/her parents should require the names of both parents (as long as the person has that knowledge).

[...] [...] (a) to ensure a person’s appearance [...][...]

Whether it's setting up a quick conference call in someone's office, or taking it along on the road, collaboration is made easy.

b) Any decision or practice regarding the medical diagnosis and treatment of a person shall only be made or carried out with the consent of the person concerned, based on information appropriate to the decision, and with the ongoing participation of such person.

(i) To fully respect non-refoulement obligations under international refugee and human rights law and, at the same time, to review, with full respect for these obligations and other legal safeguards, the validity of a refugee status decision in an individual case if credible andrelevant evidence comes to light that indicates that the person in question has committed any criminal acts, including terrorist acts, falling under the exclusion clauses under international refugee law

There are some exceptions, for example if the taxpayer is involved in federal criminal or terrorism investigations or when the IRSthinks someone is breaking a tax law.

The Committee also reminds the State party that reprisals such as the loss of employment for the participation in protests and strikes carried out in conformity with law must be prohibited and that redress must be granted to the victims of abuse.

In accordance with paragraph 16 (b) of annex II to resolution 1989 (2011), when an individual or entityis added to the list and relevant States have been notified, the Ombudsperson is to send a notification directly to that individual or entity if there is a known address.

[...] in determining whether thesignature [...][...]

Treating people less favourably on the basis of their race or engaging in an unwelcome, abusive, insulting or offensive behavior because of another person’s or his / her near relative’s race, which makes the person feel threatened, humiliated or embarrassed might have contravened the Race Discrimination Ordinance and would entail legal consequences.

[...] [...] nominating a person forappointment shallbe treated as [...]

The current case does not have anything [...][...]

[...] where a person has renounced his citizenship [...][...]

8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether, in deporting the complainant and his children to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party would be failing to fulfil its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

[...] [...] which may after the date of the notice [...][...]

The question of the collective expulsion of aliens is briefly reverted to in order simply to dispel a persistent concern on the part of certain Commission members with regard to paragraph 3 of this draft article 7, which deals with the possibility of expelling a group of persons acting as a group, in the event of armed conflict, for armed activities endangering the security of the State of residence engaged in conflict with their State of nationality.