Examples of using Does not in itself constitute in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The mere fact that he is a Tamil does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to establish such a risk.
A preliminary investigation- such as the one conducted by the DOJ- does not in itself constitute a trial.
Delay in submitting a communication does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The presence of racism is an aggravating factorwhen accompanying the commission of an actionable crime but does not in itself constitute a crime.
Such support of different political factions in Somalia does not in itself constitute a violation of Security Council resolutions.
It should also be emphasized that although the concept covers numerous existing international law obligations,it remains a political concept and does not in itself constitute a new norm.
It stated that adequate medical care was available in Azerbaijan and that financial problems in obtaining medical care ora lower standard of medical care provided in Azerbaijan than in Sweden does not in itself constitute grounds for a residence permit.
The State partyalso maintains that the risk of being detained does not in itself constitute a substantial ground to believe that the complainant risks being exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.
Even if the claim was substantiated, solitary confinement does not in itself constitute torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and must still meet the definition in article 1 of the Convention.
The State party alsoconsiders that the failure to correct the death certificate does not in itself constitute a violation of the right to life.
As for military withdrawal from part of the occupied territory, it does not in itself constitute the end of the occupation if the occupying Power maintains security control by other means, particularly by encirclement or by military control of the air space.
The fact that a State party that is a federal union permits differences among thefederal units in respect of jury trial does not in itself constitute a violation of article 26.
The existence of a consistent pattern of gross,flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for concluding that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his return to that country.
The Committee recalled that the Optional Protocol establishes no time limit for the submission of communications and that the passage of time,other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
For the State party,the fact that the complainant was a lawyer and a member of DUP does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for assuming that if he were returned to the Sudan, he would be in danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee reiterates that the Optional Protocol establishes no time limit for the submission of communications and that the passage of time,other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
The State party points out that a consistent pattern of flagrant ormassive violations of human rights in a country does not in itself 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.
The Committee reiterates that the Optional Protocol does not establish any deadline for submitting communications, and thatthe period of time that elapses before doing so, other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
It recalls that the Committee's case law has established that adisturbing situation of human rights in a country does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for believing that the author of the communication would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture.
The Committee reiterates that the Optional Protocol does not establish any deadline for the submission of communications, and that the period of time elapsing before doing so,other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
It follows that the existence in a country of a consistent pattern of gross,flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his or her return to that country.
The Committee reiterates that the Optional Protocol does not establish any deadline for the submission of communications, and that the period of time elapsing before doing so,other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
That the author appealed the committal order to the criminal court butabandoned his appeal in the end does not in itself constitute a valid argument for justifying the excessive length of the proceedings.
The Committee reiterates that the Optional Protocol does not establish any deadline for the submission of communications, and thatthe period of time elapsing before doing so, other than in exceptional cases, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication.
Moreover, the Eastern High Court, in a decision of 5 February 1999,held that an incident of racial discrimination does not in itself constitute a violation of the honour and reputation of a person, within the meaning of section 26 of the Act on Civil Liability.
As to the possibility of instituting civil proceedings under section 26 of the Torts Act, the Committee notes the petitioner ' s argument that the Eastern High Court of Denmark, in a previous judgment,held that an incident of racial discrimination does not in itself constitute a violation of the honour and reputation of a person.
The fact that a State party that is a federal union permits differences among thefederal units in respect of jury trial does not in itself constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The fact that a State party that is a federal union permits differences among thefederal units in respect of jury trials does not in itself constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.