Examples of using Draft minimum rules in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Content of the draft minimum rules for the.
Convening an expert group to review the draft minimum rules.
In addition, the text of the draft minimum rules required further refinement.
Summary of the positions of Member States regarding the draft minimum rules.
Member Statea Promulgating the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice.
Cuba made various substantive remarks andsuggestions regarding specific elements of the draft minimum rules.
Specific content of the draft minimum rules for.
To note the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice, E/CN.15/1994/11.
Japan could not support the idea of convening an expert group to review the draft minimum rules.
According to Japan, the draft minimum rules contained many questionable and/or ambiguous provisions.
Specific areas in which an expert group,should it be convened, should consider making changes to the draft minimum rules.
To note the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice,* For the discussion, see chap. IV. E/CN.15/1994/11.
Tunisia reported that criminal procedure under Tunisian law was in line with the general principles set out in the draft minimum rules.
Austria was of the opinion that the draft minimum rules seemed highly developed but, in their present form, not yet ready for adoption.
It contains information received from States regarding the advisability andspecific content of the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice.
Calls on the Commission to draft minimum rules concerning the definition of offences and penalties; calls, in particular.
In response to the latest inquiry of the Secretary-General,13 States provided additional information on the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice.
Hungary supported the promulgation of the draft minimum rules, and considered it necessary to convene an expert group to review the proposed text.
Several States have, over the years, provided more than one reply, giving updated information on the administration of criminal justice,as well as specific comments with respect to the draft minimum rules.
A group of experts charged with the review of the draft minimum rules could facilitate the development of a global vision of the complex issues involved.
Subsequently, the Commission should examine the chart, provision by provision, anddecide whether there was any duplication or contradiction in the draft minimum rules and the existing standards and conventions.
Promulgating the draft minimum rules under such conditions would cause more confusion than clarification and would thus be of little use.
It also suggested that it was useful to convene, using extrabudgetary funds, a group of experts who, on the basis of the views received from Member States,should consider making necessary changes to the draft minimum rules.
Bearing in mind that the draft minimum rules also stipulate that no detainee or prisoner should be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The expert group should also make a comparison between the content of the draft minimum rules under consideration and other existing international instruments with a universal or regional scope.
Noting that the draft minimum rules stipulate that persons in preventive custody should be kept separate from convicted prisoners, as provided for in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Two new draft instruments were currently being prepared:the first was the draft minimum rules of the United Nations for the administration of criminal justice, which were being examined by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Recalling that the draft minimum rules stipulate that preventive custody should be considered a last resort in full accord with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures The Tokyo Rules. .
It also decided to request the Secretary-General to seek the views of all Member States on the utility of promulgating the draft minimum rules; the utility of convening an expert group to review the draft minimum rules; and specific areas in which an expert group, should it be convened, should consider making changes to the draft minimum rules. .
Cuba was in favour of the draft minimum rules, which, in its view, could be of great value in the formulation of basic principles for the administration of criminal justice.