Примеры использования Author has not demonstrated на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Accordingly, the author has not demonstrated how this could be incompatible with article 15 of the Covenant.
Concerning the author's claim that he was not tried by a jury butby a single judge, the author has not demonstrated how this could constitute a breach of the Covenant.
Moreover, the author has not demonstrated that his national origin is an impediment to his obtaining a residence permit.
With regard to the absence of a verbatim record of the trial,the Committee finds that the author has not demonstrated in what way he was caused harm by the absence of such a document.
The author has not demonstrated that the implementation of the HESA results in distinctions based on national origin.
The State party therefore maintains that the author has not demonstrated any violation of article 16, paragraph 1(h), of the Convention.
The author has not demonstrated that the impartiality of the court could not be raised in an application for Special Leave to Appeal.
Secondly, the State party contends that the author has not demonstrated how any State action has interfered with his family life.
The author has not demonstrated that the implementation of the Social Security Act(SSA) results in distinctions based on national origin.
As to the allegation of a violation of article 2, paragraphs 3(a) and(b),the State party submits that the author has not demonstrated how it has refused to grant him access to an effective remedy.
However, the author has not demonstrated that any applicants in the same position as himself were exempted from the personality test.
The State party reiterates at great length the chronology of the facts of the case and submits that the author has not demonstrated that articles 1, 2, paragraphs(d) and(e), 14, paragraph 2(h), 15 and 16, paragraph 1(h), of the Convention have been violated.
The author has not demonstrated that the implementation of the ACA results in unjustified or disproportionate distinctions based on national origin.
With regard to the claim that there has been a violation of article9 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has not demonstrated, for the purposes of admissibility, in what way the failure of a higher court to review his sentence constitutes a violation of article 9.
Moreover, the author has not demonstrated that he has been treated differently than any other party to a family law proceeding in the Province of Ontario.
Lastly, the State party considers that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, given that the author has not demonstrated that the Canadian system for processing applications for refugee status and the remedies before the Canadian courts are pointless and ineffective.
The author has not demonstrated that there is a pattern of conduct in similar cases to her own and has therefore not sufficiently substantiated her claim.
In relation to the first claim, the State party argues that the author has not demonstrated that he has been a victim of any change in any of the terms- parole period or otherwise- of his sentence.
The State party submits that the facts fail to demonstrate that the author has been denied the opportunity to choose her place of residence as required by article 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention, andaccordingly maintains that the author has not demonstrated a contravention of article 15, paragraph 4 of the Convention.
The Committee notes that the author has not demonstrated that she has availed herself of such remedies.
With regard to the author's allegation under article 7, that the individual who allegedly abducted him may threaten or harm him should he return to China,the Committee observes that these acts are attributed to a non-State actor, and the author has not demonstrated, for admissibility purposes, that the Chinese authorities are unable or unwilling to protect him from such private acts.
In the State party's view, the author has not demonstrated that the judges in question harboured such preconceptions.
The Committee notes that the author has not demonstrated that the participation of this Conseil d'Etat member undermined the legality of the proceedings within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The State party argues that the author has not demonstrated that he has exhausted domestic remedies.
In the present case, the author has not demonstrated, for the purposes of admissibility, that the reasons for which it was decided not to extend his contract are related to the grounds set forth in article 2, paragraph 1.
According to the State party, the author has not demonstrated that adequate care is not available to him.
The Committee notes that the author has not demonstrated how the requirement to have representation by an accredited Conseil d'Etat lawyer constituted an infringement of his right to equality before the courts and concludes that he has not sufficiently substantiated his claim regarding a violation under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The State party thus contends that the author has not demonstrated that he risks being subjected to torture upon his return to Sudan.
The Committee considers that the author has not demonstrated, for purposes of admissibility, that the procedures conducted by the courts of the State party in the author's case were arbitrary or constituted a denial of justice, and this part of the communication should therefore also be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
It considers, however, that the author has not demonstrated how the reports' publication had the purpose or effect of violating her rights.