DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Participants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

High-Level Meeting of the Global Judicial Integrity Network (25-26 February 2020) Doha, Qatar List of Participants Countries Afghanistan Said Yousuf Halem, Chief Justice, Supreme Court Mohammad Wazir Rasoli, Chief Judge, Badighis Appellate Court Fahimullah Nizai, Chief Judge, Orozgan Appellate Court Ajmal Andewal, Assistant to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court Albania Ardian Dvorani, Acting President, Supreme Court Vitore Tusha, Acting President, Constitutional Court Alma Çomo, Head of Public and International Relations, Constitutional Court Angola Inocência Pinto, Deputy Attorney General Adalberto Luacuti, State Attorney Azerbaijan Aliisa Dadashov, Head of International Relations Department, Supreme Court Benin Ousmane Batoko, Président de la Cour Suprême, Président de l’Association des Hautes Juridictions de Cassation des Pays ayant en partage l’usage du Français Assiba Josephine Regina Benoîte Anagonou Loko, Magistrat, Conseiller à la Chambre Administrative, Secrétaire Générale de la Cour Suprême Antoine Gouhouede, Magistrat, Conseiller à la Chambre Judiciaire de la Cour Suprême Bhutan Tashi Chhozom, Justice, Supreme Court Pem Dechen, Judge, Civil Bench, Thumphu District Court Bosnia and Herzegovina Milan Tegeltija, President, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council Gordana Tadic, Chief Prosecutor Sabina Karahasanovic, Cabinet of the Presidency, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council Aleksandra Golijanin, Senior Advisor, Office of the Chief Prosecutor, Prosecutor's Office Botswana Isaac Lesetedi, Judge, Court of Appeal Brazil Antonio Benjamin, Justice, Superior Court of Justice Marcio Boscaro, Counselor Judge of the Presidency, Federal Supreme Court Alessandra Gomes Faria Baldini, Judge of the Presidency, Federal Supreme Court Richard Kim, Special Secretary for Programs, Research and Strategic Management, National Council of Justice Carl Olav Smith, Counselor Judge of the Presidency, National Council of Justice, Brazil (Training Site Focal Point) Bulgaria Lozan Panov, President, Supreme Court of Cassation Burkina Faso Mazobe Jean Konde, Premier Président de la Cour de Cassation Djenaba Ky Dicko, Conseiller auprès de la Cour de Cassation Priscille Zongo, Conseiller auprès de la Cour de Cassation Burundi Emmanuel Gateretse, Président de la Cour Suprême Jean Claude Habimana, Procureur Général près la Cour d’Appel de Bujumbura Mairie Lyve Ndorukwigira, Magistrat à la Cour d’Appel de Muha Cape Verde Bernardino Duarte Delgado, President, Superior Council of the Judiciary Ary Allison Spencer Santos, Member, Superior Council of the Judiciary Paulo Jorge Santos Aires, Judge, Superior Council of the Judiciary Chad Samir Adam Annour, Premier Président, Cour Suprême Mahamat Alfadil Kadade, Secrétaire Général, Cour Suprême Chile Rosa Maria Maggi Ducommun, Minister, Supreme Court Costa Rica Juan Carlos Sebiani Serrano, Director, Office of Ethics and Values, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Croatia Đuro Sessa, President, Supreme Court of Croatia, Presidency of the Consultative Council of European Judges Damir Kontrec, President, Civil Department, Supreme Court, President, Association of Croatian Judges Nella Popović, Head of International Cooperation and Projects Department, Judicial Academy (Training Site Focal Point) Cuba Rubén Remigio Ferro, President, Supreme People’s Court Pedro Medina Gutiérrez, Magistrate-Director of International Relations, Supreme People´s Court Czech Republic Pavel Rychetský, President, Constitutional Court Vlastimil Göttinger, Secretary General, Constitutional Court Aleš Pavel, Director of the Office of the President, Supreme Court Democratic Republic of the Congo Dieudonné Ibanda Dudu, Président, Cour de Cassation Henri Tshambi, Chef du Protocole Dominican Republic Nancy Salcedo, Supreme Judge, Supreme Court of Justice Federico Alberto Cuello Camilo, Ambassador, Embassy of the Dominican Republic, Doha Dariel Suarez Adames, Director, National School for the Judiciary (Training Site Focal Point) Ecuador Maria Paulina Elizabeth Aguirre Suarez, President, Supreme Court Jose Javier De la Gasca Lopez Dominguez, Head, Anticorruption Secretariat El Salvador Jose Oscar Armando Pineda Navas, Presidente, Corte Suprema de Justicia Jorge Siliezar Hernandez, Asistente de la Presidencia, Corte Suprema de Justicia France Emmanuelle Perreux, Directrice Adjointe Chargée des Recrutements, de la Formation Initiale et de la Recherche, École Nationale de la Magistrature Gambia Hassan Jallow, Chief Justice, Supreme Court Sanneh Landing, Judicial Secretary, Supreme Court Jaiteh Haruna, Principal Assistant Secretary, Supreme Court Georgia Mzia Todua, Acting Chairperson, Supreme Court Eka Gasitashvili, Judge, Supreme Court Tamar Zambakhidze, Judge, Supreme Court Germany Rudolf Mellinghoff, Chief