"With the worsening political situation in Tajikistan, the claimant's family took refuge at the home of relatives, where they went underground, avoiding going outside as much as possible."

According to claimant's statement (PIF): they went underground not just because of the worsening of the situation in Tadjikistan in general, but because of a threat to their lives.

See - claimant's "story" (PIF): Page 1, Paragraph 5, 6

"Her husband's identity booklet did not define his nationality, which made him the target of mockery, jeering and poor and unfair treatment. Her husband began to drink and beat her, chasing her with a knife on a few occasions. The children also suffered."

Another distortion of the claimant's statement: actually (not formally) claimant's husband was persecuted because he was not a Jew: which resulted in the remark in his internal passport, and caused further troubles for him. We disagree with the panel's definition of the "Tehudat Zehut" as an "identity booklet"; this is an internal passport.

See - claimant's "story": Page 3, Paragraph 6

"The claimant's daughter waited two weeks before filing a complaint with the police. The police told her that she should have pressed charges immediately and that nothing could be done now. The police told the family of the alleged rapist that the parents of the alleged victim had made a complaint."

1. The expression "alleged victim" (and "alleged rapist") does not correspond to claimant's statement. In this part, in the description of claimant's statement, the panel had absolutely no rights to make such remarks. Then, according to claimant's "story" and her statement during the hearing, it was her (without her husband; not "parents") who appealed to police in her daughter's rape case, and her husband had nothing to do with this appeal to police. She went to police with her daughter, and her husband did not even know by then about this affair and was not participating in it at all. When the panel wrote "parents", they attempted to distort claimant's statement in term to make it artificially contradictive.

2. When the panel wrote that claimant's daughter has waiting two weeks before appealing to police, the panel did not care to indicate that the victim was in a shock - and "was afraid to tell" what happened even to her mother. This distortion of the claimants' statement was exploited by the panel in term to make a doubtful impression about claimant's daughter's statement about the rape episode.

3. The panel also had a psychologist's resume, which totally supports allegations, which the claimant and her daughter made about the rape - and describes the psychological state in result of the rape, as well as its consequences. The panel ignored this document as if it did not exist.

4. The panel did not mention that there was an ethnical conflict reflected in the rape. They did not mention that the rapist was a Moroccan origin, which if extremely important in the content of claimant's statement (PIF).

See claimant's PIF: Page 4, Paragraph 12, 13, 14

"3) If she could not confirm her Jewish nationality, the state of Israel would take away her TIdudat-Zehut, ie, her Israeli identity documents, without which she could not survive."

Again, we disagree of the definition of the Tehudat Zehut (which name the panel wrote with a mistake) as an identity document, because it is actually an internal passport. Moreover, in claimant's statement we can read that she defines the Tehudat Zehut as an internal passport: Page 3, Paragraph 6. By changing the status of the Tehudat Zehut from its actual role in Israel to an identity document, the panel tried to downplay the hardship of all problems in Israel related to this document. People, who have no Tehudat Zehut, are not citizens of Israel. Each Tehudat Zehut has its original number. Without presenting this number you can not be served by hospitals, banks, schools, governmental institutions, etc.

According to claimant's son's statement - her son started to suffer from discrimination and persecutions not shortly before leaving Israel, but immediately after arriving in Israel.

See C.'s "story", Page 1, last paragraph - Page 2 (continued)

In this paragraph the panel did not mention that claimant's son was beaten (pushed) in the military prison and has received severe injuries. Each purposeful distortion of claimants' statement makes any "decision" about them doubtful and partial.

See claimant's story, Page 7, Paragraph 1 (from the previous page)

See also C.'s story: Page 4, Paragraph 1

"The family decided to leave the country for another that was as far away from Israel and Europe as possible, so that those who were hounding them would have trouble finding them. This was why the family stopped over in London before coming to Canada. The claimant contended that she had nowhere to go and that she had no real citizenship. She liked Canada and was getting ready to celebrate Christmas there."

