Примеры использования Authors assert на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The authors assert that this document confirms their initial complaint.
With regard to the scope of article 16, paragraph 1(g),of the Convention, the authors assert that this article should be interpreted broadly to cover all members of a family rather than just husband and wife.
The authors assert that their right to swift proceedings was clearly violated.
As to the State party's observation that the reopening of the finally concluded restitution proceedings was barred by the principle of res judicata, the authors assert that the State party has in effect conceded that M.S. was erroneously granted title to the property.
The authors assert that their property rights derive from the Hermmans' property rights.
As to the State party's assertion that the threatened forced eviction of the Dobri Jeliazkov community has not been carried out"due to the determination of the municipal authorities to find a durable solution of the issue", the authors assert that it was rather due to the interim measures requested by the Committee.
The authors assert that the provision establishes unequal treatment for equal individuals, namely the civil servants of the Foreign Service.
Sam Mirza, the son of Shah Esmail as well as some later authors assert that Ismail composed poems both in Turkish and Persian but only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived.
Ancient authors asserted, that the Sun that ascended in the east in the West, hence, the parties of light were on a regular basis interchanged the position.
The Committee notes that the authors assert that Sahraoui Ayache was arrested on the morning of 12 August 1994 at his home by security forces and has since disappeared.
The authors assert that Mr. Morales Tornel was denied the right of contact with his family because of the distance of the prison from his family's place of residence.
The authors assert that articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9, paragraph 1; 18; 24, paragraph 1; and 27, of the Covenant would be violated by Canada, if they were forced to return to Pakistan.
The authors assert that the State party should have conducted a comprehensive assessment of how dangerous Irfan Yildirim would become and considered the numerous threats and attacks that he had made.
The authors assert that the decision by the Council of State constitutes a serious infringement of their right to a private and family life, in violation of articles 17 and 23, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Covenant.
The authors assert that the allocation of funds specifically for food was misappropriated and that the State party's lists do not refer to the first five days, when they allege to have been totally deprived of subsistence see para. 10.4.
The authors assert that this position demonstrates how little the authorities understand about the dynamics of partner violence, the dangerous situation of the victim and the power that the perpetrator has over the victim, whom he ended up killing.
The authors assert that an application for amparo would be unsuccessful in this regard and that, in any event, the Constitutional Court has already found that the absence of a verbatim record does not constitute a procedural defect.
The authors assert that Farid Faraoun is a victim of enforced disappearance, as he was arrested by State officials and his arrest was followed by a refusal to acknowledge that he had been deprived of liberty and by the concealment of his fate.
The authors assert that the Constitutional Court incorrectly held that the statutory period begins to run when the judicial decision on the merits is rendered as opposed to when the application for an appeal on points of law by the Prosecutor General is rejected.
The authors assert that in their case, the definitive decision of the Prosecutor General constitutes"another intervention", and that the statutory period therefore began to run on the date on which the authors were notified of that decision, namely 12 April 2006.
The authors assert that since the notion of a fair trial must be understood to include the right to a prompt trial, all of the above constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, especially of the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal.
The authors assert that the right to equality before the law was violated because, even in presence of similar circumstances, the Supreme Court refused to decide on their case, while it used its discretionary power to decide on the merits of the Larrañaga case.
As to the claim of desertion, the authors assert that their departure from the places to which they were assigned was the result of war-related insecurity and that their registration with the CSM secretariat in Kinshasa, the city where they took refuge, attested to their availability as judges.
The authors assert that the restriction in question was neither justified by reasons of national security, nor public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, and was not necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was therefore a breach of their rights under article 19, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
The Committee notes that the authors assert that the State party violated their right to an effective remedy under article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant because the Constitutional Court erroneously declared their complaint inadmissible due to untimeliness, because the domestic court proceedings were impermissibly lengthy and because the Prosecutor General declined to file an appeal on points of law in response to their petition.
The author asserts that she knew nothing of the events of 6 August.
The author asserts that since his release from detention, he has continued to practise Falun Gong.
The author asserts that, since his extradition, he has been refused bail.
The book is written from an anti-Islamic, and as the author asserts, Orthodox Christian viewpoint.
The author asserts that the complaint of torture was not dealt with promptly and was subsequently processed slowly and incompetently.