Examples of using Same conduct in English and their translations into Spanish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Prosecution pending for same conduct NEBRASKA.
The Islamic Republic of Iran noted that it could consult with other States with a view to coordinating actions in respect to the same conduct.
Moreover, dual attribution of the same conduct cannot be excluded see above, paras. 6-7.
Fleeing justice; prosecution pending for same conduct.
Prosecution pending for same conduct, lacks mental fitness: maximum 3 yr. extension MONTANA.
On the other hand, several members had seen no problem with identifying evidence of the two elements on the basis of the same conduct.
This provides, moreover, that the same conduct should not serve in a particular case as evidence of both practice and acceptance of that practice as law.
However, it concluded that a domestic investigation orprosecution for"ordinary crimes", to the extent that the case covers the same conduct, would be sufficient.
In that context,it had been noted that the same conduct might be attributable to a State and an international organization, or to two or more international organizations.
The Chamber noted that the Appeals Chamber has interpreted the latter to mean that the investigation orprosecution must cover"substantially" the same conduct.
The reason for using such a generic term was the diversity in definitional approaches followed in national jurisdictions, in that the same conduct designated as"identity theft" in some countries is considered"identity fraud" in others.
The first requirement involves a consideration of whether the Libyan investigation covers the"same case", characterized by two components:the same person and the same conduct.
It may be permissible, under certain circumstances,to enter multiple criminal convictions under different statutory provisions for the same conduct(where, for instance, each offence charged has a materially distinct element not contained in the other).
Individuals under the age of 18 at the time of sentencing face a maximum term of detention equal to the lesser of the time before they reach 21 orthe sentence an adult would receive for the same conduct.
The Chamber stressed that the question of what constitutes"substantially the same conduct as alleged in the proceedings before the Court" will vary according to the concrete facts and circumstances of the case and requires, therefore, a case-by-case analysis.
It appears that there may be cases in which the competencies and responsibilities of the four authorities may overlap orthe authorities may handle the same conduct from different angles.
For this reason, more recent treaties are based on the principle of dual criminality,which applies when the same conduct is criminalized in both the requesting and requested States and the penalties provided for it are above a defined threshold, for example, one year of deprivation of liberty.
More specifically, Canada opposes extraterritorial measures that contradict or undermine the laws or clearly enunciated policies of another State exercising concurrent jurisdiction on a territorial basis over the same conduct.
However, with respect to requests relating to offences established in accordance with article 5 or to serious crime,where States parties are not required to criminalize the same conduct, no obligation to extradite arises unless this dual criminality requirement is fulfilled.
It is critical to hold public authorities accountable to their non-discrimination obligations, as well as to hold private sector actors, social movement leaders, andmembers of local communities all responsible for the same conduct.
In imposing a revised sentence, the Appeals Chamber considered theelement of double jeopardy, in that the appellant had had to appear for sentence twice for the same conduct and also that he had been detained a second time after a period of release of nine months.
It was precisely by using the same criterion of attribution for the purpose of State responsibility and of immunity of State officials ratione materiae that the responsibility of the State,as well as the individual criminal responsibility of the official, would be engaged for the same conduct.
Thus, attribution of a certain conduct to an international organization does not imply that the same conduct cannot be attributed to a State, nor does vice versa attribution of conduct to a State rule out attribution of the same conduct to an international organization.
At the same time, the United States was intensifying the development of new weapons and the deployment of troops around the world, trying to impose military rule anda global empire aimed at subjecting all countries to the same conduct and the same political and ideological thinking.
The same conduct, when accompanied by the use or threat of force, or committed through abuse of official position, is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of two to five years with or without suspension of the right to hold certain posts or engage in certain activities for up to three years.
Should one assume that conduct could not be simultaneously attributed to a State and an international organization,the positive criteria for attributing conduct to a State would imply corresponding negative criteria with regard to attribution of the same conduct to an international organization.
The Chamber noted that the same case for the purposes of article 17(1)(a) of the Statute has been found to becharacterized by two components: the same person and the same conduct, while the Appeals Chamber has interpreted the latter to mean that the investigation or prosecution must cover"substantially" the same conduct.
Thus, if an issue arises as to whether a certain conduct is to be attributed to a State or to an international organization or to both, the current articles will provide criteria only for settling the question as to whether that conduct is to be attributed to an international organization,while the articles on State responsibility will say whether that same conduct is to be attributed or not to a State.
A State Party which receives a request from the Court for the surrender of a person under article 89 shall,if it also receives a request from any other State for the extradition of the same person for the same conduct which forms the basis of the crime for which the Court seeks the person's surrender, notify the Court and the requesting State of that fact.
While a discussion of this question would not be appropriate here,one may argue that attribution of conduct to an international organization does not necessarily exclude attribution of the same conduct to a State, nor does, vice versa, attribution to a State rule out attribution to an international organization.