The claim regarding article 14, paragraph 5, therefore, is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.

4.13 Concerning the claim under article 24, paragraph 1, the State party argues that this claim is also insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.

The Committee is accordingly of the view that the author has sufficiently substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility.

The Board concluded that the complainant had not substantiated his claim that he risked persecution.

This claim has thus not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility and is inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The claim regarding article 14, paragraph 5, therefore, appears to be insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.

The facts averred manifestly show that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim for the purposes of admissibility.

In any event, the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he risks treatment in accordance with article 3.

concerned different matters than the one in which his lawyer was a suspect, he has not substantiated this claim.

He maintains that he has fully substantiated his claim and states that the overall purpose of article 16 is to protect an individual's health and welfare.

The Committee therefore concludes that the author has not substantiated his claim and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

7.3 As to the claim under article 3 concerning torture, the Committee considers, particularly in light of the complainant's account of his previous torture, that he has substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility.

As the complainant has not substantiated his claim under article 3, his removal to his country of origin was not in breach of that provision.

(c) The communication is not substantiated or is manifestly groundless

Therefore, the Committee concludes that the author has not substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Therefore, the Committee concludes that the author has not substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

It reiterates that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he was ill treated following return, and, thus, that the guarantees provided were not respected.

The Committee therefore concludes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim, for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Accordingly, the case is said not to have been substantiated.

4.8 The State party concludes that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would risk a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Ecuador.

(iv) Expenditures not properly substantiated

(iv) Expenditures not properly substantiated

5.3 The Committee notes that the author's claim under article 16 has not been substantiated, as there is no information on file which suggests that the author's son was denied recognition as a person before the law.

(e) It is manifestly ill founded or not sufficiently substantiated or when

8.4 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), the Committee finds that this claim has not been substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee considers that the author has substantiated this claim sufficiently for the purpose of admissibility, and that the matter appears to raise issues of relevance under article 26 of the Covenant.

It therefore considers that the author has not substantiated this part of his claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (e), for purposes of admissibility, and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The sixth claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

The fifth claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

The third claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

Even if it were to be considered established through the evidence that the complainant was tortured in 1997, this does not mean that he has substantiated his claim that he will risk torture in the future.

In its view, the complainant has not substantiated his claim that an enforcement per se of the expulsion decision would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention.

The first claim unit is for reduction in crop yields and the second claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

To date, none of these theories has been substantiated.

These charges against humanitarian workers have not been substantiated.

6.3 The Committee considers that the author has not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claim that his conviction amounted to discrimination on the ground of his political opinion, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.

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

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

Claim No. 5000462 is for damage to cultural heritage resources claim No. 5000467 is for damage to livestock resources and claim No. 5000303 is for public health damage.

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.

of which the author would have been denied access to that post. It therefore considers that the author has not substantiated his claim that he was denied access, on general terms of equality, to public service for purposes of admissibility.

The first claim unit is for terrestrial damage the second claim unit is for damage to intertidal shoreline habitats the third claim unit is for damage to marine subtidal habitats the fourth claim unit is for losses of wildlife resources the fifth claim unit is for economic and ecological losses related to fisheries resources and the sixth claim unit is for two other compensatory projects.

In two cases, the evidence was convincing but not fully substantiated.

4.5 The State party considers that, even if it is considered established by medical certificates that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, that does not mean that she has substantiated her claim that she will risk being tortured in the future if returned to Bangladesh.

The deferred part of claim No. 5000458 is reviewed as part of the second claim unit (terrestrial resources) of this claim.