Примеры использования Counsel's argument на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In reviewing the question of admissibility,the Committee takes note of the contentions of the State party and of counsel's arguments.
The State party also rejects counsel's argument that its interpretation extends the scope of the reservation, as it has the same significance today as it had when entered.
By reference to a decision of the Human Rights Committee that failure to pursue a leave application with due diligence rendered a communication inadmissible,the State party challenges counsel's argument that"there was no rationale for continuing the application" after the Federal Court had dismissed the complainant's motion to stay his removal.
The Committee has noted counsel's argument that the six years Mr. Chaplin spent on death row amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant.
The State party also refers to the domestic procedure concerning the ratification of the Optional Protocol:it recalls that the European Court is the legal successor to the European Commission and considers that counsel's argument about the role of the Commission has no bearing on the legal succession, especially since the State party's reservation was made in respect of the Commission's duty to decide on the admissibility of an application and to make a first assessment on the merits.
In support of counsel's arguments she submits a medical certificate dated 22 November 1999 from a senior psychiatrist at Sahlgrenska Hospital, where the author was taken after an attempted suicide.
In view of the commutation of Mr. Graham's death sentence,the Committee need not address counsel's argument that the execution of the death sentence would constitute a violation of article 6 of the Covenant.
The Committee notes counsel's arguments relating to the proceedings lodged by other persons in France and before the European Court of Human Rights, which were concluded by inadmissibility decisions in 2001 before the European Court.
With regard to the State party's claims that counsel failed to provide a document that would prove that she had been authorised by Madaminov to act on his behalf in the supervisory review instance and that a writ referred to the name of"Mukhammed Salikh", the author reiterated counsel's argument that she did comply with the requirements of article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code by presenting a writ, confirming that she had been authorised to act on his behalf.
The Committee has noted counsel's argument that the eight years and 10 months Mr. Stephens spent on death row amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7.
The Supreme Court confirmed the City Court's judgement on 28 June 1990, stating, with regard to counsel's argument that Ms. Isaeva and Mr. and Ms. Novitsky had given false testimonies, that this issue was examined by the court and that there was no support for it.
In respect of counsel's argument concerning article 2 of the Covenant, the State party rejects his suggestion that article 2 can convert laws or Government actions otherwise consistent with the rights and freedoms of the Covenant, into contraventions.
However, the Committee considers that neither counsel's arguments nor the material before it substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the author's prolonged compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital amounts to a violation of article 10 of the Covenant.
Counsel's argument that the author has exhausted domestic remedies because he challenged the renewal of his compulsory treatment order on the basis that it constituted a violation of article 10, only relates to the second issue before the Committee.
The Committee also notes that the State party has not contested counsel's argument that Latvian law does not provide for separate levels of proficiency in the official language in order to stand for election, but applies the standards and certification used in other instances.
As to counsel's argument that the police had no competence to arrest the author, because it concerned a civil dispute, the State party explains that the police was acting under the Criminal Procedure Act, since the author did not stop committing criminal acts when ordered.
The Committee has also taken note of counsel's argument that all documents in the case file, although not presented during the trial, were of relevance to the defence, since they had been used by the police and the prosecution in their preparation of the trial.
As to counsel's argument that HREOC's approach was consistent with the interpretation of ILO Convention 111 and should be respected by the Committee, the State party submits that the interpretation of ILO Convention 111 is not relevant to, nor determinative of, the case before the Committee under the Covenant.
The Committee is of the opinion that counsel's arguments related to the mandatory nature of the death penalty, based on articles 6(2), 7, 14(5) and 26 of the Covenant do not raise issues that would be separate from the above finding of a violation of article 6 1.
As to counsel's argument that the author was arrested because a high ranking police officer acted on information received from a friend who was a party in the civil suit, the State party refers to the records of the court hearing, which show that the police officer in question was no friend of any of the parties in the civil suit, but that he indeed remembered to have received a communication from one of the parties.
Without embarking on a detailed examination of counsel's arguments on the effectiveness of the pre-removal risk assessment, the Committee, in the light of the State party's position, considered that a further application for a pre-removal risk assessment would not constitute an effective remedy for Fatoumata under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee also notes counsel's arguments that the remedies listed by the State party are not effective remedies and that the State party has not proved that they are effective or indeed contested counsel's arguments. .
The Committee notes counsel's arguments that the complainants and other individuals returned to Uzbekistan pursuant to extradition requests were held in incommunicado detention and therefore subjected to a risk of torture and ill-treatment.
With regard to counsel's argument that the court had not examined the forensic experts' conclusions, the Supreme Court stated that not only had the conclusions of the experts during the preliminary investigation been subjected to examination, there was also an expert testimony given at the trial.
It also noted the counsel's argument that the proceedings in the State party leading to the extradition of the complainants were not fair, as no interpreter was provided, they had limited access to lawyers and the lawyers did not have access to the files.
It also notes counsel's argument that the proceedings in the State party leading to the extradition of the complainants were not fair, as no interpreter was provided, they had limited access to lawyers and the lawyers did not have access to the files.
The authors' counsel also rejects the State party's argument when it comes to compensation.
In his comments on the State party's submission, counsel contests the State party's argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible.
The author's counsel considers irrelevant the State party's argument that the Committee's Views contradict the European Court of Human Rights case law.
On 29 April 2010, the author, through counsel, rejected the State party's arguments relating to admissibility.