在 中文 中使用 诉白俄罗斯 的示例及其翻译为 英语
{-}
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Programming
在第886/1999号案件(Bondarenko诉白俄罗斯)和第887/1999号案件(Lyashkevich诉白俄罗斯)中，关于提交人所称定罪没有清楚证据，委员会.
In cases Nos. 886/1999(Bondarenko v. Belarus) and 887/1999(Lyashkevich v. Belarus), with regard to a claim that the conviction of the author was not based on clear evidence, the Committee.第1207/2003号来文：Malakhovsky诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1207/2003, Malakhovsky v. Belarus.第1784/2008号来文，Schumilin诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1784/2008, Schumilin v. Belarus.第1785/2008号来文，Olechkevitch诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1785/2008, Olechkevitch v. Belarus.JJ.第2120/2011号来文，kovaleva和Kozyar诉白俄罗斯.
JJ. Communication No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus.第1022/2001号来文，Velichkin诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1022/2001, Velichkin v. Belarus.第1592/2007号来文，Pichugina诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1592/2007, Pichugina v. Belarus.DD.第1948/2010号来文，Turchenyak等诉白俄罗斯.
DD. Communication No. 1948/2010, Turchenyak et al. v. Belarus.第1354/2005号来文，Sudalenko诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1354/2005, Sudalenko v. Belarus.AA.第1604/2007号来文，Zalesskaya诉白俄罗斯.
AA. Communication No. 1604/2007, Zalesskaya v. Belarus.提交人还称，其关于对她处以行政处罚违法的论点得到委员会就Laptsevich诉白俄罗斯的第780/1997号来文中意见的支持。
The author further claims that her arguments about the unlawfulness of the administrative penalty imposed on her are supported by the Committee' s Views in respect of communication No. 780/1997, Laptsevich v. Belarus.第1100/2002号来文Bandajevsky诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1100/2002, Bandazhewsky v. Belarus.第1392/2005号来文，Lukyanchik诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1392/2005, Lukyanchik v. Belarus.第886/1999号来文：Bondarenko诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 886/1999, Bondarenko v. Belarus.第1772/2008号来文，Belyazeka诉白俄罗斯.
Communication No. 1772/2008, Belyazeka v. Belarus.在第780/1997号案件(Laptsevich诉白俄罗斯)中，委员会指出：.
In case No. 780/1997(Laptsevich v. Belarus), the Committee stated.委员会还认定第1910/2009号案(Zhuk诉白俄罗斯)中也存在违反本项规定的情况。
The Committee also found violation of this provision in case No. 1910/2009(Zhuk v. Belarus).委员会对关于同一事件的第1785/2008号案(Olechkevitch诉白俄罗斯)也作出了类似结论。
The Committee reached a similar conclusion in case No. 1785/2008(Olechkevitch v. Belarus), concerning the same events.委员会还裁定在第1390/2005号案件(Koreba诉白俄罗斯)中存在缔约国违反这项条款的情况.
A breach of this provision was also found in case No. 1390/2005(Koreba v. Belarus).委员会在第1750/2008号案件(Sudalenko诉白俄罗斯)和第1866/2009号案件(Chebotareva诉俄罗斯联邦)中也得出过类似结论。
The Committee reached a similar conclusion in cases No. 1750/2008(Sudalenko v. Belarus) and No. 1866/2009(Chebotareva 
