If a Party modifies this response, it is required to submit the revised response to the Secretariat.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

The seller returned the fax on the next day with the remark that the goods could not be delivered.

The source has not replied, although the Government's reply was transmitted to it on 22 October 2004.

When no response was received by May, the author went on a hunger strike, requesting an answer.

The Ministry of Justice has not yet responded to reports of human rights abuses submitted in 2003.

The secretariat must also inform the Parties of any cases of failure to transmit a response.

2.8 On 7 May 2001, the Minister of Justice rejected the author's application for a retrial.

The Working Group has received information from both the Government and the source on these questions.

Guaranteed and delivered.

However, by 1 May, the closing date for the submission of proposals, no replies had been received.

2.17 On 12 February 1997, the Court of Appeal dismissed the author's motion for reconsideration.

Application for review submitted by

As planned, the fourth report was preceded by a national report. The second national report, together with the Government's response, was forwarded to the House of Representatives of the States General in 2003.

Under paragraph 2 of the article, if a Party modifies that response, the designated national authority must forthwith submit the revised response to the secretariat.

The authors' withdrawal of their application before the RRT thus deprived both the State party of any opportunity to address the authors' claims before its own administrative appeals tribunal and through subsequent judicial review.

The author filed an application for review of that decision, an application that was rejected by the court on 7 July 1998.

The core functionality of the system would be implemented by June 2006 and full functionality would be achieved by early 2007.

5.2 The author has also submitted copies of two newspaper articles.

It was noted in the cover letter circulated with the decision guidance documents that responses previously submitted under the interim prior informed consent procedure did not need to be resubmitted.

The authors however supply a letter of the RRT, dated 22 August 1995, confirming that an application for review had been lodged with it that day.

On 22 August 1995, the authors engaged a second migration agent to appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).

The Committee observes in this respect that whether the application to the RRT was withdrawn by the authors or by their representative(s) is immaterial, as according to the Committee's jurisprudence the conduct of counsel is generally imputed to the authors.

Report my signal. Report my signal.

At the fortieth session, States members of the Committee that had not submitted replies were encouraged to do so as early as possible and those States that had already submitted replies were invited to supplement their replies with additional data.Ibid., Fifty second Session, Supplement No. 20 (A 52 20), para. 115.

The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source, which made comments on it.

Reproduced in the original language of submission.

Only Colin replied, by text message, to say that because the case was before the courts I really cannot say much.

Those responses, together with all the previously submitted responses and information on all cases of failure to provide a response, were circulated to Parties in appendix IV of PIC Circulars XX (December 2004) and XXI (June 2005), in English, French and Spanish.

6.3 The Committee notes that the author's complaint is not being considered and has not been considered or reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights, and that it was not registered as a formal complaint but was withdrawn by the author, and that the withdrawal was accepted by the Court without consideration of the merits of the issues raised by the author.

Following a discussion of the replies received, the Committee had agreed that States members of the Subcommittee wishing to submit replies to the questionnaire should be encouraged to do so as soon as possible. The Committee had also agreed with the Legal Subcommittee that the Secretariat should provide the Subcommittee with a comprehensive analysis of all the replies.

10. Urges those States that have not yet responded to the communications transmitted to them to do so without delay and to investigate expeditiously urgent appeals and allegations brought to their attention by the Special Representative

The Working Group transmitted the replies provided by the Government to the source, which offered comments on them.

In the present case, by contrast, the authors applied to, and then withdrew, their case from the first independent review instance competent to address their case, the RRT.

Some delegations encouraged Member States of the Committee that had not submitted replies to the questionnaire on aerospace objects to do so.

After a motion for reconsideration thereof on 7 March 2003, the Supreme Court dismissed the author's appeal, on the same grounds.

The source made comments on the reply of the Government.

In his view, requiring the authors to have pursued this avenue on merits review to the RRT and thereafter in the courts by judicial review was rejected in Winata and should again be rejected.

The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source and received its comments.

10. the Government of Cuba also replied to the Secretary General's note verbale.

At that level, the author submits, his reply was quot suppressed quot .

The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source and received its comments.5.

(d) Preparing the Secretary General's response to reports of oversight bodies submitted to the General Assembly, taking into account the input provided by the departments or offices concerned

On 21 December 2002, the authors filed an application for supervisory review with the President of the Minsk City Court this was dismissed on 17 February 2003.

In addition, 42 countries provided the Special Rapporteur with replies on some 459 cases submitted during the current year, whereas 24 did so with respect to some 363 cases submitted in previous years.