Примеры использования Have not been sufficiently substantiated на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Accordingly, the claims under article 7 have not been sufficiently substantiated.
Furthermore, the Committee finds that the author's complaints that the appointment of candidates was made on the basis of nepotism andpolitical considerations have not been sufficiently substantiated.
The State party adds that the author's subsidiary claims under articles 2, 14,23 and 24 have not been sufficiently substantiated to establish even a prima facie violation of these provisions.
Accordingly, the State party submits thatthe author's allegations in respect of article 2, paragraph(d), of the Convention are without merit or have not been sufficiently substantiated.
The Committee considers, however, that these complaints have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
In addition, the author's claims that he will risk detention, torture andpossibly execution have not been sufficiently substantiated.
Consequently, the Committee finds that these allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Therefore, the Committee concludes that the State party's arguments to challenge the validity of this evidence andthe complainant's declarations have not been sufficiently substantiated.
It therefore considers that hisallegations under article 14, paragraph 5, have not been sufficiently substantiated and thus finds them inadmissible under article 2, of the Optional Protocol.
Concerning the complaints of violations of articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author's allegations that his sentence andthe nondisclosure of Ms. Gascon's statement were the result of Quebec's allegedly sexist policy have not been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.
In these circumstances, the Committee is of the view that the author's claims have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 113(b) of its rules of procedure,that the above allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.
Consequently, the Committee considers that the allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and therefore finds this part of the communication to be inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
In the light of the information before it,the Committee considers that these claims have not been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee takes note of the State party's allegations that the communication must be declared inadmissible under article 2 and article 5, paragraph 2(b),of the Optional Protocol because the author did not exhaust the remedies available to him in the ordinary labour courts and that the complaints have not been sufficiently substantiated.
The Committee thus considers that the claims under article 15, paragraph 1,of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Secondly, with regard to the author's claim that the charges against him were inconsistent, that the presentation of the facts by the police and the public prosecutor were biased, that the court only heard witnesses for the prosecution, and that the judges were obviously biased,the Committee considers that these allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.
In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author's claims under articles 6,7, 13 and 14 have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee considers that, even assuming that the authors' claims would not be inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies(article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol),they are inadmissible either because they fall outside the scope of any of the provisions of the Covenant invoked by the authors, or because they have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee has paid due attentionto the complainant's comments, but nonetheless considers that her arguments have not been sufficiently substantiated to refute or clarify the contradictions noted by the State party in her observations.
In the light of the copies of the relevant judicial decisions furnished by the State party and, in the absence of any information indicating that these judicial decisions violate in any way the author's rights under article 15 of the Covenant,the Committee is of the view that the facts before it have not been sufficiently substantiated to meet the criteria for admissibility under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
For this reason, the Committee considers that the author's allegations of violations of articles 14 and 16 have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that this communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.
In the alternative, to the extent that some allegations seem to raise issues under the Covenant,the State party submits that the allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility.
Even if they have not been specifically refuted by the State party,the Committee considers that these allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and thus this part of the communications is accordingly inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Regarding the denial of his motion for return to a specialist kidney hospital as a kidney transplant patient,the Committee finds that the allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated and therefore declares this claim inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
As the author has not disproved these arguments, the Committee considers that the claims under article 14, paragraph 1,of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
With regard to the arguments relating to the violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence set forth in article 14(2),the Committee considers that the arguments have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and therefore declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee therefore considers that this claim has not been sufficiently substantiated.
This claim, according to the State party, has not been sufficiently substantiated.
Lastly, it considers that the allegation of unduly lengthy proceedings has not been sufficiently substantiated.