Justice, Federal Supreme Finance Court, Chairman, Judicial Integrity Group Christiane Wolowiec-Musich, Senior Advisor, Sector Programme Good Governance, German International Cooperation Association (GIZ) Ghana Jones Dotse, Judge, Supreme Court Greece Sofia Magoula, Judge, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Guinea Sékou Mohamed Sylla, Secrétaire Exécutif Adjoint, Agence Nationale à la Présidence chargée de la lutte contre la Corruption et la Promotion de la Bonne Gouvernance (Training Site Focal Point) Elimane Fodé Ousmane Camara, Chef de la Division de l’Intégrité et de l’Éthique, Agence Nationale à la Présidence chargée de la lutte contre la Corruption et la Promotion de la Bonne Gouvernance Alfred Camara, Président, Tribunal de Première Instance de Pita Honduras Jose Olivio Rodriguez Vasquez, Magistrado Coordinador, Corte Suprema de Justicia Rafael Bustillo Romero, Magistrado Sala de los Penal, Corte Suprema de Justicia Indonesia Violetta Sukma, Deputy Chair, Judicial Commission Deddy Isniyanto, Judicial Commission Iran (Islamic Republic of) Mohammad Movahedi Azad, Prosecutor of Specialized Court, Judges Court Ali Salehi, Chief Justice, Hormozgan Province Mehdi Farahani, Judge, Appeal Court Iraq Faiq Khalaf, Chief Justice, President, Supreme Judicial Council Dheyaa Al-Bayati, First Judge, Investigative Court for Integrity Issues, Supreme Judicial Council Alaa Al-Khalidi, Judge, Supreme Judicial Council Aaiad Al-Kinany, Judge, Supreme Judicial Council Ireland George Birmingham, President, Court of Appeal Jamaica Vinette Graham-Allen, Puisne Judge, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Marva McDonald-Bishop, Judge, Court of Appeal (Training Site Focal Point) Jordan Mohammad Al Ghazo, President, Supreme Court Muhannad Ali Hijazi, Chairman, Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission Naji Alzoubi, Judge, Supreme Court Mohd Omar Maqnssah, Judge, Cassation Court Mohd Esaid, Judge, Supreme Court Ammar Al-Husseini, Judge, Supreme Court Mohammad Maddallah Almahadin, Judge, Member, Constitutional Court Fayez Jiries Hamarneh, Judge, Member, Constitutional Court Nawal Mohamed Al-Jawhari, Member, Judicial Council Kazakhstan Umirtay Ibrayev, Judge, Supreme Court Timur Yermagambetov, Head of Division, Supreme Court Madiyar Balken, Justice, Supreme Court Kuwait Najeeb Rashed Abdullah Almulla, Undersecretary of the Appellate Court, Ministry of Justice Mohammad Alsayed Yousef Alrefaei, Undersecretary of the Court of Cassation, Ministry of Justice Yousuf Saad Hameed Albuhairi, Counselor, Ministry of Justice Kyrgyzstan Gulbara Kalieva, Chief Justice, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Gulmira Kozhobekova, Chairperson, Batken Oblast Court Zhyrgal Murzalieva, Deputy Chairperson, Chui Oblast Court Lao People's Democratic Republic Sengsouvanh Chanthalounnavong, President, Vientiane Capital Court Latvia Ivars Bičkovičs, Chief Justice, Supreme Court Aigars Strupišs, Chair, Department of Civil Cases, Supreme Court Veronika Krūmiņa, Chair, Department of Administrative Cases, Supreme Court Lebanon Bourkan Saad, Head, Judge, Higher Judicial Council Lithuania Aurelijus Gutauskas, Chairman of the Criminal Division, Judge, Supreme Court Sigita Rudėnaitė, President of the Civil Chamber, Acting President, Supreme Court Madagascar Ain’harimanga Gabrielle Raby Savatsarah, Directeur de Cabinet du Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice Andriamanakiandrianana Rajaona, Premier Président de la Cour Suprême Herisoa Randrianarivelo Ep Andriamahavory, Juge et Juge d’Instruction au Tribunal de Première Instance d’Antananarivo Anthony Ramarolahihaingonirainy, Directeur Général, École Nationale de la Magistrature et des Greffes Malaysia Supang Lian, High Court Judge, Judiciary Department Mazni Nawi, Director, Integrity Unit, Judiciary Department Maldives Husnu Al Suood, Justice, Supreme Court Aminath Asifa, Legal Officer, Supreme Court Malta Lawrence Mintoff, Judge, Superior Court, Courts of Justice Mauritius Nirmala Neerusha Devat, Judge, Supreme Court Renuka Devi Dabee, Judge, Supreme Court Micronesia (Federated States of) Dennis Yamase, Chief Justice, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Beauleen Carl-Worswick, Associate Justice, Supreme Court Belan Yoma, National Justice Ombudsman, Supreme Court Mongolia Battseren Bataa, Justice, Supreme Court (Training Site Focal Point) Odontuul Nyamjav, Chief Judge, First Instance Criminal Court, Bayanzurkh District Janchivnyambuu Osordelger, Chief Judge, First Instance Criminal Court, Bayangol District Montenegro Vesna Medenica, President, Supreme Court Mirjana Bobicic, Head of the Cabinet, Supreme Court Valentina Pavlicic, Representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights Morocco Mohammed Ben Hammou, Conseiller, Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire Hamid El Ouali, Conseiller, Conseil
Recommended publications
  • Public Affairs Ireland Newsletter

