The authors claim a violation by Spain of article 14 of the Covenant.

They claim that the violations of the rights of the company constitute simultaneously a violation of their individual rights.

Accordingly, article 50 cannot give rise to a free standing claim that is independent of a substantive violation of the Covenant.

The authors claim to be victims of a violation by Germany of articles 14, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant.

The authors claim to be victims of a violation by Portugal of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6.6 With regard to the claim that the author was a victim of unequal application of the law in violation of article 26, the Committee considers that this claim may raise issues on the merits.

He also raises a new claim of a violation of article 10, paragraph 2 (a), as convicted and unconvicted prisoners are not segregated in Port Philip prison.

As a result, neither Roma nor other inhabitants of Dobšiná can claim a violation of their right to adequate housing or discrimination resulting from such resolutions.

Accordingly, article 50 of the Covenant, by itself, cannot give rise to a free standing claim that is independent of a substantive violation of the Covenant.

They claim that there is a high degree of possibility that they will be adversely affected by the violation of article 4 of the Convention.

(c) Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation and

(c) Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation and

(c) Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation and

They claim to be victims of a violation of articles 2, paragraph 1, 3, 14, paragraph 1, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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.

In the absence of any further argument by the authors as to how a violation of article 23 has been made out, therefore, this claim should be declared inadmissible.

The authors claim that their expulsion from Australia to Fiji would amount to a violation by Australia of articles 17, 23, paragraph 1, and 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

However, the Committee notes that the communication raises issues with regard to the claim relating to the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal established by law and will examine that part of the claim under the same article.

The Committee expressed concern that women lacked access to remedies to claim compensation for damages upon violation of the rights set out in the Convention.

He claims that his removal to Bangladesh in the event of the rejection of his refugee claim would constitute a violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention by Sweden.

3.1 The authors claim a violation on several counts of article 1, paragraph 14, of the Covenant, separately and in conjunction with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The complainants claim that their forced return to Mexico would constitute a violation by Canada of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Those measures constitute a violation of Cuba's sovereignty and a massive violation of the rights of its people.

7.4 As regards the remaining claim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee is of the view that it is admissible and proceeds to consider it on the merits.

Nevertheless, should the Committee examine the particular instruction offered to the authors' children, the authors have made scant attempts to substantiate their claim that instruction is indoctrinating, which cannot be sufficient to sustain a finding of a violation.

3.3 Secondly, the author contends that fundamental errors of law were made in the resolution of his claim by the Commission and the domestic courts, in violation of article 26.

He claims that his forced return to Mexico would constitute a violation by Canada of article 3 of the Convention, and that the hearing on his claim for refugee status violated article 16 of the Convention.

6.4 The authors also claim to be victims of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant by virtue of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in the domestic courts and the lack of public hearings.

The Panel considers that this is a claim for claim preparation costs.

7.3 Concerning the claim under article 50 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls that a substantive violation of the Covenant by a provincial authority engages the State party's international responsibility to the same degree as an act of its federal authorities.

The State party submits that, whilst the jurisprudence of the Committee is silent on this issue, a group of individuals should be understood as meaning a group of which every individual member could claim to be a victim of the alleged violation.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that where a violation of the Covenant is remedied at the domestic level prior to the submission of the communication, it may consider a communication inadmissible on grounds of lack of victim status or absence of a claim .

Under article 22 of the Convention, individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention may submit a complaint to the Committee against Torture for consideration, subject to the conditions laid down in that article.

They also claim to be victims of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because of the failure of the Supreme Court to disclose the names of the judges participating in the decision on their application.

I note that the author's original claim in September 1997 did not include the allege violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which the author first referred to in December 1999.

In the case of a violation, the treaty body requests the State party to take appropriate steps to remedy the violation.

Although rights groups claim that any marriage before 18 is a violation of human rights, it is still taking place today in Afghanistan, where the legal age of marriage for girls is set at 16 by the Afghan Civil Code.

4.21 In view of the complainant's submissions, the State party contends that he has not substantiated his claim and that there are no substantial grounds for holding that his expulsion would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

4.2 The State party also challenges the claim that the execution of the deportation order would, in itself, constitute a violation of articles 2 or 16 of the Convention in view of the complainant and her daughter's fragile psychiatric condition.

This talk is like a violation of the truce.

Poverty should be recognized as a human rights violation.

She therefore believed that a violation did take place.

The maximum penalty for violation of the comprehensive prohibition of weapons of mass destruction is imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of 5 million Swiss francs. Attempted violation and participation in a violation are also punishable by law.

As to the article 26 claim, the State party refers to the Committee's earlier Views finding no breach of this article with respect to stricter legislation and thus submits there can be no violation.

They also claim that the Court applied the wrong criteria in concluding that the companies had merged As to the judgement against Mr. Deperraz, they contend that the Appeal Court ruled of its own motion on a charge of mismanagement not raised in the originating claim and not substantiated in law, in violation of the right to a defence and the principle of adversarial proceedings.