the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and
that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation
back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt
about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ...
we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but
a brutal act of a vengeance.
SUPPLEMENTS:
1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION
HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN
GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4
DOCUMENT 3
TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
From Lev GUNIN
Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be
- even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native
republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was
deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in
Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely
persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a
dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no
other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral
loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy
against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a
foreign state.
We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and
elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society
were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly
expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting.
Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her
partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her
reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main
points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept
them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions.
She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any
interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a
situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic
and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused
to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document
herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to
what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ
from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the
same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what
is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52%