    Public Affairs Ireland Newsletter

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND NEWSLETTER ISSUE 333 November 3 2014 YOUR ESSENTIAL WEEKLY GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS IN IRELAND Oireachtas Update In Dáil Éireann on Tuesday afternoon, there will be a motion re Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. The Finance Bill 2014 is on the agenda for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in the Dáil. On Wednesday morning, Minister for Environment, Community & Local Government Alan Kelly TD will be in Seanad Éireann to discuss Irish Water. In the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, the new national postcode system – Eircode – will be on the agenda on Wednesday morning. Civil Service Renewal Plan The Civil Service Renewal Plan, launched last Thursday 30 October by Taoiseach Enda Kenny, has announced a number of reforms of the civil service. Among the announced reforms is the streamlining of disciplinary procedures to make it easier to terminate under-performing civil servants. An independent expert group chaired by Professor Kevin Rafter from DCU made two key recommendations for civil service reform. One of the recommendations taken up and included in the Civil Service Renewal Plan is the establishment of an accountability board to enable oversight over all government departments and senior management. This board will be chaired by the Taoiseach. The expert panel’s recommendation for a head of the civil service to be appointed has been turned down by the Government. Furthermore, open recruitment for senior management positions in the civil service has been extended for all positions for Assistant Principals and above. The Plan also aims to open up the civil service to younger generations.
  • United States Canada

