Примеры использования Case is inadmissible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
A case is inadmissible under article 35; or.
I am unable to agree with the view of the Committee that this case is inadmissible.
The case is inadmissible under article 17; or.
In the circumstances,the State party contends that the case is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
A case is inadmissible before the Court if.
On admissibility, the State party claims that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies and thus the case is inadmissible.
Thus, the case is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
If the Public Prosecutions Service infringes the principles of criminal procedure,the courts may rule that its case is inadmissible or, where the infringement is less serious, that its evidence is not admissible.
The State party contends that the case is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, on the basis of rule 91(c) of the Committee's rules of procedure, as the Committee is said to lack the competence to deal with the communication.
Given available domestic remedies, which are actually andstill being pursued by the author, the State party considers that this portion of the case is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
For the Government, therefore, the case is inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies.
Under the"principle of complementarity",on which the Court is founded and which recognizes that it is the primary responsibility of States to exercise their criminal jurisdiction, a case is inadmissible if a national jurisdiction genuinely carries out an investigation or proceedings.
The State party submits that the case is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol as an abuse of the right of submission.
Where a determination under paragraph 2(a) has not been made, the requested State may, at its discretion, pending the determination of the Court under paragraph 2(b), proceed to deal with the request for extradition from the requesting State butshall not extradite the person until the Court has determined that the case is inadmissible.
However, the State party claims that the case is inadmissible because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie violation of article 3 of the Convention.
Where a person surrendered to the Court or one who appeared voluntarily is released from the custody of the Court because the Court has determined that it does not have jurisdiction or that the case is inadmissible, the charges have not been confirmed under article 61 or the person has been acquitted at trial or on appeal, the provisions of articles 107 and 108 and rules… shall apply mutatis mutandis.
If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible pursuant to article 15, the Prosecutor, may, at any time, submit a request for a review of the decision, on the grounds that conditions required under article 15 to render the case inadmissible no longer exist or that new facts arose.
Dissenting in part I share the ultimate conclusion of the Committee that this case is inadmissible, but only on the basis of some of the reasons advanced by the majority of the Committee.
If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible under article 17, the Prosecutor may submit a request for a review of the decision when he or she is fully satisfied that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which the case had previously been found inadmissible under article 17.
On admissibility, the State party submits that the case is inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission, due to the fact that the author waited for over seven years after the decision of the Constitutional Court of 15 November 1999 before submitting her case to the Committee.
On admissibility, the State party submits that the case is inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission, due to the delay of eight years and three months the authors waited after the decision of the Constitutional Court of 10 September 1997 before submitting their case to the Committee.
On admissibility, the State party submits that the case is inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission, due to the delay of three years and seven months the authors waited after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) of 10 July 2002 before submitting their case to the Committee on 12 February 2006.
Where the Court has determined that the case is inadmissible under article 17, paragraph 1(a), the Court shall make arrangements, as appropriate, for the transfer of the person to a State whose investigation or prosecution has formed the basis of the successful challenge to admissibility, unless the State that originally surrendered the person requests his or her return.
As to admissibility, the State party submits that the case is inadmissible on the basis that no prima facie case had been made out in respect of article 20 of the Covenant, that the communication was manifestly ill-founded as the authors did have access to an effective remedy and that the authors cannot be considered victims.
He proposed that paragraph 6 be deleted;once the Court had decided that a case was inadmissible, the Prosecutor would have to accept that decision.
Hence the Committee's decision spells out the reason for inadmissibility that was supported by a majority amongst those members who found that the case was inadmissible.
With regard to the admissibility challenge filed by Libya in the case of Abdullah al-Senussi,the Pre-Trial Chamber decided that the case was inadmissible before the court under Article 17(1)(a) of the Statute.
The author had exhausted only the fi rst of them without obtaining relief and,on this basis, the State party claimed that the case was inadmissible because the author should have exhausted the second one as well.
Cases were inadmissible for investigation because the agency concerned was outside jurisdiction, or there were pending court or tribunal proceedings in progress, or the complaints were frivolous, trivial or time barred.
The authors add that a complaint similar to the one submitted to the Committee was presented in March 1998 to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights.On 21 October 1999, the Commission informed the authors that their case was inadmissible ratione personae, and that it could not review judicial decisions in which the alleged victim was not an individual but a company.