Examples of using A reply dated in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Political
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
In a reply dated 25 March 1997, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication.
The Monitoring Group sent a letter to the Government ofItaly concerning the shipments detailed above and received a reply dated 6 March 2006.
In a reply dated 9 December 1996, the State party challenges the admissibility of the complaint.
The Chairman informed the Permanent Representative of Switzerland in a reply dated 3 December 2004 that the Committee had discussed the request, had it under consideration and would welcome additional justification and relevant information in support of the request.
A reply dated 15 August 2002 was received from Israel, covering various aspects of resolutions 56/52 to 56/58.
The Government of Uzbekistan sent a reply dated 8 August 2005 regarding the four urgent action cases of the men who had reportedly disappeared on 9 June.
A reply dated 21 July 2014 was received from Israel responding to the requests contained in paragraphs 15 to 19 of resolution 68/78.
The Committee received a reply dated 5 June 2007 from the Sudan, which was discussed in informal consultations on 19 June, and to which the Chairman responded in a letter dated 1 August 2007.
A reply dated 12 July 2004 was received from Israel, covering various aspects of resolutions 58/91 to 58/95. The text reads as follows.
The Chairman of the Committee sent a reply dated 7 March 2008, in which he recalled the Guidelines of the Committee, particularly the procedures for submission of identifying information concerning individuals proposed for designation.
A reply dated 25 June 2014 was received from Mexico, responding to the requests contained in paragraph 4 of resolution 68/77 and paragraph 25 of resolution 68/78.
On 4 April 2008, the author received a reply dated 31 March 2008 from the Deputy Regional Prosecutor of Brest, which stated that article 9 of the Covenant did not establish a specific time limit for bringing a detained person before a judge.
A reply dated 11 June 2014 was received from the Russian Federation, responding to the requests contained in paragraph 4 of resolution 68/77 and paragraph 23 of resolution 68/78.
On 12 November 2007, she received a reply dated 5 November 2007 from the acting Leninsky District Prosecutor of Brest, stating that there was no violation of law and that the decisions concerning her detention were taken in conformity with the State party ' s law in force.
In a reply dated 8 November 1994, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that" in the case of Dr. Erceg one could in no way refer to discrimination on ethnic grounds".
On 2 November 2007, the author received a reply dated 26 October 2007(see para. 2.6 above) from the Presidential Administration, stating that there were no grounds to refer a request to assess the constitutionality of the federal law on the election of deputies of the State Duma to the Constitutional Court.
In a reply dated 18 May 2012, H.E. Mr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Ambassador and Resident Representative to the IAEA, informed the Director General of Iran ' s affirmative response regarding the visit.
I have received a reply dated 30 June 2009 indicating that the Russian Federation" accepts[s] the proposal that a replacement judge would commence his or her service within the next two months".
A reply dated 3 July 2013 was received from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, responding to the request contained in paragraph 5 of resolution 67/115 and paragraph 6 of resolution 67/117.
A reply dated 15 June 1993 was received from Israel, covering various aspects of resolutions 47/69 A to K. In the portion of the reply relating to resolution 47/69 H, the text read as follows.
In a reply dated 6 June 2000, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Nizar Nayouf was receiving appropriate medical care and that he had been transferred to a hospital where he was under medical surveillance.
In a reply dated 5 November 1997, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Mohamed Farhank Amin was thought to have suffered his injury as a result of falling in the street when attempting to flee.
In a reply dated 15 April 1997, the Government strongly denied that Sayyid Jalal Sayyid'Alawi Sharaf had been mistreated, and assured the Special Rapporteur that the detainee had access to proper care as well as visitation rights.
In a reply dated 21 January 2000, the Government of Tunisia informed the Special Rapporteur that Khemaïs Ksila had not been subjected to police surveillance since his release and that no accident involving an administrative vehicle was recorded on 14 December 1999.
In a reply dated 27 March 2009, the Special Representative stated that INTERPOL had compared the lists of designated individuals and entities against INTERPOL databases and had determined that it did have information on six individuals and four entities.
A reply dated 17 January 2008 from the secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol indicated that the letter would be submitted to the Executive Committee for consideration at its fifty-fourth meeting(711 April 2008).
In a reply dated 28 November 1995 the Government stated that it categorically denied that torture was systematically used by police to obtain confessions from persons under arrest, persons in police custody or persons facing criminal charges.
In a reply dated 27 March 2000, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Jamal Amer was sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 rials as a public disciplinary measure and was prohibited from practising the profession of journalism as an additional penalty which was not a lifelong penalty.
In a reply dated 24 October 2006, the Government stated that it would not be possible to schedule a visit for the Working Group during the requested period owing to the planned visits of other special procedure mandate holders, but that the interest of the Working Group would be noted and given due consideration.
In a reply dated 1 November 1996, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that seven of the persons from whom the Special Rapporteur had received information had never in fact been detained nor had they been involved in law-breaking situations. The police and other law-enforcement officials had no criminal record of them whatsoever.