[Grammar] their <infringed or challenged> rights or law-safeguarded interests <that have been…>

[remarc]

their <infringed or challenged> rights or law-safeguarded interests <that have been…>

Hello,


Could you please help me choose the best place for these modifiers. The complete original sentence is quite long (and involves additional issues), so I am only providing the main clause:

X, Y, and Z have the right of recourse to court for protection of their <option A: infringed or challenged> rights or law-safeguarded interests <option B: that have been infringed or challenged>.

This is a translation, so paraphrasing options are limited. The conditions (imposed by the original text) are as follows:

1. 
   [*=1]The words “infringed or challenged” refer to both “rights” and “interests”.
   [*=1]“safeguarded by law” only refers to “interests” , so I had to convert it into a clumsy (?) premodifier. Please note that I cannot use “legally safeguarded” because “legally” is broader in meaning than “by law”.

Which of A and B is better (or less atrocious)? Any other ways to say the same (subject to the conditions 1 and 2)?

Do you think that anything can be done with “law-safeguarded”/“safeguarded by law” (ensuring that it only refers to “interests”)?

P.S. A side note on “infringe” / “infringe on/upon”: I have checked the usage in similar contexts, for example: “Civil court cases arise where an individual or a business believes their rights have been infringed”. [www judiciary gov uk]

 

[5jj]

Re: their <infringed or challenged> rights or law-safeguarded interests <that have be

Welcome to the forum, remarc. :hi:

*Not a lawyer*

'law-safeguarded interests' just does not work.

I'd go for:

X, Y and Z have the right of recourse to the courts for protection, against infringement or challenge, of their interests safe-guarded by law and of their rights.

 

[remarc]

Re: their <infringed or challenged> rights or law-safeguarded interests <that have be

Thank you!

But does “protection against infringement or challenge” reflect that they have already been, or are already being, infringed or challenged?

Regarding “law-safeguarded”: as a non-native speaker, I would never dare to invent such things myself. Here is the model I used:

Of growing concern to U.S. security interests are State Department’s latest reports of increased high profile cases in the PRC involving the monitoring, harassment,
detention, arrest, and imprisonment of journalists, writers, activists, and defense lawyers
seeking to exercise their law-protected rights.

[Emphasis added.]

This wording is used in several decisions of administrative judges in the US (apparently, native speakers). As a newbie, I may not post links yet, but it can be found by googling

"their law-protected rights" site:.mil

In an article (by a native speaker, of course), I read: “To qualify for police officer status, an academy rookie must be within the doctor-prescribed weight range for his/her height”. Isn’t it the same?

Still, I see that Quirk, for example, is very clear about that:

17.103. If the -ed participle has a by-agent or other prepositional construction, only postmodification is possible.

What about (following your idea): X, Y and Z have the right of recourse to the courts for protection of their interests safe-guarded by law and of their rights that have been infringed or challenged?

I appreciate that this is ambiguous. The modifying clause will more likely be understood as relating to the last antecedent only (and I cannot put a comma to suggest modification of both antecedents, because there should be no comma before a restrictive clause).

Thanks so much for your input!