Примеры использования Author's assertion на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party insists that the children were never detained, contrary to the author's assertion.
Accordingly, the author's assertion that the rejection of his argument about a violation of the United Nations Convention also breached his Covenant rights is invalid.
The Religious Union did not avail itself of the right to appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure and, therefore, the author's assertion that the supervisory review procedure in Belarus is ineffective is not based on either facts or practice.
The State party observes that the author's assertion that he was his grandchild's primary caregiver was not accepted as a matter of fact by the domestic authorities.
The Committee has noted the State party's argument that the appeal constituted an effective remedy in the circumstances of the author's case,as well as the author's assertion that his appeal would not have been successful and that it would be costly.
The State party further rejects the author's assertion that the burden of proof required to be offered protection in the PRRA process is"beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to the alleged violations of article 10, paragraph 1, on the ground of the conditions of detention in general and the lack of medical attention in particular,the Committee noted the author's assertion that her son was denied access to his medical records and that the State party did not refute any of the author's allegations in this respect.
The State party rejects the author's assertion that the true reason for the order was the burden that the author's correspondence placed on the Ellwangen Regional Court.
By submission of 15 December 2004, the State party takes issue with the author's assertion that the scope of the Committee's admissibility decision includes hunting, trapping and gathering rights.
Regarding the author's assertion that he was punished by being confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, the Committee notes that the State party admits the punishment and the description given of it, but disagrees with how long it lasted.
With regard to the alleged disappearance of her partner, the Court upheld that the author's assertion that neighbours had seen her partner being taken away by men with beards was not enough to conclude that she had been kidnapped by Chhatra Shibir.
The Committee notes the author's assertion that her son, Hacen Louddi, was arrested at his workplace, in front of witnesses, by police officers from the Châteauneuf PCO on the morning of 9 April 1995 and has been missing since that date.
The State party concludes, therefore, that the author's assertion in relation to the ineffectiveness of the complaint mechanism established within the General Prosecutor's Office is baseless.
The State party disputes the author's assertion that Madaferreri v. Australia and Winata v. Australia provide examples of the application of the principle of nonrefoulement by the Human Rights Committee in relation to the protection of family life.
The State party agrees in principle with the author's assertion that obvious and blatant expressions of racial discrimination are not required when investigating instances of race distinctions.
In addition, contrary to the author's assertion, the State party considers that the definition of discrimination contained in article 1 of the Convention does not include an obligation of non-refoulement where women may face a risk of gender-based violence.
In its further submission of 28 September 1999, the State party notes the author's assertion that there was no evidence to support the finding of a"poisoned environment" within the School District attributable to the author's writings and public statements.
As to the author's assertion that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with issues of racial discrimination, the State party maintains that the LLC cannot lawfully exercise his discretion to refuse to approve employment on racial grounds.
The State party further considers that the author's assertion according to which Roma persons are placed into custody more frequently than the rest of the population is a speculation, which is not justified by any factual basis.
With regard to the author's assertion that the State party has an obligation to take positive measures to protect his fishing rights and that it has failed to do so, the State party submits that the author has a constitutionally protected treaty right to fish within his Nations' reserve and the waters adjacent to it.
On the other hand, the State party has not addressed the author's assertion that he did not know that he was not an Australian citizen, an assertion whose plausibility is bolstered by the fact that the State party assumed responsibility for his guardianship for a substantial and formative period of his life.
It further notes the author's assertion that the investigations conducted by the State party's authorities did not produce evidence refuting these allegations and did not properly address the author's claims about inconsistencies between the witness testimonies collected in the course of the additional investigation and the explanations advanced by the State party's authorities.
It explains the procedure of review and rejects the author's assertion that a review to the Queensland Supreme Court would be too costly, since only a filing fee of $154 is required. Moreover, an applicant can request the Court for an order regarding the costs, if he does not have the necessary resources.
It also noted the author's assertion that, even if she could have availed herself of such a remedy, the sole office of the writ of certiorari was the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgement, and that the sex-based discrimination she had suffered and on which the author could have based her petition for certiorari would have most likely been considered as an error of judgement.
It further observes that the State party has not contested the author's assertion that the distributed newspapers and leaflets did not contain information that might harm the rights or reputation of others, did not disclose State secrets, and did not contain calls to disrupt public order or to infringe upon public health or morals.
On this point, the Committee finds the author's assertion that the insufficient number of female applicants in response to the first call proves there is no inequality between men and women to be unpersuasive in the present case; such a situation may, on the contrary, reveal a need to encourage women to apply for public service on bodies such as the High Council of Justice, and the need for taking measures in this regard.
The Committee also notes the author's assertion that, although her husband retracted his self-incriminating deposition during the court proceedings, the court ignored this fact and handed down a judgment based solely on his false confession obtained through psychological pressure.
The State party claims, contrary to the author's assertion, that its police authorities believe that the author was a member of an organized criminal group, and points to the gravity of the crimes, the highly planned nature of the criminal operation, and the brutality of the offences.
The State party denies as groundless the author's assertion that the referral of the protest motion to the Mityshchinsk City Court(against the decision of 14 February 1995 to place him on administrative arrest) shows that he was subjected unlawfully to an arrest, on an"invented" administrative case.
However, the Committee also notes the author's assertion that the operation was initially scheduled for 12 April 2007, that the following day she was informed that the reason for the postponement was prevention of harm to the foetus and that the presence of an infection was noted for the first time only on 23 April 2007.