    United States Canada

    Comparative Table of the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada United States Canada Foundations Model State judiciaries vs. independent and Unitary model (single hierarchy) where parallel federal judiciary provinces appoint the lowest court in the province and the federal government appoints judges to all higher courts “The judicial Power of the United “Parliament of Canada may … provide for the States, shall be vested in one Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Constitutional supreme Court” Constitution of the a General Court of Appeal for Canada” Authority United States, Art. III, s. 1 Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 101 mandatory: “the judicial Power of optional: “Parliament of Canada may … provide the United States, shall be vested in for … a General Court of Appeal for Canada” (CA Creation and one supreme Court” Art III. s. 1 1867, s. 101; first Supreme Court Act in 1875, Retention of the (inferior courts are discretionary) after debate; not constitutionally entrenched by Supreme Court quasi-constitutional convention constitutionally entrenched Previous higher appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy judicial Council were abolished in 1949 authority Enabling Judiciary Act Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 Legislation “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising “a General Court of Appeal for Canada” confers under this Constitution” Art III, s. 2 plenary and ultimate authority “the Laws of the United States and Treaties made … under their Authority” Art III, s. 2 “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” (orig. jur.) Jurisdiction of Art III, s. 2 Supreme Court “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” Art III, s.
  • China's Participation in WTO Negotiations

    China's Participation in WTO Negotiations

    China Perspectives 2012/1 | 2012 China’s WTO Decade From the Periphery to the Centre China's Participation in WTO Negotiations Henry Gao Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/5823 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.5823 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 30 March 2012 Number of pages: 59-65 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Henry Gao, « China's Participation in WTO Negotiations », China Perspectives [Online], 2012/1 | 2012, Online since 23 August 2012, connection on 28 October 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ chinaperspectives/5823 ; DOI : 10.4000/chinaperspectives.5823 © All rights reserved Special feature China perspectives From the Periphery to the Centre China's Participation in WTO Negotiations HENRY GAO* ABSTRACT: In November 2001, China finally acceded to the World Trade Organization after a marathon accession negotiation that lasted 15 years. As China’s accession coincided with the launch of the Doha Round, many commentators predicted that China’s participation in the trade negotiations would have significant impacts on the Round. However, this has not proven to be the case. What have been the approaches taken by China in global trade negotiations? Why did China adopt these approaches? How did China’s different negotiating approaches affect the dynamics of trade negotiations? These are the questions addressed in this article. The paper argues that China started as a reluctant player in the negotiations, and only gradually made its way into the core decision-making group of the WTO rather late during the round. Even though China has now been accepted as a member of the G-7, the most powerful group in the WTO, it has been playing only supportive rather than leading roles.
  • The Protection of Human Rights in the Decisions of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation

    The Protection of Human Rights in the Decisions of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation

    St. John's Law Review Volume 70 Number 1 Volume 70, Winter 1996, Number 1 Article 9 The Protection of Human Rights in the Decisions of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Hon. Antonio Brancaccio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DECISIONS OF THE ITALIAN SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION HON. ANTONIO BRANCACCIO" INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, countries of common law and civil law traditions have undergone a process which has brought them closer together. This process can be traced back to the common conviction that law does not consist merely of complex, abstract norms, but rather of decisions made in applying these norms. In other words, it is the decisions of the courts which constitute the law in force. Thus, any understanding of the protection of hu- man rights requires reference to the decisions of judges who are called upon to decide cases in which this protection is challenged at both the international and national levels. At the national level, the decisions of supreme courts take on particular importance. I would like to refer briefly to the deci- sions of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation concerning the fundamental question of the direct effect of international sources on the protection of human rights in my country.
  • PUBLICATION No. 38 MARCH, 1978 THOMAS MEIKLE, 1862-1939

    PUBLICATION No. 38 MARCH, 1978 THOMAS MEIKLE, 1862-1939

    PUBLICATION No. 38 MARCH, 1978 THOMAS MEIKLE, 1862-1939 The founder of the Meikle Organisation sailed from Scotland with his parents in 1869. The family settled in Natal where Thomas and his brothers John and Stewart gained their first farming ex­ perience. In 1892 the three brothers set off for Rhodesia with eight ox- wagons. Three months later they had completed the 700 mile trek to Fort Victoria. Here they opened a store made of whisky cases and roofed over with the tarpaulins that had covered their wagons. Progress was at first slow, nevertheless, branches were opened in Salisbury in 1893, Bulawayo and Gwelo in 1894, and in Umtali in 1897. From these small beginnings a vast network of stores, hotels, farms, mines and auxilliary undertakings was built up. These ventures culminated in the formation of the Thomas Meikle Trust and Investment Company in 1933. The success of these many enterprises was mainly due to Thomas Meikle's foresight and his business acumen, coupled with his ability to judge character and gather around him a loyal and efficient staff. His great pioneering spirit lives on: today the Meikle Organisation is still playing an important part in the development of Rhodesia. THOMAS MEIKLE TRUST AND INVESTMENT CO. (PVT.) LIMITED. Travel Centre Stanley Avenue P.O. Box 3598 Salisbury Charter House, at the corner of Jameson Avenue and Kings Crescent, was opened in 1958. The name Charter House was given by The British South Africa Company to its administrative offices. It is now the headquarters of the Anglo American Corporation Group in Rhodesia.
  • The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth

