2. If the carrier or maritime performing party institutes an action under this instrument against the shipper or other cargo interest, then the claimant, at the petition of the defendant, must remove the action to one of the places referred to in articles 72 or 72 bis, at the choice of the defendant.

The defendant supplied three medical reports.

(a) The domicile of the defendant or

Authority Special court of Buga, Valle. Status defendant.

The prosecutor's indictment in that case stated that in March 2007 in Betasi, Taiboko the first defendant entrusted some traditional medicine to the second defendant to be given to the victim J and to be taken in accordance with instructions set out by the first defendant.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the technical mission to Kuwait in 2004 and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the December 2004 technical mission to Kuwait and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Every victim was encouraged to tell his story and the defendant listened.

The business loss page of the individual claimant was completed in the name of an E4 claimant, and the individual claimant had originally provided documents indicating a connection between him and the company.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

Moreover, whereas the defendant was not able to cross question her ophthalmologist, the author had the opportunity to cross question the expert proposed by the defendant.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

If an action has been instituted under this instrument by a cargo claimant in a place listed in articles 72 and 72 bis, any subsequent action under this instrument relating to the same occurrence shall at the petition of the defendant be moved to the place where the first action was instituted.

Genocide s stringent requirements mean that it is and should be difficult to convict a defendant.

The defendant was also allegedly subjected to discrimination and ill treatment by the prison authorities.

The Panel notes that most of the evidence provided by the Palestinian claimant was original while the Kuwaiti claimant provided copies only.

Where the third party was unable to verify the documents proffered by the claimant or provided statements inconsistent with the information provided by the claimant, the Panel finds the evidence submitted by the claimant to be unreliable.

The claimant (main contractor) appealed against the decision of a lower court, which had referred various disputes between the claimant and the respondent (sub contractor) to arbitration.

The defendant had no legal counsel (legal assistance and legal representation were allowed in civil cases only).

Hang Seav Heang, 28, described the defendant as a gentle man, a good father.

The lack of financial means in such cases could deny a defendant proper representation.

On 18 April 1978, however, the plaintiff and the defendant settled their dispute by signing an extrajudicial agreement, according to which the defendant would pay 300.000.000 Argentinean pesos to the plaintiff, a payment that was effected on 28 April 1978.

The Palestinian claimant asserted that as at 2 August 1990 he rented the licence and the equipped printing press from the Kuwaiti claimant to operate his own business.

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

Iraq alleged that the claimant did not object to the confiscation of his stock by Iraqi authorities and that the claimant may have been a collaborator with Iraqi forces.

In the second set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in category D for the losses of a printing business in Kuwait.

The Panel finds that the category C claimant did not assert any losses additional to those previously claimed by the E4 claimant and did not provide any new evidence.

In C.C. 1237 02 the State of Israel v. Vladimir Vaba Ben Nison Chaimov et al. (15.6.04) the Court ruled that 15,000 NIS should be paid to 2 victims by one defendant, and 7,500 NIS to the other 4 victims by each defendant.

The criminal law is applied retroactively only when this results in benefit for the defendant.

However, it appears that an indigent defendant cannot choose his own counsel at public expense.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

Supporters of the defendant protest outside Hà Nội People s Court. Signs say Freedom and justice for Cấn Thị Thêu .

In the first set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in categories D and C respectively for the losses of the same car repair business in Kuwait.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

In the third group of competing claims, two Palestinian claimants, a Kuwaiti claimant and a Jordanian claimant filed category D claims for the losses of a group of lighting businesses in Kuwait.

The claimant sought from the Court an order of foreclosure.

The stay was granted, but the claimant appealed against it.

While the claimant and the respondent had signed the arbitration agreement, a company (the sole shareholder of the respondent), the individual shareholders of that company, and the wholly owned subsidiaries of the claimant had not.

The news article painted the defendant as a guilty man, even though he had been proven innocent.

The defendant sought to have the suit removed to Belgium, arguing that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

In three instances, the company and the individual claimant were partners in joint ventures.

The claimant provided witness statements attesting to his detention and abuse by Iraqi soldiers.

A defendant had the right to legal representation at all stages of the trial and within 24 hours of being detained.

Judgement was pronounced, in absentia, against the defendant and assets were seized from Mr. Haidera's Merrill Lynch account in New York.