Examples of using Its reply dated in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In its reply dated 19 February 1993, the source made the following points.
On 29 August 2012, the State party replied that it did not wish to make any comments regarding the petitioners' submission and relied on its reply dated 18 June 2012, which was not a rejection of the Committee's recommendations but merely an invitation to the Committee to reconsider its opinion.
In its reply dated 24 August 2012, the Government does not contradict this assertion by the source.
The Administration, in its reply dated 29 November 2005, indicated that the recommendations had already been implemented by UNU-BIOLAC.
In its reply, dated 7 September 2007, the Party concerned disputed the claim of non-compliance.
The Zambian Government, in its reply dated 3 December 1996, had invited the Commission to participate in a joint investigation of the allegation.
In its reply dated 28 February 2001, AOC gave a number of reasons why it was unable to provide the information.
In 2013, CERD thanked Ethiopia for its reply dated 25 May 2012, and requested Ethiopia to provide updated and detailed information on the measures envisaged or implemented to address discrimination against those communities in the periodic report due on 23 July 2013.
In its reply dated 23 June 2005, the Government of Namibia pointed out that some of the wording of the new definition was unclear.
In its reply dated 12 April 2000, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Krishna Sen was not under police detention.
In its reply, dated 28 September 2006, the Government of Saudi Arabia explained that the flight had taken place for"medical" reasons annex XIII.
In its reply dated 5 December 1996, the Italian Government indicated that the investigations into the cases of Khaled Kablouti and Salvatore Franco had not yet been completed.
In its reply dated 1 February 1999 the Committee indicated that Iraq's comments would be reflected in the Committee's biennial report in accordance with article 45(d) of the Convention.
In its reply, dated 9 May 2012, Iran indicated that the production of such particles"above the target value" may happen for technical reasons beyond the operator's control.
In its reply dated 12 March 2012, the Committee had acknowledged the Syrian authorities' commitment to continued cooperation, but regretted its failure to submit a report by the established deadline.
The Government, in its reply dated 23 December 2013, set out the facts as follows: On 27 April 2012, Chen Kegui intentionally injured Zhang Jian and two others with kitchen knives, causing injury.
The Government, in its reply dated 7 October 2013, stated that these alleged cases form part of a political plot against the People's Democratic Republic of Korea by the Republic of Korea authorities.
In its reply dated 10 April 2000, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the prison sentences of Dr. Alya Shu'ayb, Laila Al-'Othman and Yahia Al-Rubay'an were annulled on 26 March 2000.
In its reply dated 30 May 1996, the Government provides a detailed account of the pertinent legislation in force and the circumstances in which the law was allegedly violated by the two trade-unionists concerned.
In its reply, dated 3 June 1999, the Committee took note of the information submitted and stated that the consideration of the situation of children in that country would best be addressed within the established reporting process.
In its reply dated 6 April 2011, the Government informed the Working Group that Mr. Khudoynazarov was convicted by the Angren City Court on 12 January 2006 and the conviction was upheld by the Appeals Chamber of the Tashkent Regional Court on 2 March 2006.
In its reply dated 13 February, the Committee confirmed that the project was not prohibited by the relevant resolutions, but as some of the items involved might fall within the prohibited category, it requested that the organization provide the technical specifications for a number of items.
In its reply dated 7 March 2008, the Government of the Russian Federation informed the Monitoring Group that the serial number of the first missile had not been produced in the then USSR and that the marking was different from the one used by the factory where this type of missile was produced.
In its reply dated 15 June 2007(annex VII), the Government of Ethiopia states that there is no connection between its military operations in Somalia, which were carried out at the invitation of the Transitional Federal Government, and the arms embargo imposed on the country under Security Council resolutions 733(1992) and 1425 2002.
In its reply dated 13 December 2004, the Government of Switzerland noted that the political participation of minorities in State decisions concerning them, such as through certain forms of autonomy accorded to minorities, contribute to their integration in society and, consequently, to the prevention of conflicts and even to their resolution.
In its reply, dated 27 November 2001, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran explained that eight of them had been released(Mohammad Bestehnegar, Morteza Kazemian, Mohammad Maleki, Mohammad MohammadiArdehali, Masoud Pedram, Mohammad Hossein Rafiee, Mahmoud Emrani, Ali-Reza Rajai) and that other cases, including that of Ezzatollah Sahabi, are currently subject to review in the relevant court.
In its reply, dated 17 September 2008, the Party concerned disputed the claim of non-compliance and stated, inter alia, that the resolutions adopted by CUMPM in 2003 and 2005 only established the outline for the municipality's plan to build a waste management plant, but did not form a part of the decision-making process; nor did they in any way bind the Prefect in the decision whether or not to grant authorization to the waste management plant.
In its reply dated 7 September 1994, the Government of the People's Republic of China noted that its active participation in the third United Nations Workshop for the Asian and Pacific Region on Human Rights Issues was a positive experience, as it believed that"an exchange of experiences and views between the representatives of the various States of the region on an equal and well-intentioned basis will promote international cooperation in the domain of human rights within the region.
In its replies dated 1 October and 12 November 2001, the Government made the following statement on the applicable legislation.
In its replies dated 29 June and 12 November 2001 the Government made the same comments as those reported in paragraph 7 of Opinion No. 21/2001(SRI LANKA), to which the reader is referred, including the description of the action taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Committee against Torture at the time of its delegation's visit to Sri Lanka in August 2000.