Examples of using Observations dated in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In observations dated 16 January 2002, the State party returns to the question of admissibility.
The author stated that he did not understand the relevance of the State party's further observations dated 8 April 2010 for the present communication.
In observations dated 17 September 2001, the State party requests the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible.
In a submission dated 20 January 2013, the author presented his comments on the State party's additional observations dated 17 October 2012.
In its observations dated 21 November 2003, the State party objects to the admissibility of the claim and addresses the merits of the case.
The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objection to the admissibility of the communication cf. State party's observations dated 20 March 2001.
In its observations dated 24 March 2003, the State party objects to the admissibility of the claim, and makes submissions on the merits of the claim.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights acknowledges receipt of the note verbale dated 3 November 2000 from the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and notes that Israel's second periodic report, including issues referred to andinformation requested by the Committee in its concluding observations dated 4 December 1998,a will be ready for submission no later than March 2001.
In his observations dated 20 May 2003, the complainant sought to respond to each of the points contained in the above observations by the State party.
Following its consideration of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth reports submitted by Franceunder article 9 of the Convention, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination made a number of recommendations in its concluding observations dated 27 August 2010 with respect in particular to the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families(Committee recommendation No. 21) and the International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989(No. 169) Committee recommendation No. 18.
In its observations dated 25 September 1998, the State party denies that the author was detained for 11 days before being brought before a magistrate.
In its submission dated 18 February 2002, the State party informed the Committee that its observations dated 1 February 2001 should also apply to the merits, arguing that the complaints were not made through domestic channels and, therefore, could not be examined and a decision on them could not be taken.
In its observations, dated 19 January 1998, the State party informs the Committee that the necessary measures have been taken to suspend the author's expulsion.
In its observations dated 29 April 2004, the State party submits that the communication does not reveal any violation of articles 18 or 22 of the Covenant.
In its observations dated 22 February 2001, the State party made its preliminary observations on the authors' assertion that they had been victimized.
In its observations dated 27 April 2005, the State party argues that the communication should be considered inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In its observations dated 19 September 1996, the State party does not formulate objections to the admissibility of the case but rather directly addresses the merits of the communication.
In its concluding observations dated 10 May 2004(CERD/C/64/CO/7), the Committee expressed its concerns and gave recommendations on a number of subjects, to be dealt with under this heading.
In its concluding observations dated 10 December 2004(CERD/C/65/CO/2), the Committee expressed concern and made recommendations on a number of issues that will be discussed in this section.
In its observations dated 27 March 2007, the State party indicated that its observations on admissibility may be regarded as equally pertaining to the merits of the communication.
In its observations dated 9 July 2013, the State party considers the communication to be inadmissible ratione materiae because the author does not have a disability as defined under the Convention.
In its concluding observations dated 25 March 2010(CERD/C/NLD/CO/17-18), the Committee expressed its concerns and gave recommendations on a number of subjects, to be dealt with under this heading.
In its observations dated 19 September 1997, the Government dismisses the allegations as a product of foreign propaganda and invokes its submissions to a number of United Nations bodies on the subject.
In its observations dated 7 July 2008, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant and non-substantiation.
In its observations dated 19 January 2007, the State party argues that the authors' complaint concerns a question that is strictly inheritance-related and has nothing to do with the privacy and family rights protected in article 17.
In further observations dated 27 December 2001, the State party encloses a memorandum from the President of the Supreme Court, which lists the offences of which the author was convicted, the original sentence imposed and its subsequent commutation.
In its observations dated 8 May 2003, the State party only challenged the merits of the communication, arguing that the author's conviction under article 7, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the National Security Law was justified by the necessity to protect its national security and democratic order.
In its recently adopted concluding observations, dated 2 June 2006(CRC/C/UZB/CO/2), the Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the Government of Uzbekistan to establish an independent commission of inquiry into the incidents of 13 to 14 May 2005 in Andijan, and to invite those special procedures mandate-holders who have made requests to visit the country paras. 32 and 33.
The Committee notes that its previous concluding observations, dated 17 August 1994, contained four recommendations concerning the Convention's status in the domestic legal order of Iceland, measures to implement fully the provisions of article 4 of the Convention, measures to combat racial discrimination in the fields of teaching, education, culture or information, and acceptance of the amendment to article 8, paragraph 6, of the Convention.
In its observations dated 18 January 2001, the State party pointed out that the Barcelona Provincial Court had expressly declared that Mr. Rocco Piscioneri is a leader of a criminal organization involved in trafficking drugs and narcotics, and reminded the Committee of the serious nature of this type of activity, as highlighted in the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which was referred to in the extradition proceedings.