Примеры использования Communication was inadmissible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Therefore, the Committee decided that the communication was inadmissible.
Accordingly, this part of the communication was inadmissible as the author has failed to forward a claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, it concluded that the communication was inadmissible.
The Committee concluded that the communication was inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Consequently, the Committee decided that this part of the communication was inadmissible.
The Committee therefore declared the communication was inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention.
On 30 June 2008, the State party again argued that the communication was inadmissible.
The State party argued that the communication was inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The State party, by submission dated 27 February 1992, argued that the communication was inadmissible.
The State party moreover argued that the communication was inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
Hence, the Committee's decision spells out that reason for inadmissibility that was supported by a majority amongst those members who felt that the communication was inadmissible.
The Committee thus did not consider that the communication was inadmissible for this reason.
The Committee decided that the communication was inadmissible, due to the failure to submit a communication within the time limit set out in rule 91(f) of the rules of procedure.
The Committee took note of the State party's argument that the communication was inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies.
The Committee should have concluded that the provision contained in article 5, paragraph 2(a),of the Optional Protocol had not been satisfied and that the communication was inadmissible.
On 31 July 2007 the State party argued that the communication was inadmissible for the following reasons.
In the instant case, the Committee considered that the authors had no claim under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, andaccordingly this part of the communication was inadmissible.
For this reason, the Committee considered that the communication was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Noting the requirement in paragraph 19 of the annex to decision I/7 that communications be supported by corroborating information,the Committee determined that the communication was inadmissible.
The State party maintained that the communication was inadmissible, inter alia, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Accordingly, the Committee did not accept the State party's argument that this part of the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The United Kingdom contended that the communication was inadmissible as the same author had brought an identical complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.
Accordingly, he had failed to substantiate his claim, for purposes of admissibility,and this part of the communication was inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, it found that that part of the communication was inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
In this respect, therefore, the Committee decided that the communication was inadmissible ratione temporis" annex VIII. I, para. 6.2.
The Committee therefore concluded that the communication was inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
In the light of those considerations, the Committee concluded that the communication was inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol.
On 13 and 31 May 2003, the State party contended that the communication was inadmissible since it constituted an abuse of the right of appeal and was manifestly groundless.
By submission of 23 June 1993, the State party argued that the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The Committee therefore considered that this part of the communication was inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.