Примеры использования Human rights committee declared на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
On 5 July 1995, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible.
CCPR indicated that the Gambia has persistently failed to cooperate with the Human Rights Committee and its follow-up procedure since 2002, andthis was the first time that the Human Rights Committee declared a State Party in breach of its obligations.
Accordingly, on 24 July 1989, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible.
The Human Rights Committee declared the complaints of a number of the authors inadmissible, since their dismissal had taken place prior to the entry into force of the CCPR and CCPR-OP for Australia.
In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights followed suit, and in 2011,the EU and the Human Rights Committee declared access to information to be a fundamental right linked to our freedom of expression.
The Human Rights Committee declared the communication inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims, without determining whether article 20 could be invoked under the Optional Protocol.
The judgement was subsequently appealed to the High Court,where the case was still pending when the Human Rights Committee declared it inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
On 19 July 1995, therefore, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much as it appeared to raise issues under article 19 of the Covenant.
The State party concerned, Austria,had invoked its reservation to article 5(2)(a) of CCPR-OP, and because of the great similarities between the two provisions, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication inadmissible, stating that it was"precluded from reviewing a finding of the European Court on the applicability of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention by substituting its jurisprudence under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant".18.
Also in this case, the Human Rights Committee declared the case inadmissible under the Optional Protocol of the Covenant, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Consequently, on 15 March 2001, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible insofar as it might raise questions related to article 14 of the Covenant.
Consequently, on 17 March 1994, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much as it appeared to raise issues under article 14, paragraph 3(c), of the Covenant.
On 22 March 1991, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible inasmuch as it might raise issues under articles 10, 17 and 26 of the Covenant.
Accordingly, on 31 October 1995, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much as it appeared to raise issues under article 7 and article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
On 21 July 1995, therefore, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much as it appeared to raise issues under article 14, subparagraph 3(d), of the Covenant.
Consequently, on 30 June 1994, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible insofar as it appeared to raise issues under articles 6, 7 and 14, paragraphs 3(c) and 5, of the Covenant.
On 12 October 1995, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible inasmuch as it appeared to raise issues under article 10, paragraph 1; article 9, paragraph 3, and article 14, subparagraph 3(c), of the Covenant.
Consequently, on 16 March 1995, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible insofar as it might raise issues under article 9, paragraph 3, article 10 and article 14, paragraphs 3(c) and 5, of the Covenant.
On 16 March 1995, therefore, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in as much as it appeared to raise issues under articles 7; 9, paragraph 3; 10, paragraph 1; 14, paragraphs 3(c),(d), and 5 juncto 3(c), of the Covenant.
On 29 October 1999, the Human Rights Committee declared inadmissible, on the basis that the authors could not claim to be victims of the alleged discrimination, a communication by Mr. Tadman and others, alleging violations of the same provisions of the Covenant as invoked here.
CCPR added that,in February 2009 the Human Rights Committee declared the Gambia to be in breach of its obligation to cooperate with the Human Rights Committee in the performance of its functions under Part IV(Article 40) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR.
Decisions of the human rights committee declaring.
Vi. decisions of the human rights committee declaring.
VI. Decisions of the Human Rights Committee declaring communications.
Decision of the Human Rights Committee declaring communications inadmissible under.
Decisions of the human rights committee declaring and political rights. .
Xiii. decisions of the human rights committee declaring under the.
VII. Decisions of the Human Rights Committee declaring communications inadmissible under.
And political rights* xi. decision of the human rights committee declaring.
The Human Rights Committee similarly declared that a communication concerning conduct of the European Patent Office was inadmissible, because it could not.