Examples of using Concluded that article in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Committee concluded that article 19 had been violated in the author's case.
In the absence of any justification for the lengthy pre-trial detention, the Committee concluded that article 9, paragraph 3, had been violated.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that article 14, paragraph 3(d), had been violated.
Since Mr. Ng's extradition had been taken after due consideration of the matter by the Canadian authorities,the Committee concluded that article 6 of the Covenant had not been violated.
The Court concluded that article 3 of the Convention would not be violated were the author to be extradited.
In his Third Report the Special Rapporteur concluded that article[48] should embody the following balance.
It concluded that article 5, paragraph 2(b), did not preclude it from considering the merits of the case.
In the instant case, the Committee concluded that article 9, paragraph 1, had been violated.
He concluded that article 26 elaborated and implemented article 25 and that both should be adopted as they stood.
In the circumstances, the Committee concluded that article 14 of the Covenant was breached as a whole.
He concluded that Article 3 would not prevent a Contracting Party from refusing products which are not in conformity with its national legislation in areas beyond the scope of the UN Regulation.
The CHAIRMAN said that an Australian Senate committee had recently concluded that article 3 of the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law.
The United States concluded that Article 5 tribunals were unnecessary because there is no doubt as to the status of these individuals.
In the light of the information provided by the complainant and the State party,the Committee therefore concluded that article 3 of the Convention would be violated, should the complainant be extradited to Algeria.
However, it concluded that article 9 was limited to interim orders of protection.
In the cases in question, since the final sentence of death was passed without having observed the requirements for a fair trial setout in article 14, the Committee concluded that article 6 had been violated.
Accordingly, it has been concluded that article 49(1) simply reiterated existed customary law.
In the cases referred to in the general allegation, the Supreme Court had limited itself to examining the constitutionality of the contested articles of Law 18.831, andthe majority of its members concluded that articles 2 and 3 were inapplicable in those cases.
The Special Rapporteur concluded that article 17, paragraph 2 created more problems than it resolved and he recommended its deletion.
The court concluded that article 127 of the SDA contravened article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention and that legislative amendment was needed.
The Committee further takes note of the judgement of the District Court of The Hagueof 25 July 2007, in which the Court concluded that article 11(2)(b) of the Convention was not directly applicable because it contained a mere"instruction" for States parties to introduce maternity leave, leaving States parties the freedom to determine how specifically to achieve that in practice.
The Commission concluded that article 75 of Additional Protocol I provided a minimum standard of human rights for all persons as a matter of customary international law.
The International Court of Justice in the Wall case concluded that Article 51 was not relevant to that case, noting inter alia that the attacks against which the Wall was being constructed do not emanate from another State.
The court concluded that article 2(3) of regulation EC 881/2002, which provides that"[n]o economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of a listed person so as to enable that person, group or entity to obtain funds, goods or services", prohibited the registration.
The Committee therefore concluded that article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol was not a barrier to the admissibility of the communication.
The Court concluded that article 75 of CISG could not be applied since article 2(d) stated that the Convention did not apply to sales of shares.
The first section concluded that article 42 introduced a new function and responsibility, which should be read in the light of the article as a source of international law.
The majority of the tribunal concluded that article 40 CISG excused notice by the buyer because the seller“consciously disregarded facts which were of evident relevance to the nonconformity”.
The same representative concluded that article 19, conceived in the 1970s and contested as early as 1976, had no place in the modern world and had lost the usefulness intended by its authors owing to the developing role of the United Nations.
The Committee concludes that article 7 has not been violated in the instant case.