Примеры использования Party has failed to provide на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party has failed to provide the Committee with any such information.
By letter of 26 April 2007, the authors responded to the State party's submissions,arguing that the State party has failed to provide an effective remedy under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
Please explain why the State party has failed to provide any information on the implementation of article 9 of the Covenant in Portugal.
On 20 September 2012, the author's counsel provided comments to the State party observations of 13 August 2012, andnotes that the State party has failed to provide the author with an effective and enforceable remedy, as requested by the Committee.
In this case, the State party has failed to provide an explanation for the theory that the victim was in fact killed by the LTTE.
It seems to us that a vague value judgement that a child might be better off if some action were avoided does not provide sufficient grounds to substantiate a claim that a State party has failed to provide that child with the necessary measures of protection required under article 24.
The author argues that the State party has failed to provide an effective remedy, as required by article 2.
The State party has failed to provide real justifications, either in the Jasvir Singh case before the European Court or in the current case.
With respect to the allegations of a violation of the right of the victim to liberty and security of person and that her son was arrested without a warrant,the Committee regrets that the State party has failed to provide an explicit response to this claim, merely asserting in general terms that Mr. Gómez Casafranca was arrested in accordance with Peruvian law.
In the present case, the State party has failed to provide any justification for the conditions described in Ms. Teillier's submission.
It expresses its concern at the delays with which rulings of international and regional court and views of the treaty bodies on individual communications are implemented and, in particular,at the fact that the State party has failed to provide comprehensive reparations and individual compensation as recommended by the Committee in L.C. v. Peru(CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009) and by the Human Rights Committee in K.L. v. Peru CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003.
The author states that the State party has failed to provide and exercise appropriate regulatory and investigatory mechanisms over the judiciary and the legal profession.
With regard to article 2, paragraph 3,the author recalls that the State party has failed to provide effective remedies for miscarriages of justice generally, including those that fall within the terms of article 14, paragraph 6.
According to them,, the State party has failed to provide detailed answers on the merits of the communication, nor has it addressed the claim on article 9(lack of judicial control over arrest/pretrial detention); this was due to the lack of such judicial supervision within the State party's legal order.
The Committee considers that at the heart of the present communication lies the author's allegation that the State party has failed to provide her with effective protection against domestic violence, in violation of article 2(c) and(e)-(g), read in conjunction with article 1, and articles 5(a) and 16 of the Convention.
Moreover, the State party has failed to provide sufficient evidence to conclude that an effective remedy is de facto available, given that Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 continues to be applied despite the Committee's recommendations that it should be brought into line with the Covenant CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13.
Counsel considers that the State party has failed to provide any valid legal argument for not paying compensation.
They claim that the State party has failed to provide them with the full amount of the pension benefits they consider they are entitled to under law as they did not receive the maximum pension.
It finds it regrettable that the State party has failed to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or substance of the author's claims.
She further claims that the State party has failed to provide effective remedies and protection for her and her son from her former husband, Mr. M. A., and has passively neglected its positive obligations under international law.
He claims that in respectof articles 17 and 23, the State party has failed to provide for clear legislative recognition of the protection of privacy, family and home life of persons in the author's position.
He claims that the State party has failed to provide any particulars as to the nature of the investigations conducted nor has it disclosed either to the Committee or to the author the results of the investigation.
With regard to the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies,the author asserts that the State party has failed to provide any reasonable justification for the prolongation of the amparo proceedings owing to the delay in ruling on her appeal against the Central Committee's decision to deny her free legal assistance.
The Committee notes that the State party has failed to provide any statistical information that would allow the empirical assessment of effective access to private and public employment, public services, and political participation, on the part of persons belonging to racial, ethnic or national minorities, as well as members of different religious communities.
First, he argues that the State party has failed to provide for an effective remedy for the breaches of substantive rights detailed in this case.
The Committee notes that the State party has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation concerning the author's claim to have had no news of her son since 7 May 1997, and it appears not to have conducted a thorough investigation into the fate of the son or provided the author with any effective remedy.
The author submits that the State party has failed to provide him with an"effective remedy", since the delay in having his case adjudicated would be at least three years.
The Committee regrets that the State party has failed to provide information on the circumstances of Mr. Morrison's death, as requested by the Committee in its decision on admissibility.
The author concludes that the State party has failed to provide such evidence in relation to the right to be promptly brought before a judge pursuant to article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
The Committee regrets that the State party has failed to provide details of Decree No. 2008/0738/PM of 23 April 2008 on land management procedures and requirements, or information on access to remedies for the persons concerned art. 11.