Примеры использования Would be personally на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The complainant himself did not have the profile of someone who would be personally at risk in Iraq.
The complainant needs to show that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention.
Additional grounds must exist to show that the individual would be personally at risk.
On 24 October 2013, Clive Barker posted on his official Facebook page that he would be personally writing the remake of the original Hellraiser and that he had already completed a deal with Dimension Films' Bob Weinstein.
Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the complainant would be personally at risk.
Select a group of journalists(between 4 and 20) that would be personally interested in travelling and writing about the destination.
There must be other grounds indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist,showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist,showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to India.
While it considered that the situation in Sri Lanka was no doubt alarming and while there may be massive violations of human rights in that country, the Court considered that the author had not succeeded, as recognized by the PRRA officer,in showing that he would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to China.
It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey.
It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;additional grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Uzbekistan.
It submits that the inconsistencies undermining the credibility of his claim, the lack of evidence that he has been tortured in the past, and his low personal profile as a member of the Republican Guards lead to the conclusion that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk if he returned to Iraq.
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant's brother would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture on return to Uzbekistan.
Hence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country;additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
According to the State party, the facts as presented by the author in any event fail to show the existence of grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Sri Lanka.
It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Board's conclusion was based on its findings that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant,upon return to Ethiopia, would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture or other forms of illtreatment.
It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
There must be other grounds indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
The Committee reiterates that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country;additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
In December 2005, speaking at a meeting with the heads of the subjects of the Russian Federation within the Ural Federal District,Beglov said that the governors would be personally responsible for the implementation of priority projects.
It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.
After outlining the legal framework of the complainant's application, the State party submits that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence that she would be personally at risk of torture if deported to China.