Examples of using Considering cases in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
When considering cases by type of problem for the Office, the comparison between 2007 and 2008 was not possible because the activity report submitted in August 2008 covered the period from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008, while the report dated August 2009 covered 2008.
The deprivation of liberty of Dr. Morsi and his advisors mentioned above is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
(c) Finally, the Working Group finds that Mr. La Ring ' s arrest and detention in the circumstances set out in paragraph 17 above fall within category V of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it, as it breaches article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; it falls within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
violating the provisions of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls into categories I and III of the criteria used in considering cases submitted to the Working Group.
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Abedini has been arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 2, 7, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 14(para. 3), 18(para. 1), 19(para. 2) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; it falls within categories II, III and V of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
The deprivation of liberty of Bahman Ahmadi Amouee is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within categories II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
The detention of Messrs. Khaled Mohamed Hamza Abbas, Adel Mostafa Qatamish, Ali Ezzedin Thabit, Zain El-Abidine Mahmoud and Tariq Ismail Ahmed is in breach of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
The Working Group in its opinion No. 60/2013(United Arab Emirates) held that the deprivation of liberty of individuals belonging to the" UAE 94" was arbitrary and in contravention of articles 8,- 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fell within categories I, II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14, paragraph 3(b) and(c), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within categories III and IV of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
that the case falls within category II of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the case of Mr. Hassan are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
(a) The deprivation of liberty of Mohammed Hassan Sedif was arbitrary and constitutes a breach of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, falling within categories II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it;
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, falling within category II of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
The detention of Mr. Moussa Kaka has been arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of articles 9, 10 and 19 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls into categories I, II and III of the criteria used in considering cases submitted to the Working Group.
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Karmelo Landa Mendibe is arbitrary, violating the provisions of articles 9, 10, 11 and 18-21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls into categories I, II and III of the criteria used in considering cases submitted to the Working Group.
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Matveyev is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 10, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14, paragraph 1, article 18, paragraph 1, and article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; it falls within categories II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that, since 16 April 2012, the detention of Mr. Tadic Astorga has absolutely no legal basis, neither in Bolivian law nor in the relevant norms of international human rights law, and therefore falls within category I of the categories applied by the Working Group when considering cases submitted for its attention.
The deprivation of liberty of Hossein Mossavi, Mehdi Karoubi and Zahra Rahnavard is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls under categories I, II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
When considering cases related to Belarus, the Human Rights Committee has twice stated that the State prosecutor is not a person who possesses the necessary institutional independence and impartiality to be considered as an" other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power" as stated in article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, since due administration of the judicial power can only be conducted by an organ that is independent, objective, impartial and unbiased with the regard to the questions being considered. .