Revision as of 05:56, 27 May 2013 edit Int21h (talk \| contribs) 18 edits →Point 2: Investigation violations of global checkuser/oversight policies: expand cmt ← Older edit		Revision as of 05:58, 27 May 2013 edit undo Int21h (talk \| contribs) 18 edits →Point 2: Investigation violations of global checkuser/oversight policies: refine cmt Newer edit →
Line 118: {{support}} <span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">— '''[[User:Racconish\|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish\|<sup> Tk </sup>]]</span> 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) {{support}} per Trijnstel.--[[User:Steinsplitter\|Steinsplitter]] ([[User talk:Steinsplitter\|talk]]) 17:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) * {{oppose}} This is a mandatory review-appeal responsibility. I am just afraid this is going to overburden OmbCom, leading to less focus on Point 1+3. I really think an intermediate entity should be given responsibility for projects without one, even if only to "develop the record". Review-appealing administrative decisions of the Kenyan police ~~court~~ directly to the Hague for trial-in-the-first-instance is going to cause problems. [[User:Int21h\|Int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h\|talk]]) 05:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC) === Point 3: Deferring complaints to local processes and final appeals body ===

Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission: Difference between revisions