Search results

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page title matches

Page text matches

  • {{r|Convention against Torture}}
    672 bytes (93 words) - 11:20, 8 August 2009
  • {{r|Convention against Torture}}
    1 KB (162 words) - 21:12, 2 December 2009
  • ...e extradition and may have violated the ''refoulement'' provision of the [[Convention against Torture]].
    407 bytes (55 words) - 13:51, 8 August 2009
  • In 1984, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] enacted a '''Convention against Torture (CAT)'''. [[Torture]], in the scope of the Convention, is as "any act by w | title= Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    5 KB (714 words) - 17:20, 7 March 2009
  • {{r|Convention against Torture}}
    418 bytes (52 words) - 16:17, 29 March 2009
  • ...lor of government or quasi-government authority, in contrast with the UN [[Convention against Torture]] definition that implies the term [[torture]] implies the acts are carried
    1 KB (226 words) - 02:06, 19 June 2010
  • {{r|Convention against Torture}}
    705 bytes (92 words) - 17:16, 7 March 2010
  • ...re]]d, which would be a violation of the ''refoulement'' doctrine of the [[Convention against Torture]]. <blockquote>However, I can tell you two things: one, that we abide by th
    3 KB (404 words) - 17:29, 27 March 2011
  • {{r|Convention against Torture}}
    944 bytes (121 words) - 19:35, 22 October 2010
  • ...ng into dangerous terrain." The complaint, specifying violations of the [[Convention against Torture]], would be filed on behalf of [[Majid Khan]], who remains the [[Guantanamo
    3 KB (395 words) - 19:36, 5 February 2011
  • #[[Convention against Torture]]
    5 KB (641 words) - 21:06, 2 December 2009
  • ...rcive and reasonably within the limits of the [[Geneva Conventions]] and [[Convention against Torture]], but they also may go well beyond those constraints.
    6 KB (891 words) - 23:33, 10 April 2009
  • ...on's [[Office of Legal Counsel]] also held that they did not violate the [[Convention against Torture]] (CAT) when interpreted in light of the U.S. Senate caveats on ratificatio
    10 KB (1,465 words) - 14:14, 4 June 2011
  • }}</ref>and the [[Convention against Torture]].
    6 KB (903 words) - 01:45, 1 January 2014
  • * [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]<br>(makes to
    16 KB (2,384 words) - 16:30, 29 September 2012
  • ...epatriated, which is consistent with the ''refoulement'' doctrine of the [[Convention against Torture]]
    5 KB (682 words) - 04:13, 7 December 2011
  • ...e would be concern over violation of the ''refoulement'' doctrine of the [[Convention against Torture]].
    3 KB (367 words) - 16:13, 29 March 2009
  • A relevant treaty obligation is that from the [[Convention against Torture]], which contains a doctrine called ''refoulement'', which forbids a countr
    7 KB (1,037 words) - 10:53, 12 February 2011
  • ...Administration, the United States interpreted its obligations under the [[Convention against Torture]]<ref name=CAT>{{citation | title = Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    11 KB (1,677 words) - 06:29, 8 October 2013
  • ...o violate relevant U.S. law cited at the time of the ratification of the [[Convention against Torture]].
    8 KB (1,074 words) - 07:23, 18 October 2013

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)