Примеры использования Author and his counsel на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author and his counsel were perfectly aware of this.
That this decision shall be communicated to the author and his counsel and, for information, to the State party.
The author and his counsel have been acquainted with the videotape documenting the author's arrest.
The judge refused to declare the court incompetent, upon which the author and his counsel withdrew from the proceedings.
It further states that the author and his counsel had agreed to have Ms. Boichenko's statement read out in court.
In addition, the observations are inaccurate, in that the State party says that the author and his counsel refused to accept the notification.
The author and his counsel, having examined the evidence available took a considered decision to admit the entire statement.
The State party was further informed that additional clarifications were being sought from the author and his counsel.
As a result the author and his counsel had no possibility to provide the court with useful information in support of the author's claim.
The police had details on the substance of the alleged statements both from the author and his counsel and from the teacher and the headmaster.
The State party recalls that the author and his counsel were repeatedly summoned to the court hearings,and that both testified before the courts.
The police had details of the substance of the alleged statements both from the author and his counsel and from the teacher and the headmaster.
The Committee considered that the author and his counsel had sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, a possible violation of article 14, subparagraph 3 d.
With respect to a claim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3(e),the Committee notes the State party's contention that the author and his counsel had consented to have Ms. Boichenko's statement read out in her absence.
The Committee considered that the author and his counsel had substantiated the remaining claims, which appeared to raise issues under article 14 of the Covenant.
As regards the author's claim regarding the evidence of"secret" witnesses,from the materials submitted by the author it transpires that the identity of these witnesses was revealed to the author and his counsel as well as to the jury.
The State party, further, notes that the author and his counsels had nine days to get acquainted with the content of the criminal case file, constituting a sufficient time period.
Counsel further submits that the author is a victim of a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, in connection with article 2 of the Optional Protocol, because Jamaica failed to provide a trial transcript despite the numerous requests made by the author and his counsel.
The Committee considered that the author and his counsel had failed to substantiate for purposes of admissibility, that the communication raised issues under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3(b), the State party submits that, on 16 July 2002,the investigating officer informed the author and his counsel about the termination of the preliminary inquiryand about their right to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal case.
According to the State party, the author and his counsel were aware that the only possible action against the refusal of the visa was to bring an application for judicial review.
In respect of the author's allegations that existing remedies for challenging his detention are neither effective nor available,the Committee points out that the author and his counsel requested his release from prison, and subsequently his release pending trial, on several occasions.
In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author and his counsel have shown due diligence in the pursuit of domestic remediesand that there is no reason to review the Committee's decision on admissibility.
The RPD reached a decision on the author's claim for refugee protection on 7 December 2005 and gave notice of its decision to the author and his counsel on 13 December 2005. On 12 April 2006, the author requested return of his Liberian passport in order to travel to Japan on business.
All the motions advanced by the author and his counsel during the court hearing(i.e. to call witnesses, to conduct forensic examinations, to request the originals of certain documents) were duly considered by the court.
The Committee has taken note of the State party's contention, made after the adoption of the decision on admissibility,that the written judgement of the Court of Appeal would have been available to the author and his counsel upon delivery, i.e. as of 26 October 1981,and that there is no evidence of any State party responsibility concerning delays in the pursuit of domestic remedies.
The Committee considered that the author and his counsel had sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility the claim that the trial against the author did not fulfil the requirements laid down in article 14 of the Covenant.
However, between the entry into force of the sentence and 1 January 1995, the author and his counsel had the right to request from the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor-General or their deputies that they submit a"supervisory protest.
It recalled that the author and his counsel attempted to have the alleged ill-treatment of Mr. Stephens investigated, in particular by the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, but without result as of early 1994.
Moreover, between 1 July 1994, the entry into force of the law of 15 June 1994, and 4 May 1995, the author and his counsel had the right to request from the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, the Chairpersons of the county courts or the chairpersons of the division of criminal cases of the above courts that they submit a cassation motion.