Примеры использования Authors have failed на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
It submits, therefore, that the authors have failed to substantiate this claim.
The authors have failed to demonstrate that the change brought about in the computation of their pension rights is discriminatory or otherwise possibly falls within the ambit of article 26 of the Covenant.
The State party also submits that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims.
In my opinion, the authors have failed to substantiate how the 1996 law on regional government has adversely affected their exercise of article 25 rights, in particular the operation and powers of local or traditional authorities.
The State party thus argues that the authors have failed to put forward a prima facie case.
As to the authors' claims that they suffered harassment and intimidation in the course of the proceedings in that the Forestry Authority convened a public meeting to criticize the authors andmade an unfounded allegation of theft, the authors have failed to detail their allegations in this regard.
The Committee notes that the authors have failed to provide information as to how this affects their personal situation.
Furthermore, although the Rehoboth community bears distinctive properties as to the historical forms of selfgovernment, the authors have failed to demonstrate how these factors would be based on their way of raising cattle.
It further argues that the authors have failed to advance a claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
As the authors have not denied that this was the case,the Committee finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible as the authors have failed to show that they have a claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
For the State party, the authors have failed to specify the manner in which their rights under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant were allegedly violated.
The State party refers to decisions of the Committee where the authors have failed to show that the danger is personal and present.
In the State party's opinion, the authors have failed to adduce new grounds which would enable the Committee to assess the"threshold" issue in any other way than the domestic courts.
With regard to an alleged violation of article 26,the State party submits that the authors have failed to substantiate the vague allegations of racial discrimination.
The State party recalls that the authors have failed to submit the original of the photocopy attested in January 1994 to either the domestic courts or the Committee.
In the circumstances, accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the authors have failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, their claims in respect of these issues.
The Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, these claims, which accordingly are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
With respect to the authors' claim under article 24 on behalf of the children, the Committee finds that the authors have failed to substantiate why their removal with their parents would violate their rights under this article.
The Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims under article 7, for purposes of admissibility, and concludes that this claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
For these reasons, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to substantiate their claim, for purposes of admissibility.
Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the authors have failed sufficiently to substantiate their claims under this provision, and that this part of the communications is accordingly inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Consequently, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim for purposes of admissibility, and concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee notes that the authors have failed to submit substantiation for this claim and observes, moreover, that the Child Benefit Act makes no distinction between Dutch nationals and non-nationals, such as migrant workers.
Applying these tests to the instant case, the State party argues,regarding the inconsistencies outlined above, that the authors have failed to argue convincingly that there are substantial grounds for fearing a"foreseeable, real and personal risk" of torture in their cases.
The Committee considers further that the authors have failed to substantiate their claim, for purposes of admissibility, that the hearings concerning the determination of their pension rights were not fair.
The State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, because the authors have failed to invoke a violation of their fundamental rights before domestic courts, and because their application before the Human Rights Commission is still pending.
Consequently, the Committee is of the view that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim for purposes of admissibility, that they or their children are victims of violations of article 17, paragraph 1, and article 23 of the Covenant.
In the light of the above, the State party affirms that the authors have failed to discharge the burden of proof that they are"victims" within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
In particular, the State party states that the authors have failed to establish that the alleged acts could be characterized as“torture” as defined in article 1 of the Convention or as“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as defined in article 16.
In this context, the State party also notes that the authors have failed to provide specific information about their children, and how the current system violates their rights.