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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Business and industry shall refrain from offering incentives to individuals to claim ownership or custodianship over elements of an indigenous people's cultural heritage, in violation of the collective nature of the cultural heritage and or in violation of the relevant people's customary laws pertaining to such elements.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. He is represented by counsel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4.5 The State party further notes that the original claim made in September 1997 did not include the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which the author first referred to in December 1999.

The State party concludes that the author's claim should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that at no time did he invoke the substance of the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, before the domestic courts.

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.

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.

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.

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 claim preparers were often listed as the contact persons in the claim files and some claim files included attestations from the claim preparers opining on the merits of the claim.

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.

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

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 .

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

At the request of Saudi Arabia, the secretariat incorporated that claim in the current claim (Claim No. 5000463).

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.

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.

This claim was originally part of category F3 claim No. 5000194.