Examples of using Authors invoke in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In the present case, the authors invoke articles 7, 9 and 16.
Both authors invoke violations of article 14, paragraph 3(b) and d.
In their comments on the State party's submissions dated 4 July 2005, the authors invoke their earlier submissions, in which issues relating to the merits were addressed.
The authors invoke the Committee's jurisprudence and other relevant judicial decisions.
The question as to whether the authors can or cannot be considered as belonging to a"minority" in the sense of article 27 would seem to be moot in as much as the rights that the authors invoke are not"minority rights" as such, but rather rights pertaining to the principle of freedom of expression, as protected by article 19 of the Covenant, which obviously must be taken to include commercial advertising.
The authors invoke the Committee's Views in Waldman v. Canada in support of these arguments.
With respect to the State party's contention that the fisheries management system did not affect the authors, because they were able to continue to pursue their careers as they had done all their working lives, the authors invoke the principle of equality of opportunity: the possibility for persons of any rank or stature to rise in social standing and wealth by work of any kind has been Iceland's strength until now.
In particular, the authors invoke the Committee's General Comment 14[23] on article 6, adopted on 2 November 1984.
The authors invoke three other claims against the State party, and each is equally wide of the mark.
Because of their religious beliefs, the authors invoked this right, established in article 18, paragraph 1, to avoid compulsory military service.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, as they claim there is no effective remedy to challenge the provision of the Constitution domestically.
Before the German courts, the authors invoked article 4 of the German Basic Law(Grundgesetz), which guarantees everyone freedom of religion and conscience.
The authors invoke the Committee's Views in Winata v. Australia, and argue on that basis that the present communication discloses violations of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.
As to the other areas, the authors invoke the Committee's Views in the earlier communication for the proposition that the domestic courts do not need to be seized afresh of the matter.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose Covenant rights have been violated.
The State party notes that the authors invoke Court of Justice of the European Communities(CJEC) case law, according to which the performance of music in the street prompts voluntary donations of indeterminate amounts of money.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose Covenant rights have been violated.
In terms of article 27, the authors invoke the Committee's general comment No. 22 to the effect that the official establishment of a State religion should not impair the enjoyment of others' Covenant rights.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, arguing that their son, Djamel Saadoun, has been deprived of his legitimate right to an effective remedy because his detention has not been recognized.
In support of their contention, the authors invoke a judgement of the Italian Constitutional Court of July 1989, which held that the provision for nonmilitary service lasting eight months longer than military service was incompatible with the Italian Constitution.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated.
It submits that the rights which the authors invoke in their communication are coterminous with rights protected by the Jamaican Constitution and that it is therefore open to the authors to seek redress from the Supreme Court under article 25 of the Constitution.
The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, under which States parties have an obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose Covenant rights have reportedly been violated.
The authors invoke the Committee's general comment No. 20(1992)(para. 11) and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, as safeguards necessary to guard against torture.
In this context, the authors invoke paragraph 9.8 of the Views in Communication No. 511/1992, which they interpret as a warning to the State party regarding new measures that would affect the living conditions of local Samis.
Under article 2, paragraph 3, the authors invoke the Committee's jurisprudence for the proposition that the circumstances of the victim's death, comprising arbitrary arrest and detention followed by torture and arbitrary and unlawful killing, indicate that criminal investigation and appropriate prosecution is the only effective remedy.
The authors invoke general comment No. 14/23 on article 6 of 2 November 1984, where the Committee stated that"the designing, testing, manufacture, possession and deployment of nuclear weapons are among the greatest threats to the right to life which confront mankind today" and that"the production, testing, possession, deployment and use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited and recognized as crimes against humanity.
The author invokes the Committee's jurisprudence.
In the present case, the author invokes articles 7, 9 and 16.
In case No. 1421/2005(Larrañaga v. The Philippines), the author invoked a number of incidents which he claimed demonstrate that he did not benefit from the presumption of innocence.