Примеры использования Had failed to substantiate на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
However, the authors had failed to substantiate such a violation.
As to the allegations under articles 16; 17; 19; 20, paragraph 2; 25; and 27,the Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate them for purposes of admissibility.
It found that the author had failed to substantiate that her husband had violated her physical integrity on 21 September 2007.
In both cases the Equality Officer found that the complainant had failed to substantiate the allegations made.
The Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under article 9, paragraph 1, and articles 17 and 26 of the Covenant.
In respect of the author's claims under articles 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14,the Committee found that the author had failed to substantiate her claims, for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considered that the authors had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, their claim that the preparation and conduct of their defence at trial were inadequate.
Hitherto, the Committee has declared numerous communications inadmissible,where the authors had failed to substantiate their allegations for purposes of admissibility.
The Court also considered that the author had failed to substantiate her claims that her husband had restricted her social contacts, prevented her from taking up employment and neglected his children.
By letter of 14 April 1999,the author was again advised that the onemonth period for lodging a constitutional complaint had expired on 6 April 1999 and that he had failed to substantiate his complaint prior to that date.
The Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate that allegation for purposes of admissibility.
It concluded that the complainant had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that such risk was foreseeable for the State party at the time of his deportation, and declared this part of the complaint inadmissible.
The complainants were surprised when they learnt the State party's"new" positionon 13 September 2007, that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim about having been subjected to abuse in the past.
In this respect, the Committee found that the author had failed to substantiate his claim for purposes of admissibility and that this part of the communication was inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
By note verbale of 24 February 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint,arguing that the complainant had failed to substantiate a personal risk of torture in the event of his deportation to Turkey.
The Committee considered that the author and his counsel had failed to substantiate for purposes of admissibility, that the communication raised issues under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
On 28 June 2006,the Appeals Board rejected the complainant's asylum request as lacking credibility and found that he had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution if forcibly returned to Turkey.
The Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 1 and 2 of the Covenant and concluded that the facts as submitted did not raise issues under those provisions.
In its inadmissibility decisions on communications No. 669/1995 Malik v. The Czech Republic and 670/1995 Schlosser v. The Czech Republic,the Committee held that the author there had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that Act No. 87/1991 was prima facie discriminatory within the meaning of article 26.
In that decision,the Committee considered that the authors had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the change brought about in the computation of their pension rights was discriminatory or otherwise possibly fell within the ambit of article 26 of the Covenant.
As to the claims relating to articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant,the Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate his claim, for purposes of admissibility, that he had been subjectedto treatment in violation of these provisions.
Similarly, the State party had failed to substantiate that the increased workload of the Constitutional Court allegedly caused by mass proceedings in asylum and minimum corporate tax cases impaired the Court in such a way as to justify the substantial delays complained of.
As to the allegation under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant,the Committee noted that the author had failed to substantiate his claim, and, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol, declared this part of the communication inadmissible.
The Committee found that the complainant had failed to substantiate her claims in relation to her political or other circumstances, in particular with respect to whether they would be of such significance to attract the interest of the Ethiopian authorities, nor had she submitted any credible evidence to demonstrate that she was at a personal risk of being tortured or otherwise subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Ethiopia.
As to the author's allegation of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant,the Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and concluded that Mr. Hamilton had no claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee further considered that the authors had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, their claim that the judge was not impartial and their claim that they did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
The State party maintains that it is theresponsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for admissibility, and that in the present case he had failed to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the Chinese authorities if returned to China.
In addition, the Committee observed that the State party had failed to substantiate that an application, in a case like the author's, could be entertained by any administrative or judicial instance other than the Constitutional Court within a statutory period of time.
According to the State party, the individual opinions of Mr. Solari Yrigoyen,Sir Nigel Rodley and Mrs. Wedgwood, demonstrate that the author had failed to substantiate her claims on her exclusion from the Tashkent State Eastern Languages Institute, and also that her claims on the wearing of the hijab were contradictory.
The Committee further considered that the author and his counsel had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, the contention that the author was not adequately represented during the trial and on appeal, and that his trial was unfair because crucial witnesses in the case were not called to testify in court.