Примеры использования Party violated article на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author claims that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant.
The State party violated article 7 of the Covenant by virtue of subjecting Mr. Al-Maqrif and Mr. Matar to enforced disappearance.
The author claims that the State party violated article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The author also claims that by subjecting his brother to enforced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment while in custody,the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant.
In this respect, the State party violated article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Thus, since there was no possibility of appealing against the first instance judgement,the State party violated article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
It considered that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in the author's case.
In her comments of 11 June 2004,counsel maintains that the State party violated article 3 of the Convention.
The author claims that the State party violated article 9 of the Covenant by arbitrarily detaining him on 23 May 1999.
Nothing in the author's allegations or in the information before the Committee substantiates for purposes of admissibility,the author's claim that in refusing his motion for reopening the appeal the State party violated articles 2, 3, 7 or 14 of the Covenant.
The author has also alleged that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant.
Counsel claims that by granting the Spanish extradition request, which exclusively relied on Felipe San Epifanio's testimony, extracted by torture, and on the evidence found on the basis of this testimony in the apartment at Padilla Street,the State party violated article 15 of the Convention.
The complainant also considers that the State party violated article 14 of the Convention against Torture.
With respect to the allegation that the State party violated articles 4 and 6 of the Convention by failing to order the Prosecutor to prosecute the employer, the State party argues that the obligation arising from article 4 of the Convention was met by incorporating in the Penal Code articles 137c to e and articles 429 ter and quarter and penalizing any of the actions referred to in these provisions.
He claims that,given the circumstances, the State party violated articles 2, 7, 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
She claims that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant, as her husband was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The author complains, without further provision of detail,that the State party violated articles 7, 9, 10 and 17 of the Covenant.
The author claims that the State party violated article 12 of the Covenant in denying him a passport and preventing him from leaving Brazil.
The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,considers that the State party violated articles 1, 2, paragraph 1, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
The complainant alleges that the State party violated article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention.
It follows that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant as a result of the treatment suffered by the author at Bromma airport.
On the merits, the Committee must determine whether the State party violated article 5, paragraph 2, and article 7 of the Convention.
Counsel reiterates that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 3(d), because it appointed incompetent legal aid counsel to assist the author.
The author further alleges that the State party violated article 14, and points to a number of circumstances which he claims, as a matter of evidence, point clearly to the author's innocence.
The author has claimed that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant, as her husband was held naked and without provision of elementary personal hygiene items for several days.
The authors point out that the State party violated article 26 of the Covenant, protecting the right to equality before the law and to freedom from discrimination based on political opinions.
The author contends that the State party violated article 26 of the Covenant, as the exclusion of women from jury service, in fact, means that their equality before the law is not guaranteed.
The author maintains that the State party violated article 26 because it did not provide equal and effective protection against the discrimination he suffered as a result of his diagnosis.
The author alleges that the State party violated article 2 of the Covenant because it did not honour its undertaking to ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant without distinction of any kind.
The author considers that the State party violated article 15 of the Covenant by misinterpreting the Act of 17 July 1992 on the cessation of the application of the Customs Code within Community territory.