There are some extremely severe distortions of claimant's statement here. From the panel interpretation of claimant's "story", it is not clear, why she went to Canada through London, when in her statement it was mentioned in a very straight and clear manner. They also made a false compilation from different paragraphs of the claimant's statement in term to distort the sense of her words. From the panel's interpretation appears that she came to Canada because "She liked Canada and was getting ready to celebrate Christmas there". It is clearly mentioned in claimant's statement that she came to Canada because she desired to be as far away from Israel (and Tajikistan) as possible, and she used a charter transit route via London because of other reasons; she mentioned about celebrating Christmas in Canada describing her life already in Canada, in connection with the end of necessity to hide her Christian religion.

See claimant's "story": Page 7, Paragraph 6, and the end of Paragraph 7

"The claimant became an Israeli citizen because her husband had obtained birth certificates from a Russian registry office, indicating that his wife was of Jewish descent. As their relationship had deteriorated since their arrival in Israel, the claimant feared that her husband, who had|/ threatened her to that effect, would go to the Department of the Interior to report the falsified civil status identification documents. The claimant learned after leaving Israel that her husband had indeed gone to the Department of the Interior to report her. Because she no longer had her Russian citizenship, she feared losing her Israeli citizenship and becoming stateless."

The distortion here is obvious.

1) Claimant's husband did not threat her to denounce her non-Jewish descent, but actually WENT to the department of the Ministry of Interior - and MADE a statement there. We also think that the expression "Ministry of Interior" (instead of the "Department of Interior") would better serve the revelation of the essence of claimant's statement.

2) Panel's remark that the claimant found out only after leaving Israel that her husband denounced her to the Ministry of Interior is false. In her statement (PIF) she gave it as one of the main reasons why she left Israel, and describes in her statement how and when she found out about her husband's action: it was when she was IN ISRAEL.

3) The panel wrote that "Because she no longer had her Russian citizenship", which is incorrect. She never had citizenship of Russia. At the present moment she has only a "non-active" (according to Israeli Law of Return) Israeli citizenship, which is not a "real" citizenship.

See claimant's "story", Page 5, Paragraph 19, 20, 21

And also: Page 6, Paragraph 4

"When asked to explain the reason for her fear, she told the panel that the Department of the Interior had asked her for her mother's birth certificate. The panel noted that the claimant had not been asked to appear before the Department of the Interior to establish her Jewish descent, that the Department's only request for information concerned the baptism certificate. This is not a reasonable reason to fear being stripped of one's citizenship. Exhibit A-31 on citizenship revocation explains the revocation process and also notes the possibility of appealing any decision to revoke citizenship. The evidence shows that the claimant did not exhaust all of the avenues open to her."

1) The panel's conclusion and interpretation of the events directly contradict the common sense - as well as with the Israeli practice of the definition of nationality. All disputes and questions about nationality in Israel are in jurisdiction of Rabbinates and the Management of the Registration of the Population in Jerusalem, which is formally the Ministry of Interior's department. The head of the Management of the Registration of Population was Herzel GETCH, known for his aggressive statements against Jews and non-Jews from ex-USSR. Panel's argument that Mrs. G. and her children were not invited to appear before the Ministry of Interior "to establish her Jewish descent" - is another distortion of her statement and her situation. If the state with a racist link in its basic law (THE LAW OF RETURN, and other laws), between the right to be its citizen - and nationality, was demanding to proof her Jewish nationality: it definitely means deportation. The panel's claim that Mrs. G. wasn't invited to the Ministry of Interior for clarifying her nationality is false. In reality she WAS invited - and the procedure of deportation from Israel has already started. In reality what the panel had to do - is to take into consideration the DOCUMENTARY proof: documents, which were sent to Mrs. G. from the Ministry of Interior. (See Exhibit P-18 in the claimant's case). Plus, this is clearly marked in Mrs. G.'s statement (PIF), page 5, paragraph 21).

2) The panel's claim that Mrs. G. wasn't allegedly called to the Ministry of Interior contradicts the same documents, and her statement: because she WAS actually called to the Ministry of Interior, where the procedure of definition of her nationality (deportation) was initiated. How many sessions and how many Mrs. G.'s appearances at the Ministry would be needed for them to produce a final verdict about her deportation is just a matter of time (not a principle question). It means that she WAS under the procedure of clarifying her nationality (and - consequently - citizenship).

3) In the document, which was presented to the panel (Excibit P-18), both racist nature of the State of Israel - and the intention of the Ministry of Interior were reflected. The header of this document is reflecting the intention of the Ministry of Interior without any doubt.

