Примеры использования To the author's claims на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Quebec filed its response to the author's claims on 13 August 2002.
These allegations have not been denied by the State party and therefore due weight must be given to the author's claims.
With respect to the author's claims under article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, the Committee notes that the second author was detained for two months on one occasion.
In the absence of any such information from the State party, due weight must be given to the author's claims, to the extent that they have been substantiated.
With regard to the author's claims under article 1, the Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence, and notes that such claims are not justiciable under the Optional Protocol.
Люди также переводят
In the circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file in this connection, the Committee considers that this part of the communication,in connection to the author's claims under articles 7 and 10, of the Covenant, is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and that it is therefore inadmissible under article 2, of the Optional Protocol.
With regard to the author's claims under article 17,the State party submits that his allegations are unclear, as he did not make any reference to any risk for his family if he was returned to China.
With regard to the author's claims that article 17, paragraph 1, has been violated, the Committee considers that the author did not raise this issue in domestic courts prior to submitting it to the Committee.
In these circumstances, due weight had to be given to the author's claims and the Committee concluded that the facts disclosed a violation of Mr. Zhuk's rights under articles 7 and 14(para. 3(g)) of the Covenant.
As to the author's claims under article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant concerning the presumption of innocence, the Committee observes that events occurring after the point that the author no longer faced a criminal charge, subsequent events fall outside the scope of article 14, paragraph 2.
With regard to the author's claims of violation of articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant, he submits that his detention and possible deportation constitute an arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy and family life.
With regard to the author's claims concerning the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts, the Committee notes that the author basically requests a review of the courts' judgements in his case.
With respect to the author's claims that he was persecuted by the State party for being a trade unionist,the Committee considers that those claims have been presented in a very general and insufficiently precise manner.
With regard to the author's claims under article 9, paragraph 1, the Committee notes the State party's argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to a potential breach of this provision.
With regard to the author's claims that his rights under article 14, paragraph 1 have been violated, the Committee observes that these allegations relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the State party's courts.
With respect to the author's claims under article 2,the Committee considers that the author's contentions in this regard do not raise issues additional to those considered under other articles invoked, which are considered below.
With regard to the author's claims under article 14,the Committee has noted the State party's contention that a constitutional action based on sections 7, 9 and 10(c) of the Charter was still pending in the Federal Court.
With regard to the author's claims that such a requirement is not based on objective and reasonable criteria, the Committee does not consider the allegations to have been satisfactorily substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.
With regard to the author's claims that his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, have been violated by the State party,the Committee observes that these allegations relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the State party's courts.
Accordingly, in respect to the author's claims regarding the police irregularities in gathering the evidence and the credibility of the evidence submitted, the communication is inadmissible under Article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
With respect to the author's claims regarding his conditions of detention in Ashgabat and in the Tecen and Bayramali prisons, the Committee notes the detailed description made by the author(see paras. 5.3 to 5.5 above), which has not been contested by the State party.
With regard to the author's claims of unequal treatment(article 26 of the Covenant), and freedom of expression(article 19 of the Covenant), the State party contends that the author has not advanced any relevant arguments to substantiate his claims. .
With regard to the author's claims in relation to article 14, paragraph 5, the State party points out that the rules governing appeals in cassation were subject to interpretation by the Constitutional Court in part on the basis of views previously issued by the Committee.
With regard to the author's claims under articles 17, 23, 24, and 26, the Committee considers that the author has not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, why the loss of parental rights, under the circumstances, would amount to violations of these Covenant provisions.
With regard to the author's claims that he is a victim of discrimination, the State party notes that the author states that the discriminatory remarks made by the judge were recorded on the audio tape of the hearing but deleted from the record.
In relation to the author's claims regarding the period commencing after the expiry of the three-month period covered by the interim order of 7 August 1997 up to the trial in May 2000,the Committee notes that the CCAS kept the child in its care.
With regard to the author's claims under articles 2, 7 and 9 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has not provided information sufficient to substantiate his allegations and accordingly declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
As to the author's claims under articles 13 and 2 concerning arbitrary expulsion, the State party recalls that the author was convicted of serious criminal offences, thereby breaching an important condition attached to his continued residence as an alien.