![]() ![]() Xavier Camus, Head of the Good Governance and Rule of Law Section at the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine, noted that despite Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, free legal aid remained accessible for citizens who needed such help. “Thanks to this study, we know how to achieve this.” “We at UNDP are ready to make maximum efforts to ensure that everyone who needs legal help in Ukraine in these difficult times can get it in full, and that Ukraine’s justice system is working harmoniously and fairly,” he said. ![]() Jaco Cilliers, UNDP Resident Representative in Ukraine, emphasized that Ukraine’s system of free legal aid has demonstrated unprecedented stability and endurance. This naturally led to an excessive workload for organizations and institutions that provide legal assistance in Ukraine, because demand for legal services has increased rapidly. The full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation of Ukraine gave rise to a large number of legal issues that required urgent solutions: from the status of internally displaced persons to the need for prompt responses to the requests of people affected by the war. Thus, about 70 percent of respondents believe that since the beginning of the war, their opportunities to receive legal assistance have not reduced or have even increased. ![]() Conducting a comprehensive study and preparing a report based on its results were possible because of generous support from the European Union and the Government of Denmark.Īccording to the report, the free legal aid system has demonstrated a high level of stability in the context of the war, and the bodies and organizations that provide legal services to the population quickly adapted to the new conditions and were able to ensure the proper quality of such services and client orientation. In 2017, the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik was also identified as a Nation implicated by the Marshall decisions.Kyiv, 4 May 2023 - The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Ukraine presented a report on the availability of legal aid in the context of martial law in the capital of Ukraine. The Marshall decisions implicated 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet First Nations in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and the Gaspé region of Quebec. The Government of Canada continues to work with First Nations in the Maritimes and Quebec to implement this right. The Supreme Court also explained that the Government of Canada could take into account economic and regional fairness among other similar considerations when regulating commercial fishing. ![]() Known as Marshall II, the second decision emphasized that the treaty rights could only be limited for conservation reasons or other compelling and substantial public objectives. This led to a second decision by the Supreme Court two months later in November 1999, in which the Court clarified important elements of the decision. The first Supreme Court Marshall decision was followed up by a request for a rehearing of the appeal. Marshall’s convictions and affirmed the hunting, fishing and gathering rights promised to Indigenous peoples in the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 17. On September 17, 1999, the Supreme Court reversed Mr. Marshall appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Marshall was convicted of illegal fishing by Nova Scotia’s Provincial Court in 1996 and his convictions were upheld by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 1997. Marshall caught and sold eel without a licence during the fishery’s off-season and he was charged under the federal Fisheries Act and the Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations. The decision stemmed from the prosecution of Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi’kmaq member of the Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia. The Marshall decision is a landmark decision in Canada that affirmed First Nations’ treaty right to fish, hunt, and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |