Examples of using Detaining state in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The authorities of the detaining State remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time.
It also ensured that sufficient funds would be available to pay any fines imposed by the domestic courts of the detaining State.
In relation to(a) above, the Committee emphasizes that the detaining State shall only contact the said authorities if this is explicitly requested by the detained migrant worker.
Pursuant to the proposed amendments, the Tribunal would be able to determine whether the bond orother financial security should be posted with the detaining State or with the Registrar.
Moreover, there could be cases in which, pursuant to a treaty provision, the detaining State would have the obligation to extradite before attempting to exercise its own criminal jurisdiction.
Prior to the amendment, the Rules stipulated that a bond or other financial security was to be posted solely with the detaining State, unless the parties agreed otherwise.
The view was also expressed that the transfer of the accused to the Court or to the detaining State could be an appropriate point for shifting the primary responsibility over the accused from the national authorities to the International Criminal Court.
Prior to these amendments, the rules of the Tribunal stipulated that the bond orother financial security had to be posted with the detaining State, unless the parties agreed otherwise.
With regard to the issue of the transfer of the accused to the court or to the detaining State, the view was expressed that such a transfer could be an appropriate cut-off point for shifting the primary responsibility over the accused from the national authorities to the international criminal court.
The Tribunal now has the option to determine, in cases of prompt release of vessels and crews, that a bond orother financial security may be posted with the Registrar of the Tribunal or with a detaining State.
In this case,the Tribunal was faced for the first time with the issue of non-financial conditions attached by the detaining State to the security required for the release of the vessel.
In reference to the Tomimaru case, the President noted that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the application for prompt release had been without object,as the vessel had been confiscated by the detaining State.
As a matter of principle, prisoners of war(POWs)who were subjected to labour cannot obtain any benefits because the detaining State is permitted under international law to enlist POWs as workers.
For such remedy to be effective, as required by article 2,paragraph 3, of the Covenant, detaining States are under an obligation to release the arbitrarily detained(foreign) detainee into their own territory, even if they wish to deport the(foreign) detainee, but where deportation of the detainee otherwise liable for removal to the country of origin or to a third country accepting the detainee is not promptly possible.
Prior to these amendments, article 113, paragraph 3, of the Rules provided that the bond orother financial security should be posted with the detaining State unless the parties decided otherwise.
Furthermore, in order to create a resettlement framework that is in conformity with human rights, detaining States should not require from receiving countries that they detain or monitor those returned in cases where such measures would not have a basis in international and domestic law.
The President noted that in this case the Tribunal was for the first time faced with the issue of non-financial conditions attached by the detaining State to the security required for the release of the vessel.
Unfortunately, the important clarification by the Court that article 36, paragraph 1(b),of the Vienna Convention obliges the detaining State to inform the competent consular post upon request by the detainee and to inform the detainee of his or her right in that respect, is only reflected in paragraph 10 of the commentary(see A/67/10, para. 46), but still not in the draft article itself.
Pursuant to the amendments, the Tribunal is able to determine in each case concerning the prompt release of vessels or crews whether the bond orother financial security should be posted with the detaining State or with the Registrar.
The requirement for the prompt release of vessels under Article 73(2)of UNCLOS meant that a detaining State was required to set a reasonable bond or other financial security for the release of a detained vessel.
Under the amended articles, in cases of prompt release of vessels and crew, the Tribunal now has the option to determine that a bond orother financial security must be posted either with the detaining State or with the registrar of the Tribunal.
Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal,the authorities of the detaining State shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew.
The International Court of Justice itself had recognized that some treaty provisions, by placing on States the obligation to prosecute or extradite individuals for commission of grave crimes at the international level, also obliged States to extend their criminal jurisdiction,which seemed to indicate that those treaties favoured the exercise of jurisdiction by the detaining State when faced with the possibility of extraditing.
With regard to the issue of transit through third States in the course of transfer of the accused to the court or to the detaining State, there was recognition of the need to include in the statute a special provision concerning the duties of those transit States and the differences that should be made in this regard depending on whether the State concerned was a party to the statute or not.
The proposal to modify the requirement of Article 73(2) would operate only in respect of vessels apprehended by a CCAMLR Member, it would not apply to crew;the requirement for a detaining State to promptly release detained crew would continue to apply.
For such remedy to be effective, as required by article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, detaining States are under an obligation to release the arbitrarily detained(foreign) detainee into their own territory even if they wish to deport the(foreign) detainee, but where deportation of the detainee otherwise liable for removal to the country of origin or to a third country accepting the detainee is not promptly possible.
Delegations also took note of the amendments to article 113, paragraph 3, and article 114, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Rules of the Tribunal, which enable the Tribunal to determine whether a bond orother financial security should be posted with the detaining State or with the Registrar in cases concerning prompt release of vessels and their crew.
The Tribunal also elaborated on a number of factors that it deemed relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the bond or financial security: the gravity of the alleged offences; the penalties imposed orliable to be imposed under the laws of the detaining State; the value of the detained vessel and of the cargo seized; and the amount of the bond imposed by the detaining State and its form.
In order to determine whether the bond set by the Russian Federation for the release of the vessel was reasonable, the Tribunal referred to the various factors relevant for determining a reasonable bond which it had identified in its previous judgments: the gravity of the alleged offences; the penalties imposed or imposable under the laws of the detaining State; the value of the detained vessel and its cargo; and the amount andform of the bond imposed by the detaining State.