Examples of using Same facts in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Your dad must have been going on the same facts.
Using those exact same facts, what are the odds that the real murderer… is you?
Having reached this conclusion, the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 10 for the same facts.
We were impressed by how they simplified the same facts that the other lawyers made so complicated.
These grounds are the same as those invoked by the author before the Committee, andalso relate to the same facts.
Indeed, the author's allegations before the Committee are based on the same facts and evidence as were presented to the Canadian authorities.
It further held that questions regarding the Implicit Agreement should be decided by arbitration as well,since they involved the same facts.
The Committee is of the view that the same facts as referred to in paragraph 4.10 do not raise a separate issue under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
It is arbitrary and unfair to prohibit RRDRP complainants from filing PDDRP complaints relating to the same facts or circumstances.
In support of this claim, Turkey relies on the same facts and evidence which it submitted in support of its fourth"F4" instalment claim.
In this connection, the Committee recalls that the same matter concerns the same authors, the same facts and the same substantive rights.
The State party recalls that the same facts were already examined by the African Commission, which found no violation of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights.
The author applied for amparo in respect ofthe Supreme Court ruling, citing the same facts and circumstances as at cassation.
It is not clear to me how the same facts in another country not having adopted the'common property' doctrine could then justify the Committee's arriving at a different conclusion.
In case No. 1945/2010(Achabal v. Spain),the Committee observed that the author presented an application on the same facts before the European Court of Human Rights.
The communication is based on the same facts and largely the same evidence as were presented to the Canadian tribunals and risk assessment officer, whose decisions were reviewed and upheld by the Federal Court.
The State party argues that on 27 January 2004, the author filed to the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR)an identical application based on the same facts.
On 22 January 2008, the complainant's request to reopen the case based on the same facts and information of continuing threats from the families of the nine executed friends was rejected.
Where this occurs, the outcome should have the same status as any other judicial decision or judgement andshould preclude prosecution in respect of the same facts.
The case before the Commission concerned the same complainant, the same facts, and the same substantive rights as the case before the Committee.
According to its jurisprudence,"same matter" must be understood as relating to the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights.
The State party argues that the communication is based on the same facts and evidence as were presented to the Canadian tribunals and risk assessment officer, whose decisions were reviewed and upheld by the Federal Court.
The Committee recalls that the concept of"the same matter" has to be understood as including the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights.
The State party further points out that the authors have based their communication on the same facts and evidence provided to the Canadian authorities in the domestic proceedings to prove their real and personal risk.
A prohibited instance of duplication involves, in principle, the same person,the same legal claims and guarantees, and the same facts adduced in support thereof.
It notes that their complaint is based on the same facts and virtually the same evidence as that submitted to the Canadian authorities and is thus almost identical to their application regarding a visa and permanent resident status in Canada on humanitarian grounds.
As to what constitutes“the same matter”,the Committee understands it as relating to the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights.
Following the exhaustion of domestic legal proceedings,the author introduced on 26 May 1995 an application concerning the same facts and issues to the European Commission of Human Rights. On 25 August 1995, the application was registered under file No. 28319/95.
In addition, the prosecution presented filmed statements given by the defendants during the pretrial investigation,in which they reiterated the same facts about their participation in the crime.
On an unspecified date,the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, on the same facts. On 31 March 2000, the Court rejected his application as inadmissible ratione temporis.