Примеры использования Equal access to evidence на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The burden of proof should not lie solely on the applicant, especially since the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence.
The Committee recalled that the burden of proof cannot rest alone with the author of a communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
As to the author's attribution of his wife's arbitrary deprivation of life to the State party's federal forces, the Committee recalled its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the authors of the communication, especially considering that the authors andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the authors of the communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.
As to the author's attribution of his wife's arbitrary deprivation of life to the State party's federal forces, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the authors of the communication, especially considering that the authors andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee recalls that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
According to these standards, in a proceeding both parties should be granted the same treatment and should have equal access to evidence either in favour or against them.
While concern was expressed that the term"mutual" might imply reciprocity, which was not appropriate in the present context,the remark was made that mutual assistance implied equal access to evidence and information and not necessarily reciprocity.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.
It reiterates that, with regard to the burden of proof, it cannot rest alone with the author of a communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee recalled its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the authors andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the authors of the communication, especially considering that the authors andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee recalls, 4 with regard to the burden of proof, that this cannot rest alone with the author of a communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the authors andthe State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The State party andthe author do not always have equal access to the evidence.
This is especially so in a case such as the present one, where parties do not have equal access to the evidence.
The Committee, in accordance with its jurisprudence, considers that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It recalls that the burden of proof does not rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It also reaffirms that the burden of proof should not rest on the author of a communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
The Committee recalls that the burden of proof does not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially as the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and often the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee recalls that the burden of proof does not rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
It recalled its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.
The Committee recalls that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.
The Committee reaffirms its jurisprudence that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of a communication alone, especially considering that the author andthe State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and frequently the State party alone has the relevant information.