Примеры использования Has failed to substantiate на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Therefore, he has failed to substantiate his claims.
In this respect, the State party contends that the author has failed to substantiate his claim.
The author has failed to substantiate such a claim with regard to articles 2 and 26.
The State party argues that the author has failed to substantiate his claims.
Accordingly, he has failed to substantiate a claim under article 15, and that portion should be dismissed as inadmissible.
Люди также переводят
The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate this particular claim.
The complainant has failed to substantiate her allegations and the complaint should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded.
As a result of the absence of necessary evidence and explanations,the Panel finds that BEI has failed to substantiate its claim.
Iraq also argues that Iran has failed to substantiate the amount claimed.
The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible asincompatible with the Covenant, and that the author has failed to substantiate his allegations.
The Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate this claim for purposes of admissibility.
With respect to the author's claim under article 9, paragraph 1,the Committee notes the State party's contention that the author has failed to substantiate his claim.
Consequently, the author has failed to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility.
The State party therefore argues that the author has not raised an issue under the Covenant and, alternatively, that he has failed to substantiate his allegations.
The State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate her claims under articles 6 and 7.
Accordingly, he has failed to substantiate his claims, for purposes of admissibility, and this part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee also concludes that,for purposes of admissibility, the author has failed to substantiate her claim under articles 1 and 2(e) of the Convention.
Similarly, he has failed to substantiate any violation of his right under article 25(c)to equal access to public service.
The State party contested the admissibility of the communication,arguing that the author has failed to substantiate his claims under article 2 and article 7 of the Covenant.
It argues that the author has failed to substantiate his claim that the disclosure violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant.
Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol,as the author has failed to substantiate her claim for purposes of admissibility in this respect.
The Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate for purposes of admissibility his claims under article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant.
With regard to the complainant's allegation of fear of torture by Sri Lankan authorities,the State party considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate a foreseeable, real and personal risk.
The State party argues that the author has failed to substantiate his claim under article 14, subparagraph 3 f.
The Committee further considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claim that the procedure before the Canadian Human Rights Commission violated his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and that he has failed to submit sufficient evidence in support of the claim under article 26 of the Covenant.
In relation to the alleged violations of article 26,the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, any claim of a potential violation of article 26.
Alternatively, the author has failed to substantiate her allegations under this provision, given the broad range of effective remedies available in Canada.
In the absence of any other relevant information, from the author or details in substantiation of this claim,the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, this part of the communication, which consequently is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that he is a victim of discrimination, and that the author does not, therefore, have a claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 17 and 23.