Примеры использования Author has not shown на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author has not shown any elements to displace this presumption in the present case.
Alternatively, the State party argues that the author has not shown how article 26 of the Covenant is applicable to his case.
The author has not shown that he will suffer any undue hardship as a result of his deportation.
Further, the State party argues that the author has not shown that he is personally a victim of the violation alleged.
The author has not shown how a 15-day deadline for the application was unfair or unreasonable.
In the present case, the Committee is of the view that the author has not shown the existence of such compelling circumstances.
The author has not shown any additional elements that would make article 14 of the treaty with Switzerland arbitrary.
Based on the material before it the Committee considers that the author has not shown sufficient grounds to support his argument that there was such arbitrariness or denial of justice.
The author has not shown in any case that she had contacted the Guinean authorities or requested protection for herself and her daughter.
However, in the circumstances of the instant case, the Committee considers that the author has not shown the existence of special circumstances which should absolve him from exhausting domestic remedies.
The author has not shown that there was any irregularity in the decisions of the Canadian authorities that would justify action by the Committee with regard to their findings on the facts and credibility.
Based on the material before it the Committee considers that the author has not shown sufficient grounds to support his claims that the judicial proceedings in his case have suffered from such defects.
This conduct was of sufficient nexus to the underlying conviction that his recall to continue serving that term was justified in the interests of public safety, and the author has not shown otherwise.
In the Committee's view, the author has not shown the exceptional circumstances necessary to make out such a claim.
Consequently, not withstanding that the Committee is gravely disturbed by the evidence in this case,it is precluded by the provisions of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter since the author has not shown that it may act on the victim's behalf in submitting this communication.
The State party argues that the author has not shown that he is entitled to present a complaint on his brother's behalf to the Committee.
With regard to the violation of article 26 alleged by the author, in the sense that he did not enjoy equal treatment before the law,the Committee considers that the author has not shown any allegedly discriminatory treatment on the part of the domestic courts with respect to the aforementioned article.
In the instant case, the author has not shown the existence of special circumstances which prevented him from pursuing the domestic remedies available.
Proceedings for the expulsion of a person not holding the nationality of the State party are ordinarily outside the scope of article 14, and the author has not shown that the proceedings at issue were intended to impose additional punishment upon him rather than to protect the public.
The Committee concludes that the author has not shown that he could be considered a victim of a violation of the Covenant with regard to the disqualification from these offices.
Based on the material before it, the Committee considers that the author has not shown sufficient grounds to support his argument that the above facts resulted in a violation of his rights under article 26 of the Covenant.
Since the author has not shown that he belongs to this category, he has therefore failed to establish that prima facie he would face a real, personal risk of a breach of his rights under articles 6 and 7.
The State party contends that the author has not shown that he is a victim of a violation of a right that is protected by the Covenant.
However, the author has not shown that these laws apply to him, since they concern only persons"whose land has been nationalized or who have given their land as a gift under Ordinance No. 71-73 of 8 November 1971" see paragraph 2.2.
The State party reiterates that the author has not shown that he would run a real personal risk of torture, and that he is not credible.
Moreover, the author has not shown how the initiation and continuation of the citizenship revocation proceedings constituted treatment incompatible with article 7 since, as already mentioned, the conclusions of the medical affidavits he obtained differed on the impact of the proceedings on his health.
The Committee therefore concludes, consistent with its earlier jurisprudence, that the author has not shown that he is a victim of the alleged violations complained of, and the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
It observes that the author has not shown, for purposes of admissibility, that the remarks attributed to Judge L. D. constituted an unlawful attack on his honour and reputation.
However, in the specific circumstances of the Cox case, we agree that the author has not shown that, if he were sentenced to death, his detention on death row would be unreasonably prolonged for reasons imputable to the State.
In this instance, the author has not shown that persons of Sudeten German descent have been treated in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner incompatible with the legitimate exercise of State discretion in espousing claims under the State party's right of diplomatic protection.