    The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth

    The The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles Appoin An independent, impartial and competent judiciary is essential to the rule tmen of law. This study considers the legal frameworks used to achieve this and examines trends in the 53 member states of the Commonwealth. It asks: t, Te ! who should appoint judges and by what process? nur The Appointment, Tenure ! what should be the duration of judicial tenure and how should judges’ remuneration be determined? e and and Removal of Judges ! what grounds justify the removal of a judge and who should carry out the necessary investigation and inquiries? Re mo under Commonwealth The study notes the increasing use of independent judicial appointment va commissions; the preference for permanent rather than fixed-term judicial l of Principles appointments; the fuller articulation of procedural safeguards necessary Judge to inquiries into judicial misconduct; and many other developments with implications for strengthening the rule of law. s A Compendium and Analysis under These findings form the basis for recommendations on best practice in giving effect to the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003), the leading of Best Practice Commonwealth statement on the responsibilities and interactions of the three Co mmon main branches of government. we This research was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and undertaken and alth produced independently by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. The Centre is part of the British Institute of International and
  • Irish Studies Around the World – 2020

    Irish Studies Around the World – 2020

    Estudios Irlandeses, Issue 16, 2021, pp. 238-283 https://doi.org/10.24162/EI2021-10080 _________________________________________________________________________AEDEI IRISH STUDIES AROUND THE WORLD – 2020 Maureen O’Connor (ed.) Copyright (c) 2021 by the authors. This text may be archived and redistributed both in electronic form and in hard copy, provided that the author and journal are properly cited and no fee is charged for access. Introduction Maureen O’Connor ............................................................................................................... 240 Cultural Memory in Seamus Heaney’s Late Work Joanne Piavanini Charles Armstrong ................................................................................................................ 243 Fine Meshwork: Philip Roth, Edna O’Brien, and Jewish-Irish Literature Dan O’Brien George Bornstein .................................................................................................................. 247 Irish Women Writers at the Turn of the 20th Century: Alternative Histories, New Narratives Edited by Kathryn Laing and Sinéad Mooney Deirdre F. Brady ..................................................................................................................... 250 English Language Poets in University College Cork, 1970-1980 Clíona Ní Ríordáin Lucy Collins ........................................................................................................................ 253 The Theater and Films of Conor McPherson: Conspicuous Communities Eamon
  • TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patents

    TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patents

    FACT SHEET September 2003 TRIPS and pharmaceutical patents CONTENTS Philosophy: TRIPS attempts to strike a balance 1 What is the basic patent right? 2 A patent is not a permit to put a product on the market 2 Under TRIPS, what are member governments’ obligations on pharmaceutical patents? 2 IN GENERAL (see also “exceptions”) 2 Exceptions 3 ELIGIBILITY FOR PATENTING 3 RESEARCH EXCEPTION AND “BOLAR” PROVISION 3 ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE, ETC 4 COMPULSORY LICENSING 4 WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR USING COMPULSORY LICENSING? 5 PARALLEL IMPORTS, GREY IMPORTS AND ‘EXHAUSTION’ OF RIGHTS 5 THE DOHA DECLARATION ON TRIPS AND PUBLIC HEALTH 5 IMPORTING UNDER COMPULSORY LICENSING (‘PAR.6’) 6 What does ‘generic’ mean? 6 Developing countries’ transition periods 7 GENERAL 7 PHARMACEUTICALS AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 7 For more information 8 The TRIPS Agreement Philosophy: TRIPS attempts to strike a balance Article 7 Objectives The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of The protection and enforcement of intellectual property Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) attempts to strike rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and a balance between the long term social objective of dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage providing incentives for future inventions and of producers and users of technological knowledge and creation, and the short term objective of allowing in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. people to use existing inventions and creations. The agreement covers a wide range of subjects, from Article 8 copyright and trademarks, to integrated circuit Principles designs and trade secrets.
  • Information Note on the Court's Case-Law No

