Примеры использования Party asserts на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party asserts that the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies.
With reference to the domestic legislation the State party asserts that the authors enjoy the right to freedom of movement.
The State party asserts that the courts' evaluation of Mr. Bondarenko's and Mr. Voskoboynikov's actions was correct.
As the Liberian rebels have not been active in Côte d'Ivoire since 2003,the State party asserts that future persecution of the complainant is unlikely.
Furthermore, the State party asserts that the complainant has never claimed to have been politically active.
In the same way, the waiver does not prevent participants from defending their IPR where another party asserts that implementation of a Specification is infringing that other party's IP.
The State party asserts that the court proceedings in the author's case were public and that he was represented.
With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, the State party asserts that it is inadmissible on the grounds that domestic remedies were not exhausted.
Secondly, the State party asserts that the allegations of violations of articles 23 and 17 of the Covenant are inadmissible.
In response to the author's claims regarding detention conditions in Morocco, the State party asserts that there is no evidence that the events the author alleges actually took place.
The State party asserts that it could not have taken these facts into account at the time when the expulsion order was enforced.
Likewise, the State party asserts that she admitted having tried to bribe one of her fellow detainees.
The State party asserts that it has established several mechanisms for ensuring that complaints of torture are handled appropriately.
As regards the author's representation at trial, the State party asserts that the duty of the State party is to appoint competent counsel to represent clients in need of legal aid and not to obstruct counsel in the performance of his duties.
The State party asserts that judging from the numerous reports provided by the Ambassador, Embassy staff and the senior official of its Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the guarantees provided have proved effective vis-à-vis the complainant.
In addition, the State party asserts that the prerequisites of Section 90 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act had also not been fulfilled.
The State party asserts that the authors waited three years and nine months after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights before submitting their complaint to the Committee.
In conclusion, the State party asserts that the Fisheries Settlement has not breached the rights of the authors, or of any other Maori, under the Covenant.
The State party asserts that the author waited more than two and a half years after the date of the Supreme Court judgement before submitting his complaint to the Committee.
For these reasons, the State party asserts that it is not in violation of article 7 for having removed Roger Judge to the United States without seeking assurances.
The State party asserts that the Constitutional Court also reviewed the evidence and the assessment of it made in the course of the appeal in cassation.
Regarding allegations regarding his right to social security and education,the State party asserts that the petitioner failed to exhaust domestic remedies, noting that he had a number of administrative and judicial avenues open to him, the most relevant of which would have been to bring a complaint under the Racial Discrimination Act(1975) to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission HREOC.
The State party asserts that domestic remedies are effective but the complainant has not made intelligent use of them.
The State party asserts that according to the author's complaint, the CEC did not decide on the refusal to register him as a candidate.
The State party asserts that the communication does not meet the minimum requirements for compatibility with article 22 of the Convention.
The State party asserts that the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have similar examination systems to Australia.
The State party asserts that the author waited more than six years after exhaustion of domestic remedies before submitting her complaint to the Committee.
The State party asserts that the author waited for five years after the date of the final decision of the Ministry of Finance before submitting his complaint to the Committee.
The State party asserts that Peruvian judges could have found the decree incompatible with the Constitution had they considered that it was not applicable to the author's son.
The State party asserts, without submitting details, that none of the author's allegations related to the conduct of the investigation or the trial are founded.