Примеры использования Communications were received на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Other communications were received from the Government of Zimbabwe.
Any information supplied by the Government concerned on specific cases shall be transmitted to the sources from which the communications were received, with a request for comments on the subject or additional information.
Communications were received from Denmark and Sweden see annex VI.
In response to the note verbale of the Secretary-General, communications were received from Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway and the United States of America.
Two communications were received from the Government on 7 January and 17 June 2009.
Tables B.1-B.5(in English only) in the addendum to this note contain projections data for 31 Parties whose national communications were received by 18 January 1996, and which take account of the supplementary information mentioned above.
Two other communications were received on 6 June and 9 September 2009.
The last country to enter reservations to the Convention was Myanmar(see annex II). Objections were received from Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden(see annex III). Withdrawals of reservations anddeclarations were received from Malaysia, Mauritius and Poland(see annex IV). Communications were received from Denmark and Sweden see annex V.
Other communications were received from the Governments of Bahrain and Peru 2.
While the mechanism did not provide for communications from the public,if any such communications were received, they would go through the secretariat, which would then probably request further information from the Party concerned.
Similar communications were received from Mariyus Noko Ngele dated 9 March, 10 and 13 April, 22 October and 1 and 8 December 2013.
Replies to joint communications were received from the Governments of Switzerland(2) and Turkey.
Other communications were received in reply to a specific request for information.
In response to the note verbale, communications were received from Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway and the United States of America.
Other communications were received from the Governments of the following eight countries: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, India, Kazakstan, Mexico, Peru(2), Tunisia(2) and Uzbekistan.
Almost identical communications were received by a number of international NGOs operating in Abkhazia.
Other communications were received from the Governments of Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.
Other communications were received from the Governments of Azerbaijan, Colombia and Guatemala.
Similar communications were received from Frank Yao, Jo-Anne Fisher, Jana Keeley and Leanna Ibbotson dated 5 November 2013.
Seven other communications were received by the authorities that had not yet been translated for review by the Working Group.
Replies to communications were received from the Governments of the following 8 countries: Colombia, France, India, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Sudan(2), Tunisia, Turkey.
Replies to communications were received from the Governments of the following 12 countries: Colombia(4), Croatia, Cuba, Georgia(1), India(5), Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Spain and United Kingdom 2.
Replies to communications were received from the Governments of: Argentina, Belize, Colombia, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey.
Communications were received from different organizations, such as the United Nations Development Fund for Women(UNIFEM) and the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women INSTRAW.
Communications were received from Argentina, Austria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Monaco, the Philippines, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Uruguay.
Replies to communications were received from: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Chile, Czech Republic, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia.
Replies to communications were received from the governmental authorities of: Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, Gambia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yemen.
Numerous communications were received pointing to the direct link between adverse environmental conditions and violations of the right to health, and exemplifying the irreversible impacts on health of large-scale industrial accidents as well as the deleterious effects of other less spectacular sources of pollution, such as the continuous discharge of toxic and hazardous substances into air, soil and water.
This communication was received in New York on 11 March 1996.
On 14 April 2009, a communication was received from the Government.