Examples of using Comments dated in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In comments dated 25 October 1999 the author rebuts the State party's arguments.
It finally notes that in his comments dated 31 August 2008, the author admits that he had met with a lawyer in the Gudermes detention centre, during the preliminary investigation.
In comments dated 18 June 2007, counsel rejects the version of events of the State party.
In their comments dated 23 February 2009, the authors challenge the State party's submission.
In his comments dated 22 November 2010, the complainant's counsel recalled relevant facts of the case.
People also translate
In her comments dated 2 May 2007, the author responds to some aspects of the State party's submissions.
In their comments dated 21 October 2008, the authors maintain that the communication should be deemed admissible.
In her comments dated 21 December 2000, the author notes that the State party admits the most important facts of the case.
In comments dated 3 December 2009, the author refers to the State party's description of him as being a fugitive from justice.
In their comments dated 18 February 2008, the authors maintain that Act No. 87/1991 is discriminatory, and in violation of the Covenant.
In his comments dated 2 June and 18 August 2008, the author maintains that Act No. 87/1991 is discriminatory, and in violation of the Covenant.
In comments dated 8 September 2008, the author argued that the State party was merely recapitulating the domestic judicial procedure.
In comments dated 28 April 1996, the author rebuts the State party's arguments and dismisses them as irrelevant to the solution of his case.
In additional comments dated 1 July 1996, the authors take issue with some of the State party's observations referred to in paragraph 8.1 above.
In comments dated 15 March 2002, the authors supplied comments, restricted to the admissibility arguments of the State party.
In their comments dated 31 January 2003, the petitioners challenge the State party's conclusions concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In their comments dated 22 January and 7 October 2002, the authors challenge the arguments of the State party in favour of inadmissibility.
In her comments dated 16 February 2005, the author contends that the arguments advanced by the State party are not borne out by the circumstances of the case.
In comments dated 26 June 2008, the author reiterates that, pursuant to an amnesty issued in 1948, the sentence against her mother was quashed.
In her comments dated 3 March 1995, counsel refutes the State party's contention that the communication is an abuse of the right of submission.
In comments dated 10 December 2007, the author submits that the observations of the State party do not refute but prove the absence of any crime on her father's part.
In her comments dated 22 June 2010, the author recalls the circumstances leading to her enforced committal at the request of a third party between 6 and 17 December 1997.
In comments dated 28 July 2003, counsel submits that the complainant was not aware that he had been acquitted in the case of murder until he received the State party's submission.
In their comments dated 15 November 2004, the authors state that they are presenting new elements which would warrant a partial revision of the Committee's decision on admissibility.
In her comments dated 25 November 2011 on the State party's observations, the author reiterated her position that she had exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies.
The source, in comments dated 18 March 2013, maintains that the Government's reply in no way invalidates the allegations regarding the arbitrary nature of Mr. Bettar's detention.
In their comments dated 27 April 2012, the authors contest the State party's assertion that all their complaints have been duly registered and examined in accordance with the law.
In his comments dated 1 September 2009, the author rejects the State party's observations, arguing that they are false and that they refer to facts and evidence fabricated by the authorities.
In additional comments dated 27 June 1996, the State party dismisses as groundless the authors' explanations concerning the perceived economic unsuitability of some parts of the logging area.
In comments dated 19 September 1993, counsel notes that the Ministry of Defence is neither competent nor in a position to draw conclusions from investigations which should be undertaken by the judiciary.