    Information Note on the Court's Case-Law No

    Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 144 August-September 2011 Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium - 3989/07 Judgment 20.9.2011 [Section II] Article 6 Administrative proceedings Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Refusal by supreme courts to refer a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice: no violation Facts – Refusal by the Court of Cassation and the Conseil d’Etat to refer questions relating to the interpretation of European Community law, raised in proceedings before those courts, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (now the Court of Justice of the European Union) for a preliminary ruling. Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court noted that in its CILFIT judgment*, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (“the Court of Justice”) had ruled that courts and tribunals against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy were not required to refer a question where they had established that it was not relevant or that the Community provision in question had already been interpreted by the Court of Justice, or where the correct application of Community law was so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The Court further reiterated that the Convention did not guarantee, as such, any right to have a case referred by a domestic court to another national or international authority for a preliminary ruling. Where, in a given legal system, other sources of law stipulated that a particular field of law was to be interpreted by a specific court and required other courts and tribunals to refer to it all questions relating to that field, it was in accordance with the functioning of such a mechanism for the court or tribunal concerned, before granting a request to refer a preliminary question, to first satisfy itself that the question had to be answered before it could determine the case before it.
  • Freedom House, Its Academic Advisers, and the Author(S) of This Report

    Freedom House, Its Academic Advisers, and the Author(S) of This Report

    Croatia by Tena Prelec Capital: Zagreb Population: 4.17 million GNI/capita, PPP: $22,880 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores NIT Edition 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 National Democratic 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.75 Governance Electoral Process 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3 3 3 Civil Society 2.75 2.75 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Independent Media 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.25 4.25 Local Democratic 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 Governance Judicial Framework 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 and Independence Corruption 4.5 4.5 4.25 4 4 4 4 4.25 4.25 4.25 Democracy Score 3.71 3.71 3,64 3.61 3.61 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.71 3.75 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year.
  • Remote Court Hearings

    Remote Court Hearings

    Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest L&RS Note Remote Court Hearings Rebecca Halpin, Parliamentary Researcher, Law Abstract<xx> July 2020 28 July 2020 This L&RS Note considers the use of remote hearings in Ireland during the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper describes the way in which remote hearings have been introduced in Ireland and the type of matters in which they are used. The paper then considers the difficulties associated with remote hearings, the need for legislative reform, and circumstances in which remote hearings may be unsuitable. The L&RS gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr Rónán Kennedy, School of Law, NUI Galway in reviewing the contents of this Note in advance of publication. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | L&RS Note Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Remote hearings – an overview ...................................................................................................... 3 ICT in Irish courts – capability and capacity .................................................................................... 4 Recent developments that facilitated the introduction of remote hearings .................................. 5 Impact and response to Covid-19 pandemic ..................................................................................
  • Appendix to Petition

    Appendix to Petition

    APPENDIX i TABLE OF CONTENTS – APPENDICES Appendix A (Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sitting en banc, Nov. 2, 2009) ............................... 1a Majority Opinion ......................................... 5a Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sack ............ 54a Dissenting Opinion of Judge Parker....... 125a Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pooler........ 157a Dissenting Opinion of Judge Calabresi .. 173a Appendix B (Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Jun. 30, 2008) ..................................................... 195a Majority Opinion ..................................... 200a Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sack .......... 276a Appendix C (Opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Feb. 16, 2006) ........................................... 335a Appendix D (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Public Law 102-256 Stat 73, 28 USC § 1350).................................................... 427a ii Appendix E (Excerpts of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 111-125, 8 USCS § 1231.............................. 431a Appendix F (Excerpts of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) ....................................................... 434a Appendix G (Complaint with Exhibits)............. 438a Complaint ................................................ 438a EXHIBIT A: Syria – Country Reports on Human Rights 2002: Dated March 31, 2003...................................................