Examples of using Reporting state should clarify in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The reporting State should clarify that point.
Given that domestic violence was still considered a private matter, the reporting State should clarify the national machinery that had been implemented to change that mindset.
The reporting State should clarify the matter to the Committee.
Ms. Šimonović, referring to the incorporation of the Convention into domestic legislation,said that the reporting State should clarify whether the principle of equality had been included in the Bill of Rights Act and other laws.
The reporting State should clarify whether it had established a specific policy aimed at eliminating informal and badly paid work.
Given that people who were subject to proceedings for administrative offences had the right to speak their native language in court andto employ an interpreter, the reporting State should clarify whether the State paid the interpreters' fees.
However, the reporting State should clarify why that target was so low.
The reporting State should clarify whether that legislation was being implemented and to what degree it was successful.
Given that the Criminal Codes of Republika Srpska and the District of Brčko did not include specific definitions of torture, the reporting State should clarify how it ensured that the definition of torture in the Convention was part of the Criminal Code at the federal level, and how it guaranteed effective prevention and punishment of torture in all parts of the country.
The reporting State should clarify which mechanisms existed to satisfy the requests for remedy put by the Committee in its Views.
With reference to judicial remedies(article 6 of the Convention), the reporting State should clarify whether those stipulated in article 88 of the Constitution and in the Miscellaneous Chapter for the Country Code provided for private or public prosecution.
The reporting State should clarify whether it was possible to invoke article 4.1 of the Convention in order to establish the legal grounds for the applicability of temporary special measures.
Mr. Flinterman said that the reporting State should clarify whether the reservation to article 16(g) would be withdrawn once the Civil Code entered into force in January 2008.
The reporting State should clarify the implications of the distinction, which could be interpreted as restricting the scope of the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention.
In addition, the reporting State should clarify whether the composition of the Council for the Development of the Interior reflected the multi-ethnicity of Suriname and how that was monitored.
The reporting State should clarify the status of the proposed Federal act to protect women victims of violence by expelling perpetrators from the family home, as discussed in paragraph 121.
The reporting State should clarify whether the military police force deployed as a result of the Maoist rebellion and the declaration of emergency on 26 November 2001 was also subject to human rights training.
The reporting State should clarify whether the police indeed tortured vulnerable groups and whether it intended to investigate allegations of racial discrimination by the forces of law and order.
The reporting State should clarify its unemployment data by supplying the percentage of unemployed women as compared to unemployed men and by indicating whether unemployment rates had increased more rapidly for women than for men.
The reporting State should clarify whether there was any legislation in place to declare the activities referred to in article 4(a) of the Convention offences punishable by law and what the concomitant penalties were.
In addition, the reporting State should clarify whether any police or security officials had been tried and convicted for human rights violations, supporting its answer with specific examples, if possible.
The reporting state should clarify the measures that the Government had taken to ensure that the victims of rape were provided with adequate information about abortion and the steps that had been taken to monitor women's access to safe abortions.
The reporting State should clarify how many legislative acts had been challenged by the Constitutional Court on the grounds of violation of human rights and if there was a commission to examine the validity of existing legislation in relation to the Covenant.
The reporting State should clarify which statutory provisions implemented article 4(c) of the Convention on not permitting the public authorities to promote or incite racial discrimination, as that was not covered by article 11(3) of the Constitution.
The reporting State should clarify whether the New Zealand Human Rights Commission had been established in accordance with the Paris Principles, provide additional information on the inclusion and mainstreaming of gender issues in the activities of the Human Rights Commission and on the normative basis of the New Zealand Action Plan for Women, and state whether an action plan for human rights had been envisaged and whether such a plan would address women's human rights.
The reporting State should also clarify whether it planned to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention.
The reporting State should also clarify whether the Equality Bill was the same law as the Equal Opportunities Bill.
The reporting State should also clarify how the Government was addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies among Rodriguan women.
The reporting State should, therefore, clarify its definition, and indicate whether any specific measures were in place to accelerate women's political representation.
The reporting State should also clarify whether specific efforts were being made to increase the number of full-time jobs in the education and health sectors and provide more data on women in different job categories and in positions of leadership.