Примеры использования Working group finds на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In the light of its experience, the Working Group finds that.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group finds the above-mentioned allegations to be sufficiently well-founded for the following reasons.
Ii Provide recommendations to the Subcommission and other competent entities, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights,on further measures for the protection of minorities in cases where the working group finds a risk of the eruption or escalation of violence between different groups in society;
The Working Group finds that emergency preparedness is in general at an adequate level, in particular in the national context.
With regard to the third allegation, that the detention was indefinite and, given the length of the trial, too long to be consistent with the proper administration of justice(breach of article 9,paragraph 3, of the Covenant), the Working Group finds that, insofar as the indefinite length is concerned, none of the Covenant's provisions obligate States parties to fix a date by which the period of pretrial detention must end.
The Working Group finds that emergency preparedness and response is in general at an acceptable level, in particular at the national level.
At the international human rights level, the Working Group finds that article 9 of the UDHR and of the ICCPR have been violated and as mentioned above, the CRC has not been respected.
The Working Group finds that the procedure conducted against the accused, Mr. Ayub Masih, did not respect the fundamental rights of a person charged with a crime.
Under such circumstances the Working Group finds that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the detention of Mr. Khaled Kaddar is arbitrary or not.
The Working Group finds that the allegations of the source concerning the lack of procedural guarantees during the hearing of Mr. alShaghouri's case have been satisfactorily substantiated.
Moreover, the Working Group finds the argument of the Government that Mr. Jayasundaram was providing monetary and material support to the LTTE unsubstantiated.
More specifically, the Working Group finds that Saddam Hussein did not enjoy the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 14(1) of the Covenant.
The Working Group finds that such pervasive use of torture to extract evidence nullifies the possibility to fulfil the guarantee of the right to a fair trial.
Therefore, the Working Group finds that his detention also falls within Category II of the categories applicable to the consideration of the case submitted to the Working Group. .
The Working Group finds that the disregard of Mr. Omar's right to a fair trial in the present case is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character.
The Working Group finds the response of the Government that Mr. Alkhawaja will be tried in a civilian court unsatisfactory as no firm date for these proceedings have been announced.
The Working Group finds that there is a violation of the right to a fair trial, as well established in international law, especially under articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group finds that the breaches of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and to a fair trial in the present case are of such gravity that a fair trial was not possible.
The Working Group finds convincing the allegation of the source that the criminal proceedings initiated against Ms. Su Su Nway was motivated by her suing the local authorities for their forced labour practice.
The Working Group finds that the ongoing application of the criteria through a dialogue with the institutions responsible for the identified partnerships contributes to the improvement of the criteria and to promoting the implementation of the right to development.
The Working Group finds that Mr. El Hadj's detention was arbitrary because of the absence of a warrant, the lack of access to rapid judicial remedies to end his detention and the abuses to which he was subjected.
The Working Group finds that the lack of legal justification for the arrest and detention of the above-mentioned persons, together with the vagueness of the charges subsequently laid against them, renders the deprivation of liberty in the present case arbitrary.
The Working Group finds that, in the absence of sufficient information concerning Gajamohan, Moothuthamby Uthayakumar, Krisnapillai Pavalakeshan and Thambinakayam Sribalu, their cases should be provisionally filed in accordance with paragraph 17(d) of its methods of work; .
In the present case, the Working Group finds that Mr. Mvogo has been detained for over seven years, primarily due to the difficulties for the authorities in confirming his identity and the lack of cooperation by the consular representation of his country of origin.
When the Working Group finds in its Opinion that the detention of the concerned individual exclusively falls within category III as gravely violating the right to fair trial, the appropriate remedy might take different forms to that of the immediate release of the arbitrarily detained person.
Similarly, the Working Group finds that by placing the burden on the defendants to make a prima facie case of the veracity of their newspaper statements in court, their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty pursuant to articles 10 and 11, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 19 of the Constitution of Rwanda was violated.
The Working Group found the guidance to be a useful contribution to the reporting process.
The Working Group found the substance of the redrafted paragraph generally acceptable.
The Working Group found that suggestion to be generally acceptable.
The Working Group found the substance of the paragraph to be generally acceptable.