On the same day the first-instance court dismissed the demand for the applicant’s extradition holding that the laws in Saudi Arabia provided for death penalty for terrorism related offences.

Arafsa, according to Article 60 of the 1982 Housing Code, effective at the material time.

of Appeal in respect of his claim against Saudi Arabia itself.

On the same ground the border guards refused to allow the applicants to disembark. The border guards asked the lawyer to leave the vessel.

[Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Decision to strike out civil claims alleging torture on account of immunity invoked by defendant State (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    It appears from the record of the court hearing held on the same date that the first applicant submitted that (i) he had been allocated a plot of land in Arafsa while he had his residence

In 1991, he obtained a passport and moved to Saudi Arabia for eight months before returning.

The first applicant had contacted a former “sponsor” in Saudi Arabia who had informed him that he would not be able to return to that country.

In the context of that trial, the State Court summoned the applicant, who belongs to the same religious group, to appear as a witness on 10 September 2012.

  The first applicant had a university degree from Saudi Arabia. On 16 June 2009, he explained to the Board that he had not visited Saudi Arabia since 1999.

"Arista-Mischfutterwerke" (1963).

    On the same day the Court granted the request. 26.

Her husband moved to Saudi Arabia in 2012, to join his mother and brothers, and a daughter from another relationship.

(ii)     Husband’s income from work in Saudi Arabia in 2006 19 .

The Federal Asylum Office, on the same day, dismissed the asylum request.

The United Kingdom has signed but not ratified and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has neither signed nor ratified.

He was questioned about his trip, including what he did and where he stayed in Saudi Arabia, and he was again asked to explain why he had two passports.

The Aliens Service held that the circumstances justifying the applicant’s detention remained the same.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).