4) In their clause "The evidence shows that the claimant did not exhaust all of the avenues open to her." the panel was consciously using false evidence. 1) They don't specify - what "avenues" where open to her, so, that this clause becomes nothing more then just words based on nothing. 2) Another question is that Mrs. G. could not prove that she is Jewish - and did not want to prove it. 3) If there is a legislation in Israel with a clear link between Jewish nationality - and the right to be an Israeli citizen: then Mrs. G. has no chances to keep her Israeli citizenship. 4) We should ask the panel, what "avenues" they mean, when they wrote "the claimant did not exhaust all of the avenues open to her"; we repeat that she could not and didn't want to prove that she is Jewish, 5) Another good question is what was the purpose for Mrs. G. to "exhaust all of the avenues open to her"? She is not Jewish - and did not want to become Jewish; then this clause does not make any sense. What could Mrs. G. "prove" in Israel - based on her false birth certificate, and why she had to "prove"?

"The claimant feared that her ex-husband would kill her if she returned to Israel. She contends that her husband beat her without ever leaving marks, a skill he had learned when he worked for the Russian secret service. When the panel asked the claimant how she knew that his beatings would leave no obvious marks, she answered that her husband had told her. There was no

Her failure to consult a doctor on the pretext that no signs of violence were visible and her lack of concern with regard to the internal injuries she could have suffered makes the panel question the veracity of these events."

The panel has totally ignored the real situation of the Russian-speaking people in Israel, the fact of claimant's discrimination - and - consequently - her law social and financial status in Israel. The panel also has ignored that there is no medical insurance in Israel like in Canada. They also ignore the victim's psychological state. The common situation in Israel, her personal suffering, her long victimization by various circumstances and people - have affected her ability to act as the panel supposed she had to act. The way the panel is seeing Mrs. G. and her eventual self-defense in Israel corresponds to a wealthy Canadian-born and financially independent women in Canada, but not a Russian-speaking "false" immigrant in Israel. Panel's interpretation is completely incorrect.

"The claimant testified that her husband had beaten her with a stick in June or July 2001. She had gone to the police, who had refused her medico-legal aid that would prove that she had been beaten. When asked to explain why she did not mention the event in her PIF, the claimant said that it did not seem important to her. The panel considers it unlikely that the claimant, who had gone into great detail in her 10-page statement, would omit such an important element in support of her refugee claim."

In this paragraph the panel completely distorted and mixed up all events in the claimant's statement and testimony.

1) When the panel wrote "The claimant testified that her husband had beaten her with a stick in June or July 2001", they have committed next mistakes:

a) it wasn't her husband - but her employer;

b) according to PIF, the mentioned event was not in July 2001; the panel have distorted the date;

See claimant's "story" (PIF): Page 4, Paragraph 15; also - Page 9, Paragraph 5

2) When the panel wrote: "When asked to explain why she did not mention the event in her PIF, the claimant said that it did not seem important to her.", it was incorrect, because it WAS mentioned in her PIF:

See claimant's "story" (PIF): Page 4, Paragraph 15

3) When the panel wrote: "When asked to explain why she did not mention the event in her PIF, the claimant said that it did not seem important to her" - they have distorted and mixed up absolutely different facts:

a) the question was posed by the panel in a next way: why it wasn't mentioned in her PIF about how long the employer was persecuting her, and she responded that it was not a principle question;

b) it turns out that the panel have expressed doubts in "event" that the panel has itself "invented": by distorting and mixing up in a "free-style compilation" the real events, described in the claimant's PIF and her testimony.

4) When the panel wrote that Mrs. G. did not mention in her PIF that she has turned to police, and was refused the "medico-legal aid", it is a false statement. This episode WAS mentioned in her PIF (see Page 10, Paragraph 2), and also the episode with the hospital. It means that the panel's "conclusion" "The panel considers it unlikely that the claimant, who had gone into great detail in her 10-page statement, would omit such an important element in support of her refugee claim" was based on their own false statement. The expression "medico-legal aid" instead of "medico-legal evaluation" was another distortion.

What the panel claims that the claimant said - is not true. She never said that her husband could find her through Israeli secret services, or that he has connections in the Israeli secret services. The panel seriously distorted her testimony.

