Примеры использования Party has failed to comply на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Committee finds accordingly that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 9, paragraph 2(b), of the Convention.
This approach should not preclude a finding, where the information available warrants such a conclusion, that a State party has failed to comply with its obligations under the Covenant.
The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 29, read alone and in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention.
It further concludes that as the author was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power,the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 9, paragraph 3.
The petitioners argue that the State party has failed to comply with the principles of the Convention as a whole because it provides for more extensive protection for victims of defamation than for victims of racial discrimination.
By failing to conduct an ex-officio investigation into the disappearance of their fathers, the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life.
The Committee is seriously concerned that the State party has failed to comply with the recommendations issued in 2002(CRC/C/15/Add.195, paras. 62 and 63) regarding the practices of arrest and interrogation of children in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that, by depriving the authors of their right to vote, based on a perceived or actual intellectual disability,the State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 29 of the Convention, read alone and in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation, under article 12 of the Convention,to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.
Recalls that the State party, upon ratifying the Optional Protocol, undertook to cooperate with the Committee under the procedure, andemphasizes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations, both under the Optional Protocol and under the Covenant;
In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation, under article 12 of the Convention, to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.
Recalls that the State party, upon ratifying the Optional Protocol, undertook to cooperate with the Committee under the procedure, andemphasizes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations, both under the Optional Protocol and under the Covenant;"3.
The authors maintain that the State party has failed to comply with its obligations(a) to provide them with an effective remedy for the violations they suffered, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 3(a) and(b), of the Covenant, and(b) to guarantee the impartiality of justice as required under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The committee should also have the competence to decide whether it finds that a Party has failed to comply with the Convention, and to make recommendations on how to resolve the matter amicably.
In these circumstances and in light of the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture or to ensure the complainant's right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.
As the Committee has stated on other occasions,an absence of comment by the State party is tantamount to a lack of cooperation insofar as the State party has failed to comply with its obligation under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by the State.
In the lightof the above findings, and based on the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of torture and to take steps to ensure that he and his family, as the main witnesses, were protected from intimidation as a consequence of their complaints and testimonies given during the investigation, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.
Mr. PILLAI said that the State party had failed to comply with its reporting obligations under several international instruments to which it was a party; question 3 of the list of issues was therefore particularly relevant.
In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation, under article 12 of the Convention,to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation.
Concern was again expressed that three States Parties have failed to comply with the four-year deadline to destroy or ensure the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines owned, possessed or under their jurisdiction or control.
The Committee noted that the following States parties had failed to comply for more than five years with their obligation to submit their initial reports: Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Estonia, Guinea, Guyana, Latvia, Somalia, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela and Yemen.
It also found that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the complainant's allegations of torture, and with its obligation to ensure the complainant's right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.
The Committee recalled that an investigation in itself was not sufficient to demonstrate the State party's conformity with its obligations under article 12 of the Convention if it can be shown not to have been conducted impartially, promptly and effectively, andconcluded that the State party had failed to comply with its obligations under that article.
Two new sentences would be inserted accordingly,after the second sentence to read:“The Committee noted that the following States parties had failed to comply for more than five years with their obligation to submit their initial reports: Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Estonia, Guinea, Guyana, Latvia, Somalia, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela and Yemen.
These included the extent to which groups may lodge communications on behalf of women or groups of women suffering violations of their rights under the Convention orwhere States parties have failed to comply with Convention obligations and whether reservations to the optional protocol will be permitted.
States Parties again expressed concern that three States Parties have failed to comply with the four-year deadline to destroy or ensure the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines owned, possessed or under their jurisdiction or control, encouraged the early completion of stockpile destruction programmes and recalled that the Cartagena Action Plan provides guidelines for getting back into the status of compliance.
They further argued that the State party had failed to comply with the principle that pregnant women must be protected against health risks and loss of income.
As regards the scope, content and style of the synthesis report, the Committee advised that, while the report would need to describe problems with implementation,it should address non-compliance only if a Party had failed to comply with the reporting requirements themselves or if a Party had provided information conceding that it was not in compliance.
In the first test of the Convention's compliance mechanism,the Meeting also considered and upheld the findings of the Compliance Committee that three country Parties had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention.
States Parties continued to express concern that four States Parties have failed to comply with the four-year deadline to destroy or ensure the destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines owned, possessed or under their jurisdiction or control, encouraged the early completion of stockpile destruction programmes and recalled that the Cartagena Action Plan provides guidelines for getting back into the status of compliance.