Примеры использования Party has not presented на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party has not presented any information in this connection.
Even if during the investigation his son confessed in the presence of a lawyer, his confessions were obtained while he was in custody,and the State party has not presented any evidence to show that his son was not subjected to coercion.
The State party has not presented comments on these allegations.
It established, first, that the same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement andnoted that the State party has not presented any objection in relation to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The State party has not presented any evaluation of the prevention programmes nor explained how they are articulated;
The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure, as required by article 5, paragraph 2(a),of the Optional Protocol, and that the State party has not presented any objection on the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
To date, that party has not presented evidence that more than half a million votes were stolen, as argued in the beginning.
The Committee notes that, despite numerous claims by the author that he was denied food, kept in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time and fed unknown pills and alcohol,the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that it has conducted an effective investigation into those specific allegations.
She notes that the State party has not presented any facts demonstrating the contrary and has not substantiated its arguments.
The Committee notes that, despite the medical certificate evidencing injuries on the body of the author's son, which was submitted by the defence lawyers during the cassation proceedings,the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that it had conducted any investigation into the ill-treatment allegations.
However, the State party has not presented any information to demonstrate that it conducted any investigation into these allegations.
The authors consider that the State party has not presented sufficient legal arguments to refute their detailed allegations.
When the State party has not presented a report, the Committee may, at its discretion, notify the State party of the date on which the Committee proposes to examine the measures taken by the State party to implement the rights guaranteed under the Covenant.
It further notes, however,that in the present case, the State party has not presented any information to refute the authors' allegations and to demonstrate that the alleged victims' trial did in fact not suffer from any such defects.
He first notes that the State party has not presented comments to the Committee's admissibility decision and has not provided information on the alleged violations of his rights under articles 19 and 21, of the Covenant and has not explained the reasons which could justify the limitations of his rights under these provisions.
The complainant submits that the State party has not presented information regarding the effectiveness of the refugee procedure for individuals seeking asylum from persecution by the law enforcement authorities of Uzbekistan.
The Committee took into account that the State party had not presented sufficiently substantiated arguments to challenge the validity of the complainant's evidence and his declarations.
However, in this case, the State party had not presented any information to refute the authors' allegations and to demonstrate that the alleged victims' trial had not in fact suffered from any such defects.
Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ commented that the State party had not presented a single report since 1984 and that the Committee was therefore fully entitled to call on the State party to comply with one of its fundamental obligations under the Convention.
The Committee noted that, despite the medical certificate evidencing injuries on the body of the author's son, which was submitted by the defence lawyers during the cassation proceedings,the State party had not presented any information to demonstrate that it had conducted any investigation into the ill-treatment allegations.
In the views on complaint 280/2005(Rgeig v. Switzerland),the Committee considered that the State party had not presented sufficiently convincing arguments to demonstrate the absence of any risk that the complainant would be exposed to torture if he were to be returned to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
The State party, however, has not presented any explanation on this issue.
The State party argues that the author has not presented any reasonable justification for this delay and therefore the communication should be declared inadmissible.
The State party argues that the author has not presented any reasonable justification for the delay and therefore considers that the communication should be declared inadmissible by the Committee.
The State party notes that the complainant has not presented a medical certificate regarding the kidney problems he claims he continues to suffer from after his arrival in Sweden.
The State party argues that the author has not presented any reasonable justification for this delay, and therefore considers that the communication should be declared inadmissible by the Committee.
The State party argues that the author has not presented any reasonable justification for this delay and therefore the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Concerning the allegations relating to the"practice of torture" and the"impunity of the perpetrators of torture",the State party considers that the complainant has not presented any evidence to support his claims.
The State party submits further that the author has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that any reasonable observer would reasonably doubt the partiality of Justice Anderson, given the presumption that a judge is able to bring an unprejudiced mind to each case.
It observes that the State party has not contested the facts as presented by the complainant, which took place more than seven years ago, and observes that the medical report prepared after the examination of the complainant and pursuant to an order of the Novi Sad District Court Judge, has not been integrated into the complaint file and could not be consulted by the complainant or his counsel.