NOT ALWAYS “relief” means remedy reparación, remediar
I agree with Alice’s answer to this question, and don’t intend to object to it, but I don’t agree with your note where you seem to say that “relief” ALWAYS means remedy reparación, remediar.
In this case it is translated as “amparo”.
“relief” means “remedy/ redress reparación, compensación, desagravio” when you are talking about actual or prospective damages undergone, or which may be undergone, by one party, BUT NOT when one party is obliged to done something and requests to be relieved of said obligation.
As in the following examples:
\Re*lief"\ (r?-l?f"), n. [OE. relef, F. relief, properly, a lifting up, a standing out. See Relieve, and cf. Basrelief, Rilievi.] 1. The act of relieving, or the state of being relieved; the removal, or partial removal, of any evil, or of anything oppressive or burdensome, by which some ease is obtained; succor; alleviation; comfort; ease; redress.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
relevar. (Del lat. relevāre).
4. tr. Absolver, perdonar o excusar.
In addition, an attorney may be relieved of the obligation to maintain confidentiality of information, in the absence of client consent, by an order of an Israeli court; however, as the La Nacional case indicates, the court order in that case severely limited the scope of the information to be revealed to only the name of the person who provided the information to the attorney.
38. However, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Prosecution may still be relieved of the obligation under Rule 68, if the existence of the relevant exculpatory evidence is known and the evidence is accessible to the appellant, as the appellant would not be prejudiced materially by this violation. In this case, the Appellant knew that the several witnesses in question, who allegedly gave exculpatory evidence in other trials, all did so in public sessions. There was no difficulty for him to seek access to their testimony with the assistance of the Trial Chamber, if necessary. He did not.
Although this contextual information probably meets the reasonable specificity standard, the government's failure to include this detail in its affidavit undermines one of the key purposes of Vaughn by shifting to the courts the burden to wade through pages of material in search of contextual support for the government's own redactions. See King, 830 F.2d at 220-21 (Apparently the FBI is of the opinion that, by submitting to the court a reproduction of the redacted file, it is relieved of the obligation of describing the withheld material in detail.").