Примеры использования Party has not denied на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Furthermore, the State party has not denied that the complainant cooperated with the Canadian Intelligence and Security Service in 2003.
With respect to the ill-treatment during pre-trial detention the Committee notes that the State party has not denied the ill-treatment but has simply stated that the author received medical attention.
In addition, the State party has not denied that the disappearance and subsequent death of the author's brother was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces.
With regard to the author's claim in respect of the disappearance of his son,the Committee notes that the State party has not denied that the author's son was abducted by an officer of the Sri Lankan Army on 23 June 1990 and has remained unaccounted for since then.
Bearing in mind that the State party has not denied this fact, and since, in the Committee's opinion, the complaint is sufficiently substantiated… the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 of the Covenant in respect of the seven victims" annex VI, sect. C, para. 9.4.
The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and notes that, despite the fact that A. K. did not contest his conviction on appeal and that A. R. accepted partial guilt on appeal,the State party has not denied that domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case.
The author has claimed, and the State party has not denied, that he continues to suffer restrictions on his freedom of movement, and that the authorities have refused to issue a passport to him.
Taking into account the circumstances of the disappearance of the four victims and that the State party has not denied that they were subjected to treatment incompatible with that article, the Committee concludes that the four victims were the object of a clear violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
Bearing in mind that the State party has not denied this fact, and since, in the Committee's opinion, the complaint is sufficiently substantiated by the documents mentioned in paragraph 9.3, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 of the Covenant in respect of the seven victims.
Taking into account the circumstances of the disappearance of the four victims and that the State party has not denied that they were subjected to treatment incompatible with that article, the Committee concludes that the four victims were the object of a clear violation of article 7 of the Covenant" annex VI, sect. C, para. 9.5.
The State party has not denied that, of the seven victims, including a minor, six were illegally detained, tortured, disappeared and subsequently executed, or that another was disappeared, by members of anti-guerrilla battalion No. 17("Motilones"), attached to the Second Mobile Brigade of the Colombian National Army.
The author has claimed, and the State party has not denied, that he continues to suffer restrictions on his freedom of movement, and that the Zambian authorities have denied him his passport.
First, the State party has not denied the veracity of the author's claims that his family was particularly targeted in the past by the Hawiye clan, as a result of which his father and brother were executed, his sister raped and the rest of the family was forced to flee and constantly move from one part of the country to another in order to hide.
The author has claimed, and the State party has not denied, that his passport was confiscated on two occasions in March 1986, and that he was denied the right to leave his country of his own free will.
The Committee observes that the State party has not denied that Rafael Mojica(a) has in fact disappeared and remains unaccounted for since the evening of 5 May 1990, and(b) that his disappearance was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces.
The Committee points out that the State party has not denied that the complainant was tortured, allowing criminal proceedings to be brought against the Civil Guards who injured the complainant and accepting that the treatment suffered by the complainant was described during the trial as torture, and that three people were in principle found guilty.
The State Party had not denied its existence.
In addition, the State party had not denied that the disappearance and subsequent death of the author's brother was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces.
Similarly here, according to the authors,the State party had not denied that its failure to implement a comprehensive ban on age discrimination violated the Covenant.
The Committee then noted that the State party had not denied that Rafael Mojica had in fact disappeared and remained unaccounted for since 5 May 1990, and that his disappearance was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces.
In case No. 321/1988(Maurice Thomas v. Jamaica),the author had alleged, and the State party had not denied, that, while detained in the death row section of the prison, he was assaulted by soldiers and warders.
The author notes that the State party has not addressed the complaint that the Constitutional Court denied her a hearing concerning the constitutionality of Law No. 143/1947 by declaring her complaint inadmissible.
The Committee notes that the State party has not addressed the allegation of the author that she was denied access to documents which were crucial for the correct decision of her case.
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 not directly denied that he was imprisoned and subjected to violence at the hands of the Turkish authorities.
It had emerged clearly from the State party's report andother information which the Cambodian delegation had not denied that there was interference from the Executive in matters of justice.
As regards the 23 months delay between arrest and trial,counsel notes that the State party has denied that the delay was unreasonable but has not offered to investigate the reasons for it.
With regard to an alleged violation of article 16 of the Covenant,the Committee finds that the facts before it do not sustain a finding that the State party has denied Ximena Vicario recognition as a person before the law.
The author points out that the State party does not deny that his rights under the Covenant have been violated; however it has not taken any steps in order to implement the Committee's Views.
According to the State party, the author has not established that justice was denied in the case in question, since his conviction is based on his testimony and the Court's assessment of it.