Примеры использования It inadmissible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Judge ruled it inadmissible.
Not being part of the department, a judge is just gonna rule it inadmissible.
Declare it inadmissible or strike it out of its list of cases, where such decision can be taken without further examination; or.
You got the confession,then you made it inadmissible.
Once a claim has been notified to the respondent State, delay in its prosecution(e.g., before an international tribunal)will not usually be regarded as rendering it inadmissible.
Люди также переводят
As the communication is directed against Spain only,the Committee should find it inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Consideration of the complaint having become moot,the Committee finds it inadmissible.
As for the complainant's allegations regarding a risk of torture by the LTTE,the State party considers it inadmissible because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention against Torture.
Accordingly, the Committee considered that the fact that Ms. Laureano's case was registered before the WorkingGroup on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances did not make it inadmissible under that provision.
That information is hearsay,which makes it inadmissible in court.
On 15 October 1983, the author filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights,which declared it inadmissible on 6 May 1985.
That the author failed to place that grievance before the domestic courts renders it inadmissible on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
He adds that on 16 March 1995 he submitted a complaint to the EuropeanCommission of Human Rights, which declared it inadmissible on 28 February 1996.
So far as the claim under article 12 is linked to the claim under article 11,the Committee finds it inadmissible on the same grounds.
Accordingly, it considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Consequently, the Committee finds that this part of the communication has not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
On 9 July 2010, the State party submits, with regard to communication 1936/2010, that it considers it inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, the Committee considered that the author's allegation was incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and declared it inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee considers that this allegation has not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Consequently, the Committee considered that the claim had not been sufficiently substantiated and declared it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
However, the Committee considers that this part of the communication has not been sufficiently substantiated, andthus finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author failed to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility,and considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Accordingly, it considers this claim incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Covenant and declares it inadmissible under article 3, of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author failed to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility,and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee, however, concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim for purposes of admissibility,and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee therefore found that the author's claim was insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declared it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.