McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

This is interesting;

European Court of Human Rights
Questions and Answers.


Are there any procedures that must be followed
beforehand in the national courts?
" Yes. You must have used all the remedies in the State concerned
that could provide redress for the situation you are complaining
about (usually this will mean an application to the appropriate
court, followed by an appeal, where applicable, and even a
further appeal to a higher court such as the supreme court or
constitutional court, if there is one).
" It is not enough merely to make use of these remedies. In so
doing, you must also have actually raised your complaints (the
substance of the Convention violations you are alleging).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that

[Sunny]

The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that

Do you have a cite for that Davel?

[G-Unit]

The application to have the SC judgeemnt overturned covers that

Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?

Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

[jassi]

Do you have a cite for that Davel?

Porcine squadron- stand by for takeoff

[Mr Gray]

Do you have a cite for that Davel?

I do and have quoted it many times..
Have you not been following
The McCann's raised the presumption of innocence in their final appeal to the SC....and the SC said they were not entitled to it

[Mr Gray]

Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?

Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish

[Montclair]

You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish

Give us a cite instead.

[Mr Gray]

Where the lawyers are still arguing that the archiving dispatch is 'verified proof of innocence'?

Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

From the report you quote...


 under article 277-2 of the CPP.

As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,


It is clear the person who translated this is continually using the word proof....instead of evidence....the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof.

[Mr Gray]

Give us a cite instead.

Have a look at the cite above....the McCann's claimed that they should be entitled to the presumption of innocence....not that they had been proven innocent

[G-Unit]

You are totally mistaken...the lawyers have never claimed the archiving report is proof of innocence...I can explain it to you if you wish

As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

From the report you quote...


 under article 277-2 of the CPP.

As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,


It is clear the person who translated this is continually using the word proof....instead of evidence....the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof.

Upon what precisely do you base that assertion?

[Mr Gray]

Upon what precisely do you base that assertion?

Which assertion...there are two

[Alice Purjorick]

Which assertion...there are two

Upon what precisely do you base those assertions ?

[G-Unit]

Upon what precisely do you base those assertions ?

Davel seems to be claiming that his translation is more accurate than the one provided by Anne Guedes. It will be interesting to see the evidence on which he bases his assertion.

[Mr Gray]

Davel seems to be claiming that his translation is more accurate than the one provided by Anne Guedes. It will be interesting to see the evidence on which he bases his assertion.

when I first joined the forum I saw taht anne as a memeber here had translated the archiving report as "prove their innocence"....i pointed out to her that the report used the word comprovar rather than provar....she then agreed that the correct translation was demonstrate innocence....rather than prove innocence.
so i have corrected anne once....i think the same thing has happened with the SC judgeemnt....with the word proof being used in trnsaltion instead of evidence