R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet - definição. O que é R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet. Significado, conceito
Diclib.com
Dicionário ChatGPT
Digite uma palavra ou frase em qualquer idioma 👆
Idioma:

Tradução e análise de palavras por inteligência artificial ChatGPT

Nesta página você pode obter uma análise detalhada de uma palavra ou frase, produzida usando a melhor tecnologia de inteligência artificial até o momento:

  • como a palavra é usada
  • frequência de uso
  • é usado com mais frequência na fala oral ou escrita
  • opções de tradução de palavras
  • exemplos de uso (várias frases com tradução)
  • etimologia

O que (quem) é R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet - definição


R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet         
R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.
R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal         
  • The Royal Courts of Justice, where the case was heard
R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal and another was a court case heard by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which was instrumental in determining whether the Church of Scientology was to be considered a bona fide religion in England and Wales, and by extension what defines a religion in English law. The case, heard in 1969–70, focused on the question of whether a chapel at the Scientologists' UK headquarters should be registered as a meeting place for religious worship under an 1855 law.
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy         
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.