Примеры использования Party has argued на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party has argued that article 2, paragraph 3, could not be invoked independently.
As regards the author's claim that he was discriminated against because he was not transferred to an open prison at the same time as his co-accused,the Committee notes that the State party has argued, and the author has not denied, that it would have been open to the author to seek judicial review of this decision.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
While at the time of the author's case before the domestic courts there was no provision in the law setting time limits forthe submission of documents, the State party has argued that under the domestic law of administrative procedure no documents could be submitted in proceedings unless the other party would be afforded an opportunity to take note of them within reasonable time.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The Committee notes that the State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The State party has argued that the conditions of alternative service differ from the conditions of military service see paragraph 8.8 of the Committee's Views.
In addition, the State party has argued that any court decisions against the authors could be appealed in the Court of Cassation.
The State party has argued that the complainant was recognized as a refugee in Côte d'Ivoire because of the general situation in the Congo.
In the communication at bar, the author has notmade such a showing, and the State party has argued that the Extradition Treaty with the United States is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and that it complies with the requirements of the Model Treaty on Extradition produced at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana in 1990.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible, inter alia, for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies.
The State party has argued that the restrictions to which the author is subjected are necessary for reasons of national security.
The State party has argued that the distinction made in the relevant legal provisions relates to different categories of civil servants.
The State party has argued that no meaningful investigation could be carried out, since the warders concerned no longer worked in the prison.
The State party has argued that the delay was due"to the complexities of the case" but has provided no information showing the nature of the alleged complexities.
The State party has argued that it may be used in the interests of justice and that it was used in the present case to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The State party has argued that legislation does not violate article 26 of the Covenant if the grounds of distinction contained therein are justifiable on objective and reasonable grounds.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for noexhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author's appeal to the Constitutional Court was defective.
The State party has argued and the author has not contested that a petition before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or subsequently the Board of Inquiry, could have resulted in his reinstatement in the public school system.
The State party has argued that the author's conviction was justified"by the necessity of securing respect for the judgement of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, and through it the memory of the survivors and the descendants of the victims of Nazism.
The State party has argued that article 23, paragraphs 1 and 4, do not apply to the case, as the author's unstable relationship with Ms. Montalvo cannot be subsumed under the term"family", and no marital ties between the author and Ms. Montalvo ever existed.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, while the author's counsel has contended that the post-determination review and the humanitarian and compassionate review are devoid of substance.
The State party has argued- quite properly- that the public interest demands that restrictions be imposed on the freedom of individuals to engage in commercial fishing in order to prevent over-fishing, as many other State parties to the Covenant have done.
The State party has argued that the author did not appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of 24 August 2004 through the supervisory review procedure, which renders the communication inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, for failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies.
The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible, inter alia, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author is claiming a violation of article 26 of the Covenant with respect to Act No. 87/1991 on Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation, without there having been any claim made in this regard before the domestic courts.
The State party has argued that there were doubts about the author's age, that it was not certain that he was a minor until the Court's judgement following the medical examination of 4 June 1997, and that in any event article 26 of the Aliens Act does not preclude the detention of minors.
The State party has argued that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may hear a petition for special leave to appeal even in the absence of a written judgement of the Court of Appeal; it bases itself on its interpretation of Rule 4 juncto Rule 1 of the Privy Council's Rules of Procedure.
The State party has argued that its legislature concluded there were particular difficulties in enforcing immigration laws against unsuccessful applicants in a national community that chose to avoid such measures as national identity cards or official registration for access to social services and employment.
Firstly and most importantly,the State party has argued that the offence of which he was convicted in Australia does not carry the death penalty under Iranian criminal law; the maximum prison sentence for trafficking the amount of cannabis the author was convicted of in Australia would be five years, i.e. less than in Australia.
The Committee notes that the State party has argued, with reference to article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, that Mr. Yuzepchuk was sentenced to death for having committed serious crimes following the judgement handed down by the courts, in accordance with the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Belarus, and that the imposition of the death penalty was not contrary to the Covenant.