"The claimant said she was sexually harassed by her employer, for whom she worked from July 6, 1993 to July 31, 2001. He beat her and forced her to have sexual relations with him on many occasions, threatening that she would otherwise lose her job."

The panel again has distorted the date. In July, 1993, Mrs. G. was still in Tajikistan. Another date was also distorted by the panel. Mrs. G. was working for Mr. Factor till July, 31, 2000.

See PIF, Page 9, last Paragraph.

In next paragraphs the panel accused Mrs. G. of manipulating the dates and falsely claiming that her employer has persecuted her till she left Israel. If extending this logic to panel's actions, we can say that the panel itself has manipulated the dates (modifying the dates for extending the period of Mrs. G.'s employment by Mr. Factor (1993 instead of 1994, and 2001 instead of 2000) "to give greater weight" to their claim that for "such a long period of time" Mrs. G. "shoved no perseverance in seeking protection from the state". It is logically clear that they accuse Mrs. G. of using their own methods.

"Having been beaten over such a long period of time, the panel deems it unlikely that the claimant had never heard of these shelters."

Such an arbitrary "conclusion" (speculation) shows once again an unacceptable way, in which the panel was evaluating claimant's testimony. Prejudge and partiality has manifested here in a concentrated form. How can the panel justify any decision based on an absolutely irresponsible speculative suggestion of what the claimant could - and what could not know (or hear)!

In a special supplement to this paragraph the panel formally listed organizations, which can allegeably help people like Mrs. G.. However, the panel did not show why and by what functions the mentioned organizations could help Mrs. G. in her specific personal case. Such functions of the "helping" organizations as "legal non-orthodox conversions to Judaism" or "It also organizes meetings and discussion groups between the religious and non-religious populations of Israel" listed by the panel -- are seen as panel's bad joke. It could be interpreted in a comic way if not the very serious impact that caused panel's decision. The panel definitely listed all these organization purely formally, without going into details by what and how they could help Mrs. G..

Panel's speculative suggestion that the claimant did not seek protection from the state, contradicts her appeals to various Israeli organization - and their failure to help her. The panel claimed that Mrs. G. could have a free legal help, but ignored that she went to Israeli "free legal aid" - and was told that she can employ a private lawyer. And so on.

They ignored that the claimant was afraid to go to police because of the impression that the police gave on her, and because she was just afraid to go there. She was in great disbelieve that Israeli police wants to help her, a Russian-speaking person, a non-Jew, and a fresh immigrant.

On Page 6, in the end of Paragraph 4, and on Page 10, in the paragraphs 4-5 of her "story" (PIF) Mrs. G. listed various places and organizations where she went with her complaints - but they did not want to help her. By writing after this that she did not do enough for seeking the protection from the state the panel ignored all her statements and documents, presented by her lawyer about the situation of women in Israel and the State of Israel's refusal to react properly. Then - from what state she should seek protection? From a state, which has initiated her deportation, based on pure racist law?

"Claimant N. G. was raped in Israel in 1996 when she was 10 years old."

Miss G. wasn't 10 years old in 1996. The panel modified practically all dates and digits, manipulating them to "add more weight" to their "conclusions". Here they present N. as a 10-years old girl to diminish the credibility of N.'s testimony.

She could also have more fear to go outside then in her apartment: this question panel never evaluated - because they did not want to.

"The panel realizes that Dr Marta Valenzuela cannot testify with respect to the claimant's credibility. The relationship between a client and psychologist requires the psychologist to ensure that it is based on trust. The psychologist is alone with the individual and makes a diagnosis based on what the individual tells him/her, which is a different role than the one played by the panel."

This is the most outraged panel's statement. Here the panel not only violated basic regulations about the definition of the refugee status, ethical and moral norms, but (in a violent way) - basic Canadian laws. Having no rights to judge about medical evaluation, having no medical license and rights to intervene into the domain of psychologist's work, they have rejected a professional medical (psychological) evaluation. The only reason the panel gave for the rejection of professional psychological evaluation were their vulgar speculations about "The relationship between a client and psychologist". In this part - a complaint to the Canadian Medical Association, to the Association of Psychologists, to Canadian Human Rights Committee - and to other organizations is urgently needed.

