Case Law

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the first applicant’s victim status regarding her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and rejects it; Declares the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning her removal from Ukraine and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard admissible and the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the first applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention

15 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Ukraine

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued and Submitted: November 17, 2006 Pasadena, California; Filed: December 12, 2006.

12 December 2006 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Non-refoulement | Countries: Ukraine - United States of America

On Petition for Review of an Order of Removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (BIA No. A71-346-048). Argued: Monday, May 15, 2006.

20 July 2006 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Non-refoulement - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Witnesses | Countries: Ukraine - United States of America