Examples of using Draft minimum rules in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Japan could not support the idea of convening an expert group to review the draft minimum rules.
Whether those draft minimum rules duplicate or contradict existing conventions
To note the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice,* For the discussion, see chap. IV. E/CN.15/1994/11.
Promulgating the draft minimum rules under such conditions would cause more confusion than clarification
should it be convened, should consider making changes to the draft minimum rules.
specific content of the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice.
Austria was of the opinion that the draft minimum rules seemed highly developed
Bearing in mind that the draft minimum rules also stipulate that no detainee or prisoner should be subjected to cruel,
13 States provided additional information on the draft minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice.
A group of experts charged with the review of the draft minimum rules could facilitate the development of a global vision of the complex issues involved.
The expert group should also make a comparison between the content of the draft minimum rules under consideration and other existing international instruments with a universal or regional scope.
Aware that the provisions of the draft minimum rules regarding victims are in line with the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime
decide whether there was any duplication or contradiction in the draft minimum rules and the existing standards and conventions.
Recalling that the draft minimum rules stipulate that preventive custody should be considered a last resort in full accord with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures The Tokyo Rules. .
Noting that the draft minimum rules stipulate that persons in preventive custody should be kept separate from convicted prisoners, as provided for in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
One State was against the draft minimum rules and proposed closing the debate on the issue, whereas five States made substantive
Spain considered that the publication of the draft minimum rules was of great utility, since it would represent a way to harmonize the procedural provisions of the States
The convening of a group of experts to review the draft minimum rules, giving particular attention to aspects of legal procedure
The convening of a group of experts to review the draft minimum rules, giving particular attention to aspects of legal procedure
in particular the draft minimum humanitarian rules presented at the International Workshop on Minimum Humanitarian Standards held in Cape Town in September 1996,