Примеры использования Author has not explained на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author has not explained why he did not use those remedies.
As to the violation of his rights under article 26, the author has not explained how the issues are separate from those falling under article 19.
The author has not explained in which way the national authorities would have breached the Convention when treating his challenge to his redundancy.
No comment on this issue is given in the views of the Committee, the author has not explained why she needed that time and the State party has not commented thereon in its observations paras. 4.1-4.3.
If indeed Vlatislav Adam willed his Czech property to his sons by virtue of his testament,it is not clear whether he owned any Czech property in 1985, and the author has not explained what steps, if any, he has taken to acquire the inheritance.
It notes that the author has not explained why exactly he, personally, needed the information in question; rather, he contended that this was a"matter of public interest.
In this instance, although the State party raised the issue that the delay amounts to an abuse of the right of petition, the author has not explained or justified why she waited for nearly 15 years before submitting her communication to the Committee.
It notes that the author has not explained why he could not have returned from his holiday to attend the hearing or how his rights were violated if a request for postponement was rejected in the absence of serious circumstances.
As stated above, the author's allegations related to the allegations by the President through the State-owned media, but the author has not explained why he failed to take legal action against the media or to go to the courts to stop any of those allegations made against him.
In addition, the author has not explained how, in the past, the Mongolian authorities have failed to protect her in her personal circumstances or shown that there is a real risk that these authorities would be unable to provide her with appropriate protection upon return.
With regard to the author's claims in relation to article 14, paragraph 1, based on the lack of a verbatim record of the trial,the Committee notes that the author has not explained why he considers that the record of the trial held in the Provincial High Court did not correctly reflect what took place during the proceedings and why it infringes his rights.
Furthermore, the author has not explained the contradiction between his assertion that his wife and daughter were"kidnapped" in April 2004, and his admission, during his asylum proceedings, that he had attended his daughter's dedication to the church in June 2004.
Regarding the alleged violation of article 17, the State party maintains that the author has not explained the grounds on which he considers that this article was violated, or cited any evidence that he was the victim of arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy.
Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the fact that the author has not explained why she did not follow up on her complaints with the police during the three months of her absence from Mr. L. 's house between December 2008 and June 2009. Neither has she explained why she did not complain to the Mongolian prosecuting authorities or courts during the same period.
With regard to the author's argument that the SHRC remedy was unreasonably prolonged,the State party argued that the author has not explained why his initial attendance at the SHRC office was on 12 December 2002, while he was required to retire on 30 June 2001 and his six-month contract with the University expired on 31 December 2001.
Without determining whether the author was indeed informed of her right to appeal under article L351 of the Public Health Code,the Committee observes that the author has not explained why she did not contest the failure to provide her with information on admission when her hospitalization came to an end, either in the administrative court in proceedings to challenge the administrative decision, or in the ordinary court in proceedings to challenge the appropriateness of committal and seek compensation for damages.
The Committee noted that the author had not explained why exactly he, personally, needed the information in question; rather he contended that this was a matter of public interest.
Nevertheless, the authors have not explained what specific harm was caused to them by the fact that the prosecutor made such a request once the investigation had concluded.
With regard to the complaints relating to article 14, paragraph 1, and article 15, paragraph 1,the Committee considered that the author had not explained how the events to which the complaints referred had affected him personally or had caused him specific harm.
As far as article 6 is concerned, the Committee notes that the authors have not explained why they believe that their expulsion to Sri Lanka would expose them to a real risk of a violation of their right to life.
In the current case, although the State party had raised the issue of the delay which,in its view, amounted to an abuse of the right of petition, the author had not explained or justified why he waited for nearly ten years before bringing his claims to the Committee.
As previously mentioned, the author has not identified or explained the rights granted by the Convention on which she is relying.
It notes that the State party has not explained how the author could have met this threshold considering the clear domestic legislation and jurisprudence.
The State party has explained and the author has not contested that Mr. Karker could have appealed the denial to the competent administrative tribunal, which however he has failed to do.
In addition, the State party has not explained why the author was repeatedly returned to his place of detention from the Kashkadarya Regional Medical Centre,having, according to the State party's own medical reports, required urgent medical attention on several occasions within the space of only a few days.
The State party has not explained what kind of harm the author had caused by reporting the results of the poll and how the ban was related to the desire to ensure a fair election.
Moreover, the author notes that the State party has not explained the contradiction of naming D.T. among the patrolling officers and citing his own statement, which holds that he denies all charges and testifies that he had no contact with the author and his family.
For this reason, and because the State party has not explained what other measures the author could have taken to seek domestic redress, the Committee is of the view that the author has exhausted domestic remedies in this regard.
With regard to the alleged violations of articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14, paragraph 3( c), he reiterates that his trial was prolonged beyond a reasonable period of time and that this delay can not be explained solely bythe complexity of the case or investigation; that it can not be attributed to the author; and that the State party has not explained how the right to a trial within a reasonable time was observed in the proceedings.
The State party has not explained what happened in the author's case between these dates, notwithstanding the existence of a case management system.