Примеры использования Committee's admissibility на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Committee's admissibility decision.
State party's observations on the Committee's admissibility decision and on the merits.
The Committee's admissibility considerations.
In this respect, therefore, there is no reason to reverse the Committee's admissibility decision.
The Committee's admissibility decision.
Люди также переводят
In its submission dated 16 January 1992, the State party challenges the Committee's admissibility decision.
The Committee's admissibility decision.
Indeed, the authors have provided no response at all to the Committee's admissibility decision or to the State party's observations.
The Committee's admissibility decision.
In a note verbale of 4 February 2011, the State party commented on the Committee's admissibility decision.
The Committee's admissibility decision.
In that respect, the State party takes issue with the Committee's admissibility considerations relating to article 9, paragraph 4.
The Committee's admissibility decision and State party's comments thereon.
The Committee has noted the State party's request for a review of the Committee's admissibility decision in the present case.
While the Committee's admissibility decision of 14 November 2003 was the cause for the review, there was no obligation upon the Board to do so.
Despite two reminders, sent on 10 May 1993 and 9 December 1994,no submission had been received from the State party prior to the Committee's admissibility decision.
In a submission dated 11 March 1991,the State party contends that the Committee's admissibility decision reflects a misunderstanding of the operation of Sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Jamaican Constitution.
The Committee notes that the State party's reply does not provide detailed answers to the questions that were put to it in the Committee's admissibility decision of 6 March 2006.
On 3 November 1992 the State party submitted its observations on the Committee's admissibility decision, focusing on the legality of Law No. 15,848 in the light of international law.
The author further challenges the State party's focus on fishing only andsubmits that this is based on an excessively narrow reading of the Committee's admissibility decision.
In a submission dated 6 February 1991,the State party contends that the Committee's admissibility decision reflects a misunderstanding of the operation of Sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Jamaican Constitution.
The Committee further notes the State party's contention that article 475 of its Criminal Procedure Code prevents it from supplying court documents as requested in the Committee's admissibility decision.
The State party, in its submissions dated11 February 1991 and 14 January 1992, challenges the Committee's admissibility decision and maintains that the communication is inadmissible.
The State party refers to the Committee's admissibility decision in which the Committee decided that it was precluded from considering alleged violations occurring prior to the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party.
By submission of 15 December 2004,the State party takes issue with the author's assertion that the scope of the Committee's admissibility decision includes hunting, trapping and gathering rights.
On 14 September 2009, the State party submitted that following the Committee's admissibility decision it requested a supplementary opinion from the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. On 25 August 2009, without revising its assessment of the case the Board made the following comments on the Decision.
In his comments on the State party's submission,author's counsel submits that it is clear from earlier submissions and the Committee's admissibility decision which matters give rise to the author's complaint under article 14.
By submission of 23 February 1999, the State party interprets the Committee's admissibility decision to mean that all complaints directed by the author against the Norwegian immigration authorities have been declared inadmissible, including the refusal of granting him an entry visa to enable him to attend the Court hearing.
As to the claim regarding Mr. Ashby's conditions of detention being in violation of article 10 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the absence of any further submission after the Committee's admissibility decision in substantiation of Mr. Ashby's claim.
As to the claim of a right of access to the courts, the author relies on the Committee's admissibility decision in Smart v. Trinidad and Tobago that, in the absence of legal aid being available to enable pursuit of a constitutional remedy, it could not be considered an effective remedy in the circumstances.