eaten,   disgraced,  threatened,
discriminated against (persecuted) in Israel. We were denied a
     permission to leave the country, and could not go away for 3 1/2 years.
We collected thousands of evidences in discrimination and
     persecutions.  Israeli  state  radio  made  a  provocation,  aiming  to
eliminate me,  Israeli newspapers called to  destroy all my  works - but for
this
     immigration board it's still not "enough"...

     *Why I Think My Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?

     Inside   The  Courtroom:  1)Some  of  the   main   documentary   proofs
(statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, etc.) have been
     disappeared or  were  ignored  as if  they were (disappeared).See pages
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5. 1-a)Only my college diploma was mentioned
     during  immigration  hearings, and  the commissioners  acted  as  if my
university diploma does not exist. In reality I mentioned it during the
     hearings and  the copy  of this  diploma  also was in my  file. 2)Other
extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not -
     they might be an obstacle to  what the  judges  incriminated me). Pages
B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4.B-5. 3) Other documents were mentioned as
     incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality  they were given
to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to
     these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same  way my words
were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating
     question.  My answer  closed that  question by a clear  and  unbeatable
contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was
     repeated - but this time in an  affirmative form: As if I said nothing.
The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the
     same  answer  again  and  again  they  shouted  on  me,  used  threats,
aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's
     clear that  such a method  violates moral and  legal  norms  -  and any
hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological
     pressure can not  be  taken into consideration. D-1, D-2,  D-3, D-4. 5)
Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They
     shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their  own  - and later
based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own
     statement posing it as my - not their - words.  E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4.  6)
It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to
     appeal  (for a refugee  status) because our  actions (when  we  were in
Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were
     mentioned: A demolition of  our family, a criminal offense - and so on!
F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their
     disapproval  by the  norms of  democracy  or  by  my  approval  of  the
democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was
     treated not  according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and
norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not to
     Canadian  but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5,  G-6. This position  -
neither  being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself
-
     made the  courtroom a  part  of  Israel's  territory.  G-7,  G-8. 8)The
procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but
     a pure pro-Israel's  propaganda. Its goal wasn't  to detect whether  or
not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of
     Israel  as  a  "good" country  in an imprudent  and abusing  form.  The
depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our
     personal  history. So  the only criteria chosen to support the  board's
point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only
     admissible attitude  to  refugees has  to base  the  decision  on  what
happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2,
     H-3. 9)The members  of  the board  expressed their  detestation  of the
human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a
     number  of  recognized  human  rights.I-1,  I-2,  etc.   10)They   also
(indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel
for my
     views - it's  justified because  I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending
faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about
     us,  the  immigration  officer  violated  another  moral  and  judicial
principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a
     country  refugee  claimants  escaped  from .K-1,  K-2, etc.  12)Reading
Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer
     distorted  and sometimes  falsified  their  meaning.L-1,  L-2,ect.  13)
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  my lawyer (or  my  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  my  documents  may  be  considered as  more  objective  and
independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) 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
Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a
     witness to their 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  behavior towards us  and  Metelnitsky family was so
incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or
     to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc.  15)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 to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc.

     Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that
happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper
     to my first  lawyer's translator,  Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She  sabotaged
the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own
     inventions and sentences which sounded  like provocation. I demanded  a
translation back to Russian from her, 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 me
     from  complaining.  I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1,
2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder 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  me a favor" (I 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.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also
     sabotaged the translation of  some official papers and other  documents
which I prepared to support my claim. 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:  Then  no  documents  were translated. 2-C,ect.
4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological
     warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to
attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular
     phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These
     phrases were taken from  articles, which I wrote before we escaped from
Israel. Among them were the articles, which I hadn't presented to
     Mrs.Broder or to my lawyer when  she was doing  the  translation of  my
refugee claim. The members of the immigration board have exploited
     these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it might
not happened occasionally.2-E, etc. 6) There is a visible
     connection between the  immigration officer -  and  information,  which
might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
     gentlemen acted  once as  an informer  and a  provocateur  for  Israeli
authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article
     was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the
information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine)
     against me.  This  article is  outright  slander, mystification,  false
insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as
a
     government's  agent  I told  him some things which I never  told to any
other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of
     family Metelnitzky these things  were  used  by the immigration officer
(against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a
     contact with  Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F,  etc. 7)  a)  A  campaign  of  lie and
slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against
     me in Montreal, which source  might be the consulate of Israel. If such
things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the
     immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know
from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of
     the immigration board in  my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her
nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a
     Jew  and  the patriot  of  Israel  (the  last  is  too  clear), what an
arbitrary role in our case she should  play? She has no moral and - may be -
legal
     rights  to judge in  refugees' from  Israel cases. 2-J,  etc. 8)When we
came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal
     translation  to  our  lawyer.  Dispute  the  submission  of  that legal
translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she
     sabotaged  ("refused") to  translate my  wife's  parents'  nationality.
There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration
     officer's tactics in that issue.

     CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any
legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or
     a secret political tribunal. This tribunal  was arranged to  punish  me
for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's
     and mine) claim for  a refugee status is justified. It was used for the
political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human
     rights violations in Israel, which  not concerns Arabs, can  be  calmed
down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear
     that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit
the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their
     words, their behavior - everything - was meant to show us that we could
only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after
     getting a status in Canada. Before that we  don't deserve to be treated
by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the
     rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of
humiliations  over the juridical norms then that... It  was absolutely clear
for
     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%
     of  refugees  from Israel  were recognized as Convention refugees, with
this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her
     motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a  decision  is a
juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric
     and  pro-Israeli  propaganda,  which  has  nothing  what to do with our
claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for
     explanations  (instructions?) in  our  case. 6. The  committee decision
ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at
     all.  In the same time to  support  its  statements the committee  used
documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards
     our case but in general  sense.  But most of the document  used  in the
decision have no relationship to our case and were given just
     because  something  had  to  be given.  7.  By  denying  our claim  the
Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its
     history. I am may  be just one of few  people in the world who suffered
so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a
     miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis.
We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as
     nobody else.  We had  testimonies, certificates, and articles,  which I
wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International
     confirmation in my case... My  children,  wives, mother's suffering was
just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were
     solders of an enemy  army, not innocent people. My  family and my lives
are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on
     distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did  when she translated our claim and
our documents.

     I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by
other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision -
     paragraph after paragraph.

     Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even
data by false facts, events and data. The information from our
     PIF, our  claim, hearings  and even  passports this  document describes
with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages
     are  indicated as 5  and 6 when  i