Примеры использования Author's argument на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party has not challenged the author's argument.
It also notes the author's argument that he would not be heard before the Appeals Prosecutor.
The Committee notes the State party's observations on the admissibility ratione materiae of the communication andthe State party's and the author's argument that the ratio decidendi of the Casanovas case applies in the present case.
It also notes the author's argument that the preliminary investigations were unreasonably prolonged.
Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research.
Люди также переводят
The author's argument relating to the use of pressure by the District Court judge was found groundless, as it was not corroborated by any other element in the file.
He refers to the legal opinion, confirming,inter alia, the author's argument that this latter requirement is actually illegal under Uzbek law.
It also notes the author's argument that the lifelong disqualifications adopted against him were not established by law, not objective and not reasonable, and are disproportionate.
As to the complaint of a violation of article 9,the Committee notes the author's argument that the application of this provision is not limited to cases of detention.
It also notes the author's argument that judicial review of the negative PRRA assessment was de facto not available, as legal aid had been denied.
Furthermore, the State party also submitted that it assessed and rejected"the author's argument that the State party recognizes only political persecution against men" para. 6.4.
I agree with the author's argument that the State party wrongfully understood the claims of each party to the litigation before the Kocaeli 3rd Labour Court.
The Committee has taken note of the author's argument that such consultations are indefinite and lack legal force.
It refers to the author's argument that he was slandered in the media by the co-accused and submits that the national court examined the guilt of each accused separately.
The State party also rejects as misplaced the author's argument that it is derogating, de facto or informally, from the Covenant, pursuant to article 4.
It further notes the author's argument that the officers' testimony contradicted the testimony of an eyewitness and that two other eyewitnesses indicated by him have not been heard at all in the course of the additional investigation.
The State party refutes the author's argument that neither the Act nor the Presidium lack defined criteria.
It also contests the author's argument that he was forced to familiarize himself with the case materials in the absence of a lawyer.
Finally, the court did not respond to the author's argument that the failure to register Democracy and Rights violated article 22 of the Covenant.
As regards the author's argument that he had been advised that his appeal would not be successful, the State party recalls that doubts about the likelihood of success of remedies do not absolve an author from exhausting them.
The State party dismisses as totally unfounded the author's argument that the HREOC decision was biased because of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of the President of HREOC.
It has also noted the author's argument that these remedies would have been futile in the light of other decisions taken by these Courts.
The State party challenges the author's argument that there would be no point in seeking protection if she were to return to Mongolia.
The State party challenges the author's argument that there was no offence because the tickets were never put on the market.
The State party refers to the author's argument that under the applicable legislation the independence of the court cannot be guaranteed.
The Tribunal rejected the author's argument in this regard, pointing out that one other SDM also had type 1 diabetes, but continued in her role.
The Committee also notes the author's argument that the Board has not assessed the substantive credibility of his refugee claim.
The State party contests the author's argument that the catch limits under the regulations limit him to fishing for personal consumption only.
The Committee notes the author's argument that, despite the peace agreements, several individuals have been reported missing following their return from exile.
The Committee also noted the author's argument that criminal proceedings had been brought against the author and SA Celogen jointly and severally.