"The fact that the claimant lived alone in an apartment from 1998 to 2001 without any incident of sexual harassment, according to her testimony, leads the panel to determine that the fear the claimant feels of being raped again and of not being protected by the state if she returned to Israel does not stand up.

The panel is of the opinion that, as in her mother's case, the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof on her."

This is the most wild and absurd panel's statement that has no even a sign of any logic.

By writing that "The fact that the claimant lived alone in the apartment from 1998 to 2001.... leads the panel to determine that the fear the claimant feels of being raped again .... does not stand up" the panel made a direct connection between "living alone" and "being raped". In the same time the panel did not dare to explain the pretext for this extreme absurdity. It is also unclear why the panel thinks that if N. wasn't raped during 2 or 3 years, she could not being raped after 3 years, 2 months, and 2 days! And again - the panel operated very freely with the dates, extending or diminishing the terms as if they were Masters of Time. In this case the way they treated the dates (without giving the months) was used by the panel to make an impression of a longer period of time then it actually was (N. has begun to live alone in November 1998, i. e. in the end of the year). Then - if N. was living with her mother, how her mother could protect her? Then - there is much safer in an apartment then when she was alone in the street. The panel's absurdity reflects itself under all points of view.

Gives an impression that the panel cares most of all about the State's of Israel compulsory military service's well-being, but not about the claimant's destiny. The panel's attitude ("to refuse to fulfill one's duty to one's country") ignores all unspeakable crimes that the Israeli army has committed and commits on the occupied territories. There are tons of Amnesty International, United Nations, and other respected organizations' accusations against sinister crimes of the Israeli regime.

The panel completely ignored discrimination, racism, batteries, injury that C. faced in Israel. There was no single word in the panel's decision about all these events, described in C.'s statement. We can say that the panel basically refused to evaluate C.'s case. They concentrated only on the question if he can be recognized as a pacifist. We think that the reasons, which C. gave about his decision to become a pacifist, were very reliable, and logically and psychologically correct. There is no explanation why the panel connects the recognition of C. as a pacifist - to his membership in an organization of pacifists, and why the panel refused to recognize him as a pacifist.

However, the panel claim that based the refusal to recognize C. as "a persecuted individual" on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees handbook - and - specifically - on article 174.

In this article we can read:

"174. The genuineness of a person's political, religious or moral convictions, or of his reasons

genuineness of his convictions."

As one can see - panel's referral to this article is completely incorrect. This article does not provide any justification for a refusal to recognize C. as a pacifist and a "persecuted person", but, on contrary, backs up his claim. His situation (he is not a Jew; his conflict with the State of Israel, its institutions, and its religious extremism was manifested long before he was called to arms; he formed "his views prior to being called to arms": in connection with his experience in Tajikistan; the genuineness of his political, religious and moral convictions were developed with no specific connection to the question of the compulsory military service in Israel, and only later have been involved in a conflict between his consciousness - and the military service in Israel) well corresponds to the article 174. His refusal to participate in the war against Arabs, which - he believes - is unfair, and in killings of civilians, which the Israeli army practices - MUST be respected as his unconditional and legitimate right.

In article 167 the UN refugee handbook says:

Article 169:

"169. A deserter or draft-evader may also be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he

beyond the punishment for desertion."

It corresponds to C.'s situation, because he's not a Jew, because he's a pacifist, because he's Christian, and because he's a Russian-speaking immigrant.

Further -

It corresponds to C.'s words about his refusal to participate in the "unfair war against Arabs", and to kill Arab civilians at the occupied by Israel territories.

In a similar way all other articles, to which the panel sends us, instead of supporting panel's "conclusion" reveal its injustice.

It is important to add, that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 96, on which the panel based its decision, in reality denounce the panel's unfairness and partiality.

The claimant and members of her family are

a) outside of their country of nationality (Tajikistan) and unable (and also - by reason of that fear unwilling) to avail themselves of the protection of their country;

b) not having a country of nationality, outside the country of their former habitual residence (USSR) and unable to return to that country.

An only conclusion that could be done is that the panel refers to documents, which actually say the contrary to panel's own conclusions, methods of evaluation, and decision.

CONCLUSIONS