Примеры использования Be considered inadmissible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Therefore, the CINAT letter should be considered inadmissible.
Consequently the communication must be considered inadmissible, in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, as an abuse of the right of submission of communications.
Accordingly, this part of the communication should be considered inadmissible.
This allegation should be considered inadmissible as manifestly illfounded.
Under the new legislation,confessions obtained through torture would be considered inadmissible.
The author's claim should therefore be considered inadmissible for non exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In a note verbale of 23 May 2007,the State party states that the communication should be considered inadmissible.
It argues, however,that the communication should be considered inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.
In its observations of 19 January 2005,the State party maintains that the communication should be considered inadmissible.
That part of the communication must therefore be considered inadmissible according to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.
The Government is of the view that, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances,the source's submission should be considered inadmissible.
That part of the communication must therefore be considered inadmissible according to article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
The State party further submits that the part of the claim on the petitioners' right to appeal should be considered inadmissible ratione materiae.
Nevertheless, it maintains that the communication should be considered inadmissible in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
The above shows that the author failed to exhaust effective remedies in a timely and consistent manner, andtherefore his communication must be considered inadmissible.
In addition, this allegation was not made in the domestic courts, so that it should be considered inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
This potentially has further implications when considering the appeal before a court,where certain of the evidence taken into consideration by the Council of Judges may then be considered inadmissible.
By submissions of 9 October 2007,the State party claimed that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
It appears to allege that the communication should be considered inadmissible as constituting an abuse of the right to submit communications under article 3 of the Optional Protocol in view of the time elapsed.
In its observationsdated 27 April 2005, the State party argues that the communication should be considered inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
It maintains, however,that the complaint should be considered inadmissible in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as it lacks the minimum substantiation that would render it compatible with article 22.
Finally, the State party contends that, with reference to what it says concerning the merits of the case,the communication should be considered inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
The State party argues that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The State party concludes that the author did not duly exhaust domestic remedies, andthat consequently the communication must be considered inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Protocol.
The State party maintains that the communication should be considered inadmissible, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Moreover, on the basis of its arguments on the merits, the State party maintains that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention andshould therefore be considered inadmissible.
Finally, the State party submits that the communication should be considered inadmissible as the authors have not substantiated their allegations against the Government.
The State party asserts that if the complainant had paid the fee for the procedure, the judge could have ruled on his application for review but that,in the absence of such a payment, the application must be considered inadmissible.
The Committee has noted the State party's argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The State party submits that the communication be considered inadmissible given that the authors have not exhausted all effective, available domestic remedies as prescribed in article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention.