Примеры использования Counsel maintains на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Counsel maintains that the author would be in danger if returned to Peru.
In his response to the State party's submission, counsel maintains that the complainant would be at personal risk of being tortured if extradited to Spain.
Counsel maintains that the length of service constitutes discrimination on the basis of opinion.
In counsel's reply, dated 23 December 2009, to the State party's observations on the admissibility andmerits of the application, counsel maintains that the complainant continues to this day to run a risk if deported.
Counsel maintains that the author's absence from work was due to a labour dispute, not to illness.
In terms of procedure, the State party appears to be suggesting that proceedings are still in progress, but counsel maintains that all effective remedies in the case have been exhausted: the authors have taken the case to appeal in cassation, but all remedies have proved ineffective and futile.
Counsel maintains that, although proceedings were initiated against his client in 1983, no judgement was handed down until 1994.
In her comments of 11 June 2004, counsel maintains that the State party violated article 3 of the Convention.
Counsel maintains that permanent residence in a country and family ties should not be dealt with as in the context of commercial law.
In his comments on the State party's observations, counsel maintains his allegation that the distinction between own children and foster children in the Child Benefit Act is discriminatory.
Counsel maintains his claim of discrimination, and states that the adjustments of the annuities signify next to nothing.
As for the mental pain andanguish suffered by the author, counsel maintains that the author's relocation entailed very serious moral damage based on continuing mental suffering and emotional anguish, together constituting a"confiscation" trauma.
Counsel maintains that the author would be in danger if returned to Turkey and denies that he could seek refuge in another part of the country.
On the question of the violation of the presumption of innocence covered by article 14,paragraph 2, of the Covenant, counsel maintains that there has been a violation of this right by the State party since it has inverted the burden of proof incumbent on the prosecutor(the traffic authorities, in this case); the authorities have in fact required the owner to prove who was driving the vehicle.
Counsel maintains that the labour law was abused in the author's case to suppress the expression of her Roman Catholic beliefs in violation of article 18 of the Covenant.
In a submission dated 14 January 2000 counsel maintains that no effective remedy has been granted to the author in order to comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention, including article 6.
Counsel maintains that the case law submitted by the State party, 29 verdicts of the Supreme Court, have no connection with the denial of the author's right of appeal.
In a submission dated 14 January 2000 counsel maintains that no effective remedy has been granted to the author in order to comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention, including article 6.
Counsel maintains that the Swedish Government has not evaluated the risk the author would face if he were to be expelled to Turkey, but has focused merely on his credibility.
In his comments on the State party's submissions, counsel maintains his claim that the author's eye injury was caused by Inspector J.J. at the end of June or the beginning of July 1988, when the author was hit with a pistol and his head was banged against a table.
Counsel maintains that when a right to publicly financed religious education is recognized by States parties, no differentiation shall be made among individuals on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs.
Counsel maintains that the police's actions were in violation of the regulations governing the police since the author's activities did not constitute a serious disturbance of public order or great danger for the public.
Counsel maintains, however, that this judgment cannot be seen as blanket recognition of compatibility of the spelling rules with the law of the European Union, as the proportionality should be evaluated in any event.
Counsel maintains that there was a material discrepancy between the original statement of Walsh and his evidence in court of which the defence was not advised and that the failure to produce the original statement resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Finally, counsel maintains that the author was not informed of the content of article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which states that"no one shall be obliged to give evidence against himself, his spouse or his close relatives.
In conclusion, counsel maintains that although it has not been possible to obtain direct written evidence, for the reasons given above, the chain of circumstantial evidence is of such a nature that there can be no reason to doubt the author's credibility.
Counsel maintains that an unsupported statement that complaints had been made about a candidate and the results of the subsequent examination, which was conducted by a single examiner, a senior inspector at the State Language Inspectorate, cannot be described as objective criteria.
In his comments, counsel maintains that the author's death sentence violates various provisions of the Covenant because he was sentenced to death without the sentencing judge considering and giving effect to his character, his personal circumstances or those of the crime.
Furthermore, petitioner's counsel maintains that in the decision of the Court of Appeal of 30 November 1983, the causal relationship between the alleged victim's dismissal and the different rate of absenteeism among foreign and Netherlands women workers, as alleged by the employer, is clear.
Counsel maintains that the decision is contradictory in that it recognizes the fundamental right not to testify against oneself as an integral part of the Spanish Constitution, a right which is also applicable to punitive procedures resulting from failure to comply with administrative provisions of the State.