Примеры использования Committee had to decide на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Mr. ANDO said that the Committee had to decide when the next periodic report of Hong Kong was due.
Mr. Sial(Pakistan) again drew attention to rule 128, and emphasized that the Committee had to decide on the draft decision, not on an amendment.
The Committee had to decide whether to preserve that option or to adopt the proposal from the Mexican delegation in document A/CN.9/704/Add.6.
Regarding papers under discussion, the Committee had to decide on the proposed papers relating to articles 14 and 22.
The Committee had to decide whether that limitation was necessary and proportionate to the end invoked by the State party, i.e. protecting public safety and order.
Mr. TAGHIZADE said that the most important factor for consideration should be the interests of the end-users of the Convention: the Committee had to decide whether it considered States, their populations or individual citizens to be the end-users.
The question the Committee had to decide was whether to set a precedent by allowing a dissenting opinion to be attached to a general comment.
Of the 1,460 circulated for action, 1,375 were approved, totalling approximately $2.87 billion, 27 were placed on hold, seven were blocked and51 were awaiting decisions of the Committee since the time limit within which the Committee had to decide had not elapsed.
In case No. 1881/2009(Shakeel v. Canada), the Committee had to decide whether the author's removal to Pakistan would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm.
The Committee had to decide whether the mandate of the Working Group should be extended, and whether the Commission on Human Rights should be instructed to study the reports of the Working Group at its fifty-second session.
Now, after the historic submission of the draft resolution on the complete prohibition of nuclear tests, the Committee had to decide on two draft resolutions, A/C.1/48/L.24 and L.32, both dealing with international security but inspired by philosophies which could not be regarded as identical.
Accordingly, the Committee had to decide whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to India, the author would be subjected to treatment prohibited by articles 6 and 7.
In the case of the Sahrawi people,that was what the Committee had to decide, and she called for it to exercise compassion in its decisions over their fate, self-determination and safety.
Ms. GAER said that the Committee had to decide whether it wished to adopt the draft document as a report of the working group or as a Committee document.
In case No. 845/1999(Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago), the Committee had to decide on the validity of a reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago upon its re-accession to the Optional Protocol on 26 May 1998.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Committee had to decide whether it wished to appoint a special rapporteur or a working group to consider communications received under article 14 of the Convention and to make recommendations to the Committee regarding their admissibility.
In case No. 819/1998(Kavanagh v. Ireland) the Committee had to decide on the application of article 14, paragraph 1, with respect to the request that hearings be public, and held that there was no violation of this provision.
In case No. 945/2000(Marik v. The Czech Republic), the Committee had to decide whether the application to the author of Act 87/1991 amounted to a violation of his right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law, contrary to article 26 of the Covenant.
In case No. 1054/2002(Kříž v. Czech Republic), the Committee had to decide whether the application to the author of Act No. 87/1991 amounted to a violation of his right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law, contrary to article 26 of the Covenant.
In case No. 1473/2006(Morales Tornel v. Spain), the Committee had to decide whether the failure by the prison administration to inform the authors of the seriousness of Mr. Morales Tornel's condition during the final months of his life constituted a violation of the right of the authors not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with their family.
In case No. 1554/2007(El-Hichou v. Denmark), the Committee had to decide whether the refusal of the State party to grant a residence permit to the author for the purposes of family reunification with his father and the order to leave the country constituted a violation of his rights to protection under articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant.
Requiring active confirmation by the Committee would mean that the Committee has to decide to maintain the listing.
In the present case, the Committee has to decide whether the requirements have the purpose or effect of restricting in a disproportionate manner, given the nature and purpose of the referendums in question, the participation of the"concerned" population of New Caledonia.
In the present case, the Committee has to decide whether upholding the decision by the competent Australian courts to return Jessica to the United States of America would violate her rights under the Covenant, in particular those under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant.
This is without prejudice to the fact that, in any individual case,all that the Human Rights Committee has to decide is whether or not a communication is admissible and, if so, whether or not the established facts constitute one or more violations of the Covenant.
The Committee therefore had to decide whether it wished to allow the State party one or three months.
The Committee had basically had to decide whether it was prepared to hold a seminar with a reduced budget.
As a member of the sports committee the author had to decide on the composition of the team.
Thus, the Committee on Contributions had had to decide what information should be annexed to its reports; however, the Fifth Committee could specifically request the inclusion of any further information which it considered necessary.
The Committee also had to decide whether the fact that Canada has itself abolished capital punishment, except for certain military offences, required it to refuse the extradition of Mr. Kindler or to request assurances from the United States, as it was entitled to do under the Extradition Treaty, that the death penalty would not be imposed.