Примеры использования Substantiated for purposes на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Committee therefore finds that the claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
This claim has thus not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility and is inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The claim regarding article 14, paragraph 5, is therefore, insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
Where a claim is not substantiated for purposes of admissibility, the Human Rights Committee has held communications inadmissible under rule 90(b)" E/CN.6/1998/7, paragraph 20.
The Committee considers that the author's remaining claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
Люди также переводят
It, therefore, concludes that the claims are insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee further considered that the author's claim under article 9 of the Covenant had not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
Therefore, this part of the communication is not sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
Concerning the allegations relating to articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant,the Committee considers that they were adequately substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
In the circumstances, due weight was given to the author's allegations,to the extent that they had been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee therefore found that the author's claim was insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declared it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
This claim therefore is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol,as it has not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, sufficiently elaborating the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee.
The claim regarding article 14, paragraph 5, therefore,is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently elaborated the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee.
The claim regarding article 14, paragraph 5, therefore, is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that the author's remaining claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible, as raising issues under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Under these circumstances, the Committee considers the allegations of violations of articles 7 and10, paragraph 1, sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that these claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and therefore declares them admissible.
This claim falls within the scope of article 2, paragraph 1, read together with article 26, and is, in the Committee's view,sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that this part of the communication has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and decides to proceed to its examination on the merits.
As to the alleged violation of article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant, the Committee considers that,in view of the limited information provided, the author's allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that these allegations are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible.
As to the alleged violations of articles 19 and 21, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, the Committee considers that,in view of the limited information provided, the author's allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considers that the authors' claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible.
Regarding the author's complaints under articles 2(para. 3) and 7 of the Covenant,the Committee considers that they are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
Consequently, the Committee considers that the allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and therefore finds this part of the communication to be inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee considers that the author's remaining allegations raising issues under articles 6; 14, paragraph 1; 15, paragraph 1; and 26, of the Covenant,have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to their examination on the merits.
The Committee considers that the remainder of the author's claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to their examination on the merits.