Substantive issues Assessment of the facts and evidence by the domestic courts

The Committee notes that the author's claim relates, in its nature, to an evaluation of facts and evidence and to interpretation of domestic legislation.

It reiterates its jurisprudence that the evaluation of facts and evidence and interpretation of domestic legislation is in principle a matter to be decided by the courts of States parties, unless the evaluation of facts and evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and reiterates that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the examination of the facts and evidence was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and reiterates that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and reiterates that it is generally for the courts of States parties to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls that it is normally for the courts of States parties, and not for the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case.

5.2 The Committee maintains its position that it is generally not in the position to evaluate facts and evidence presented before a domestic court.

Both courts took into account, inter alia, medical evidence and witness statements in the evaluation of the facts and evidence in the case.

In support of this claim, Turkey relies on the same facts and evidence which it submitted in support of its fourth F4 instalment claim.

4.3 The Committee considers that the subject matter of the allegations in the author's communication relates in substance to the evaluation of facts and evidence in the course of proceedings before the State party's courts.

Nevertheless, the Committee cannot sit in review of the facts and evidence de novo in each deportation case, especially where a case turns upon an evaluation of a complainant's credibility.

It is not for the Committee to substitute its views for the judgement of the domestic courts on the evaluation of facts and evidence in a case, unless the evaluation is manifestly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice.

It recalls that the evaluation of facts and evidence is primarily a matter for the domestic courts of a State party, and in the absence of such evaluation in the present case the Committee's task is greatly impeded.

In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence under which it is generally a matter for domestic courts to examine the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is clear that their assessment was arbitrary or that it amounts to a denial of justice.

It points out that after a detailed examination of all the facts and available evidence, the Tribunal concluded unequivocally that the complainant lacked credibility and that his evidence was fabricated.

The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is for the courts of States parties to assess the facts and the evidence, unless the assessment is manifestly arbitrary or constitutes a denial of justice, neither of which circumstances applies in this case.

The author observes that in his case the State party cited the text of a Supreme Court judgement in which it was expressly noted that both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court lacked competence to make a fresh appraisal of the facts and evidence.

Proceedings

The facts

It recalls that it is in principle for the courts of States parties, and not for the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is apparent that the courts' decisions are manifestly arbitrary or amount to a denial of justice.

6.3 With regard to the authors' claim that the situations reported constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the allegations relate in substance to the assessment of facts and evidence made by the Spanish courts.

9.6 The State party argues that the author's attempt to undermine the courts' findings of fact goes against the Committee's principle that it is for the courts of the States parties and not for the Committee to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case.

Proceedings

The basis of the claim and the evidence provided to support it are similar to those provided in respect of the first claim unit.

10.5 In respect of the author's claims under article 14, paragraph 1, that he was wrongly convicted, the Committee considers that the subject matter of the allegations relates in substance to the evaluation of facts and evidence in the course of proceedings before the Supreme Court of Georgia.

It recalls that it is generally for the national courts, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, or to review the interpretation of domestic legislation, unless it is apparent that the courts' decisions are manifestly arbitrary or amount to a denial of justice.

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The facts as presented

It recalls that it is generally for the national tribunals, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before these tribunals were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The ruling by the Administrative Court of Appeal shows precisely that the manner in which the domestic courts examined the facts and evidence produced by the complainant cannot be regarded as clearly arbitrary or tantamount to a denial of justice.

The facts as presented

The facts as submitted

Factual background

The facts as submitted

The facts

Factual information

Chapter 15 Recent developments

(e) Providing information, evidentiary items and expert evaluations

Substantive issues Assessment of facts and evidence by the domestic courts

Posters, leaflets, guidelines and brochures have been printed and distributed.

7.2 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, the Committee notes that both the author and State party accept the text of the Supreme Court judgement, which states that there is a legal prohibition preventing the Constitutional Court from reappraising the facts and evidence introduced at first instance.

From its current coverage of eight developing countries, this programme will be significantly expanded, through new technical cooperation projects and a wide range of awareness creation activities, including publications, the establishment of an internet platform, and the development of training programmes and workshops.