expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the
Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,
declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely
ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary
source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The
immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed
one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said
about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French
version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions
against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded
the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The
translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.
She told us that she has translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to
the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board
and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.
Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The
members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't
occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a
humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This
