Примеры использования Are non-derogable на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Certain rights are non-derogable.
Certain rights may be limited-- if the conditions of the limitations are fulfilled-- even if they are non-derogable.
However, there are certain rights that are non-derogable, that is, can never be suspended.
Certain guarantees, in particular the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orthe right to life, are non-derogable.
The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion are non-derogable and may not be curtailed in any way for whatever reason.
It is one of the rules of jus cogens and thus one of the rights that, according to the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, are non-derogable.
Certain human rights are non-derogable, as specified in article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
The attainment of equality andthe elimination of discrimination are non-derogable and are immediate obligations of States.
It should also be stressed that no circumstances can justify a State party's failure to comply with the core obligations set out in paragraph 49 above, which are non-derogable.
Under the Geneva Conventions and the protocols to them, the right to a fair trial andthe right to due process are non-derogable, and their violation represents a grave breach of the Conventions.
It is one of the rules of jus cogens and thus one of the rights that, according to several human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, are non-derogable.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(CESCR)has emphasized that"a State Party cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, justify its non-compliance with the core obligations… which are non-derogable.
The Special Rapporteur notes that it is important to recognize thatunder international human rights law, some fundamental rights are non-derogable and that the derogation of certain rights in case of declared emergencies is clearly defined.
This explanation is ambiguous, but appears compatible with the position of the Inter-American Court in Advisory Opinion No. 9,which declares in general terms that most of the elements of due process are non-derogable.
States are also obliged at all times to respect rights that are non-derogable under international law or that have attained the status of jus cogens, such as the right of all persons to be free from torture and the prohibition against enforced disappearances.
With reference to the specific situation in Chechnya, the Committee expresses concern that article 4 of the Covenant,which specifies the provisions that are non-derogable even in times of public emergency, has not been complied with.
In addition to those rights enumerated in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, certain other rights are non-derogable even during a state of emergency, including the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention.
Based on its comprehensive study on fair trial, it decided to encourage the Human Rights Committee to develop a revised general comment on article 4 to reaffirm that the right to habeas corpus andcognate rights are non-derogable.
On one hand, there are standards of an imperative character,such as those mentioned in(a) above, which are non-derogable and thus applicable to determine the legality of the transfer of a population as outlined above, even during a state of emergency.
In its concluding observations(CCPR/C/79/Add.54), adopted at its 1440th meeting held on 26 July 1995, the Committee expressed concern that article 4 of the Covenant,which specifies the provisions that are non-derogable even in times of public emergency, had not been complied with.
There it is rightfully stated that, in addition to those enumerated in article 4, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR,certain other rights are non-derogable even during a state of emergency, such as the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention.
The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty to bring proceedings before a court in order to challenge the legality of the detention,known in some jurisdictions as habeas corpus, are non-derogable under both treaty law and customary international law.
In enacting such measures it failed to abide by its international obligations, andit suspended fundamental rights that are non-derogable even during a state of emergency, principally the right to due process and the right to have an independent and impartial judge to hear one's case.
This view is consistent with the conclusion of the Human Rights Committee that the Covenant rights to not be arbitrarily deprived of one's liberty and the right of anyone deprived of his or her liberty to bring proceedings before a court in order tochallenge the legality of the detention are non-derogable.
The draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind and the doctrine of the International Court support the conclusion that these four rights are non-derogable under customary law, assuming that detention or imprisonment as a result of retroactive application of new penal legislation is a form of"wrongful" deprivation of liberty.
The right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right of freedom of thought and conscience, the right to have a religion, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be recognized as a person before the law, andthe right not to be prosecuted based on retroactive law and regulation are non-derogable human rights.
Some rights are non-derogable and cannot be restricted under any circumstances./ These include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from enslavement or servitude, protection from imprisonment for debt, freedom from retroactive penal laws, the right to recognition as a person before the law and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that the Covenant also imposes certain core obligations; the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its general comment no. 14,emphasized that a State party could not, under any circumstances whatsoever, justify its non-compliance with the core obligations, which are non-derogable.
The Committee reminds the State party that its obligations under the Convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women,including violence against women and girls, are non-derogable and continue to apply during conflict situations, as indicated in its general recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of State parties under article 2 of the Convention.