Примеры использования Author also argues на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author also argues that the Constitutional Court was biased in two respects.
The author also argues that the Conseil d'Etat, by virtue of its composition, is not an independent and impartial court.
The author also argues that this portion of the State party's reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
The author also argues that neither the 1994 nor 1996 treaties address issues of citizenship or statelessness of former military personnel.
The author also argues that the duration of office terms is a relevant factor when assessing the independence of tribunal members.
The author also argues that rehabilitative programs were not sufficiently tailored to him, and that the remedies available to him were not effective.
The author also argues that the refusal of the Spanish authorities to provide him with the above-mentioned information constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
The author also argues the process is further procedurally deficient in that it provides insufficient notice of the case against the affected individual.
The author also argues that by not permitting family reunification, the State party has placed the children in dire economic need as they have been deprived of their sole means of support.
The author also argues that remedy proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged and their use constitutes an additional and real risk for the author. .
The author also argues that the State party violated her rights under article 27, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, insofar as the discrimination she suffered was linked to her employment and working conditions.
The author also argues that the 1996 Torture Compensation Act is of limited assistance since details of the torture inflicted on the victim must be provided and such information is not usually available.
The author also argues that in the instant case, the Hungarian health service did not at any time provide any form of information on family planning, the sterilization surgery, or the effects on her reproductive capacity.
The author also argues that political considerations cannot, in themselves, be regarded as a reasonable and objective justification for a distinction between similar situations which does not have a reasonable, legitimate aim in itself.
The author also argues, with reference to the Committee's decision in Mbenge v. Zaire, that the violation of his article 14 rights led to an imposition of the death sentence contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, and thus in violation of article 6.
The author also argues that to require that he await the outcome of the Government's appeal against the Reykjavik District Court's decision in a case similar to his, would merely reduce the likelihood that complaints such as his are submitted to the Committee.
The author also argues that the appointment of nonjustice alternates in alphabetical order is against the law, demonstrates that qualifications are not compared and results in discrimination between the appointed candidates and the alternates.
The author also argues that judicial review is not intended to assess whether there has been a violation of human rights but whether there was a legal error and does not include a review of the substantive issue, which is what the author was concerned with.
The author also argues that the refusal to reveal the fate or whereabouts of Daouia Benaziza or to admit that she has been deprived of liberty removes her from the protection of the law, thereby violating her right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, as guaranteed by article 16 of the Covenant.
The author also argues that the State party presents false facts when trying to defend itself, with regard to the meeting between the President of the Constitutional Court and the Vice-President of the Seimas, and he considers that the pressure by the Seimas was not on the ordinary courts but on the Constitutional Court.
The author also argues, with reference to the decision in Johnson v. Jamaica, that as the imposition of the death sentence was in violation of the Covenant, his resulting detention, particularly in the light of the treatment and conditions suffered, was cruel and inhuman punishment, contrary to article 7.
The author also argues that it took 17 minutes for her to be admitted to the hospital, prepared for surgery, given information about the procedures and the risks and consequences of sterilization, sign the statements of consent, and undergo both the caesarean section and the sterilization.
The author also argues that he cannot seek compensation from the State under the National Compensation Act, for governmental action pursuant to a law, unless the relevant law is shown to be unconstitutional, which is not the case, since the author's constitutional claim was rejected by the Court.
The author also argues that the European Court did not even formally decide on his complaint that the extremely limited review by the Austrian courts of the disciplinary committee's decision violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The author also argued that, to be admissible, the proceedings, originally based on evasion of value added tax, should first have been referred to the Tax Offences Commission.
The author also argued with some scholars who were only sitting on their desk to read the books without doing the research by traveling.
The author also argued that the only charge filed against the police officer in the criminal proceedings is that of torture; no charges have been filed regarding the illegal arrest and/or detention.
The author also argued in the November 2003 brief that the return of the application"without consideration" was in violation of the NGO Law, which provides only for approvals or express denials of registration applications.
The authors also argue that the same medical report refers to a pellet having been removed from Eldiyar Umetaliev's"back and buttocks" which appeared to result from ammunition of 3- 4 mm, containing lead.
The authors also argued that freedom of contract was not a basis for exemption from the obligation to apply the Equal Treatment Act, because freedom of contract may not be regarded as a constitutional fundamental right.