Примеры использования Party contended на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party contended that EPRP's Norwegian section had only limited knowledge of the complainant's case.
Against this background and considering that the Committee's jurisprudence had accepted that a communication can be time-barred,the State party contended that there was a risk of undermining respect for the European Court and its decisions if the communication is proceeded with.
The State party contended that it was for the local courts to decide on Mr. Simpson's parole eligibility.
With regard to the authors' complaint concerning article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant,the State party contended that the authors had not demonstrated that there had been a leak of information attributable to the court that had tried them or that, had there been such a leak, it would have affected the impartiality of the court.
The State party contended that all investigation acts in respect to Mr. Lyashkevich were conducted in the presence of a lawyer.
On 13 and 31 May 2003, the State party contended that the communication was inadmissible since it constituted an abuse of the right of appeal and was manifestly groundless.
The State party contended that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies on that count, and the author did not contest this.
By note verbale of 20 October 2010, the State party contended that it finds the Committee's conclusions of a violation of the author's rights under articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3(b),(d),(e), and(g), of the Covenant, groundless.
The State party contended that the communication should be declared inadmissible with regard to the wife because she had not herself exhausted domestic remedies.
Secondly, the State party contended that a similar case had been filed with the European Court of Human Rights.
The State party contended that the policemen tried to act in accordance with the standards governing the intervention against a large number of people and endeavoured to apply force discriminately.
Alternatively, the State party contended that, should the Committee admit the communication, it was without foundation for the reasons given.
The State party contended that because abuses affected only a small geographic area and took place in a relatively short period, they did not constitute systematic violations of human rights.
By note dated 29 March 1999, the State party contended that on 5 February 1993, a criminal investigation had been commenced into the author's suspected involvement in largescale fraud, and that, under Russian law, this was considered a serious offence.
The State party contended, in 2005, that the executions of the victims in fact took place prior to the registration of the cases and the formulation of the Committee's requests under rule 92 of its rules of procedures, without however providing exact dates of the execution.
Therefore, the State party contended that this part of the communication was not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.
The State party contended that Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure entitles the author to apply for a declaratory judgement that Bill No. 178 is invalid, and that this option is open to him regardless of whether criminal charges have been instituted against him or not.
In a submission dated 9 November 1998, the State party contended that the complaint was inadmissible because the case had been conducted according to the national legislation in force and because all available legal remedies had not been exhausted.
Subsidiarily, the State party contended that if the Committee were to hold that article 2 was not accessory in nature, it remained the case that the author did not provide prima facie evidence that the above bodies engaged in acts or practices of racial discrimination against him.
In its submissions under rule 91 of the rules of procedure,the State party contended that the communication was inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author had failed to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, pursuant to section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution.
Whilst the State party contended that the alleged victims failed to apply for supervisory review in respect of certain decisions, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence and its general comment No. 32, according to which supervisory review does not constitute an effective remedy, for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 b.
It also notes the information provided in the further submission whereby the State party contended that at the interview with the author, carried out by the Ministry, he had been unable to provide sufficient information on the names of the persons who had beaten him and those names that he had provided were of persons who either no longer worked in the prison or had retired.
The State party contended that the author was convicted for the killing of his exwife on the basis of the testimony of his ex-mother-in-law and other witnesses, the opinions of commissions of experts in forensic medicine and forensic biology, the data contained in the records of an on-site inspection and a reconstruction of the crime, and other facts duly studied by the court.
At the admissibility stage, the State party contended that the Compensation relating to Torture Act 1996, which provided for a maximum compensation of 100,000 Nepalese rupees, offered a legal remedy in cases of torture and claimed that the author had not availed himself of this mechanism.
On 14 April 2004, the State party contended that the question before the Committee was whether the refoulement of the complainant to another State violated France's obligations under the Convention; in other words whether, when the French authorities decided to enforce the deportation order they could reasonably think, in the light of the information available to them, that Mr. Brada would be exposed to substantial danger if sent home.
In its submission, dated 18 April 1989, the State party contended that the communication was inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since at the time of the submission it was still open to the author to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On 1 July 1992, a further submission from author's counsel with fresh allegations was transmitted to the State party, providing it with the opportunity to comment on the admissibility of these new claims.
The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis.
The State party contends that the author is misleading the Committee concerning the existing legislation.
In this respect, the State party contends that the author has failed to substantiate his claim.
The State party contends that the author had effective representation.