Примеры использования Author also maintains на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author also maintains that victims of judicial errors have a right to compensation.
The author also maintains that her case did not fulfil the criteria for this remedy.
The author also maintains that the facts described constitute a violation of L.M.R. 's right to life.
The author also maintains that her claim was examined by domestic courts, which flagrantly violated her rights under the Convention.
The author also maintains that the home from which they were in the process of moving was looted and ransacked during the security forces' action.
The author also maintains that she need not resort to using the procedure governed by article 54 of the Administrative procedural law.
The author also maintains that his right to a fair hearing(article 14, paragraphs 2 and 3(a- d)) has been violated by the State party.
The author also maintains that article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant was violated, since the criminal proceedings had lasted more than 15 years.
The author also maintains that she herself is a victim of a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2(para. 3), of the Covenant.
The author also maintains that, because the State party considers the Appeals Board to be a"court", it must ensure a fair trial.
The author also maintains that the general solicitor hid the documents in which the alibi witness had testified that his brother had been with him at the time of the murder.
The author also maintains that the matter has not been and is not currently being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The author also maintains that the absence of comments on the merits of the communication constitutes tacit acknowledgement of the truthfulness of the allegations it contains.
The author also maintains that the measures provided for under article 8, paragraph 3, of the Law on Passive Extradition could have been applied to prevent him from absconding, but were not.
The author also maintains that this discrimination continues to affect him and that it is false to say that he has had access to medical treatment other than emergency care.
The author also maintains that the impossibility of obtaining a termination of pregnancy constituted a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination established under article 3 of the Covenant.
The author also maintains that, as a victim of enforced disappearance, Maamar Ouaghlissi was materially unable to exercise his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
The author also maintains that the date on which judicial proceedings in his case terminated was not 10 February 1999, but 9 August 2005, the date on which the Supreme Court rejected his cassation appeal.
The author also maintains that the observations that he has made with regard to necessity and proportionality in relation to his claim under article 18 also apply to his complaint under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant.
The author also maintains that he received a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time that the alleged offence took place, which is a violation of his rights under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The author also maintains that, given his incommunicado detention in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, her son was not treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
The author also maintains that he was denied justice, since from the beginning of the proceedings, the courts were biased and sided with the authorities and failed to assess impartially the facts of the case.
The author also maintains that once the attempt on his life had been reported, the State had a duty under article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to open an inquiry as a matter of course.
The author also maintains that the conditions of his detention have been inhumane, particularly owing to the fact that the authorities have denied him access to appropriate medical care, leading to the severe deterioration of his eyesight.
The author also maintains that a judge of the Constitutional Court, who had previously been a member of the CGPJ, had been involved in the amparo proceedings of the other counsellor and, in a record vote, had been firmly opposed to the extension.
The author also maintains that he was tried in sole instance, as the application to the Supreme Court for review on points of law does not involve a second instance, and this raises questions in relation to article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
The author also maintains that the above Constitutional Court ruling created a situation in which individuals tried before its entry into force could be sentenced to death and those convicted after its entry into force could no longer be sentenced to death.
The author also maintains that, in order for the withdrawal to be considered valid, it would have to have been submitted with the defendant's consent before the decision of the Popayán High Court was handed down on 5 September 1996, and the parties would have to have been notified.
The author also maintains that the courts did not evaluate on the substance or investigate his claims that he was tortured, but instead chose to"compare" these with evidence presented by the prosecution, and rejected them as a defence strategy, which also violated his right to a fair trial.
The author also maintains that his arrest in 2005 contravenes article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, since under Spanish law the statute of limitations for the crime of which he was convicted expired in 2003, 15 years after the decision in cassation of 6 July 1988 upholding his conviction.