Примеры использования Complainant's counsel на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
On 31 August 2010, the complainant's counsel provided further clarifications.
On 6 March 2013, the State party's submission was transmitted to the complainant's counsel for information.
The complainant's counsel commented on the State party's observations on 11 April 2005.
On 18 February 2013, a reminder was sent to the complainant's counsel for comments.
On 26 May 2009, the complainant's counsel presented his comments to the State party's observations.
Nevertheless, the psychiatric examination was held on 18 January 2011.On 2 February 2011, the complainant's counsel was allowed to see the psychiatric report, but was not given a copy.
On 20 January 2009, the complainant's counsel confirmed that the State party had provided the compensation awarded.
On 17 September 2011 the State party informed the Committee that the Ministry of Justice had initiated a discussion with the complainant's counsel in order to fix the amount of compensation for the damages suffered.
The complainant's counsel attached the judgement of the Federal Administrative Tribunal to his submission.
In his comments dated 22 November 2010, the complainant's counsel recalled relevant facts of the case.
The complainant's counsel is in contact with the complainant through the complainant's wife, who is residing in Denmark.
In a written submission of 17 April 2003, the complainant's counsel commented on the State party's observations.
The complainant's counsel has contested the State party's decision to deport the complainant despite the Committee's findings.
The complainant refused to acknowledge receipt of this letter. On 8 August 2008, the complainant's counsel asked CBSA to extend the deadline for submitting written comments.
On 31 October 2006, the complainant's counsel responded that he had a meeting with the Ambassador of the Swedish Embassy on 24 January 2006.
In a submission dated 30 May 2002, the complainant's counsel transmitted his comments on the observations of the State party.
The complainant's counsel has contested the State party's decision to deport the complainant despite the Committee's findings.
By subsequent written submissions andseeking to clarify"misunderstandings", the complainant's counsel observed that the party was legal but due to Government impediments of its activities, its activities were"underground.
The complainant's counsel indicated that the author has been in contact with the Red Cross, but she was unable to attend a scheduled meeting due to health problems.
On 20 November 2009, the complainant's counsel welcomed the payment of compensation by the State party.
The complainant's counsel applied for a stay of deportation in order to be able to prove that the medical facilities required to replace the complainant's pacemaker were not available in Haiti.
During the pretrial investigation, the complainant's counsel appealed to the Prosecutor's Office alleging that the complainant had been subjected to ill-treatment.
On 4 February 2013, the complainant's counsel criticized the State party's reply, which, in his opinion, shows the State party's failure to implement the Committee's decision.
The State party further submits that on 22 September 2006, the complainant's counsel provided additional information and corrections to what had been stated by the complainant during the interviews.
On 10 March 2011, the complainant's counsel explained that the complainants had noted with concern the recent statement of the President of Senegal, who had affirmed that he intended to"get rid" of this matter.
On 2 February 2009, the complainant's counsel responded to the State party's submission of 21 October 2008.
During the trial, the complainant's counsel requested the Moscow Regional Court to take into account the results established by the forensic medical examinations of 18 April 2002 and of 7 May 2002; the court dismissed the request.
This is also the name that the complainant's counsel referred to during the third interview and in the submission of 7 September 2007 to the Migration Court.
On 16 April 2013, the complainant's counsel informed the Committee that after re-entering Denmark, the complainant had been granted a residence permit and thus the follow-up dialogue had reached a satisfactory conclusion.
The State party's submission was transmitted to the complainant's counsel, for comments, on 10 January 2011. On 1 February 2011, counsel informed that he has no comments to make to the State party's observations.