(e) It is manifestly ill founded or not sufficiently substantiated or when

The facts averred manifestly show that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim for the purposes of admissibility.

Nevertheless, the Committee must satisfy itself that all the facts invoked by the complainant are sufficiently substantiated and reliable .

The Committee is accordingly of the view that the author has sufficiently substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility.

5.11 As to the remainder of the communication, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims for purposes of admissibility.

10.3 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 7, 17 and 23, paragraph 1, for purposes of admissibility.

5.2 The authors submit that they sufficiently substantiated their claims, for purposes of admissibility, thereby reversing the burden of proof, in accordance with Committee jurisprudence .

In the absence of any State party information, due weight must be given to the author's allegations, to the effect that they have been sufficiently substantiated.

It concludes that this part of the communication should be found inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, since the allegation was not sufficiently substantiated.

In the absence of further information, the Committee considers that this allegation is not sufficiently substantiated and accordingly declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Should the Committee consider the case sufficiently substantiated, the State party submits that the author has failed to demonstrate a violation of any of the provisions of the Covenant.

The Committee considers that the author has substantiated this claim sufficiently for the purpose of admissibility, and that the matter appears to raise issues of relevance under article 26 of the Covenant.

Although the State party's submissions do not address this issue, the Committee considers that this allegation is not sufficiently substantiated, and accordingly also declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee therefore concludes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim, for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.4 The Committee considers that the remaining author's claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, in that they appear to raise issues under articles 6, 7, 10, and 14, of the Covenant.

5.4 As to the author's remaining claims under article 18 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that it has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and decides to proceed to its examination on the merits.

6.7 The State party asserts that the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, in connection with article 26 of the Covenant, should be found inadmissible on the ground that it has not been sufficiently substantiated.

The Committee considers, accordingly, that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated the other complaints under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and finds that the communications are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

(iv) Expenditures not properly substantiated

9.5 In terms of the State party's argument that the remaining complaint was insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, the Committee considered that the complainant had presented a sufficiently arguable case with respect to Sweden for it to be determined on the merits.

A court has granted the minimum amount possible only in cases where the financial situation of the parent from whom maintenance is asked does not allow for more or when the parent asking for maintenance has not sufficiently substantiated the amount asked for.

The Committee finds that the author has not sufficiently substantiated, for the purpose of admissibility, her complaint of an alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and that her complaint is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

8.5 As to the remaining claims of violations of articles 9, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (a), (b), (d), (e), and 5, and article 19, the Committee considers these claims are sufficiently substantiated and finds no other bar to their admissibility.

6.3 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 18, paragraphs 1 and 3, and article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2, for purposes of admissibility. It concludes that the communication is admissible and proceeds to an examination on the merits.

The Committee considers that the author has not substantiated her complaint sufficiently to be able to claim such arbitrariness or denial of justice, and consequently considers that this part of the complaint should also be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.6 The Committee considers that the author's remaining allegations have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and therefore declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (c) and (e), 5 article 9, paragraph 1 and article 7 of the Covenant.

7.4 Concerning the complaints of violations of articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author's allegations that his sentence and the non disclosure of Ms. Gascon's statement were the result of Quebec's allegedly sexist policy have not been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.

The Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated her complaint to be able to state that such arbitrariness or such a denial of justice existed in the present case, and consequently believes that the complaint must be found inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claim that he was a victim of discrimination based on his status as a prisoner because he received only a small part of what he would have been paid on the labour market.

These charges against humanitarian workers have not been substantiated.

However, the Committee considers that the author's complaints were not sufficiently substantiated to be able to conclude that he was subjected to treatment that was in violation of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, which therefore leads it to consider the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their complaint to be able to state that such arbitrariness or a denial of justice existed in the present case, and consequently believes that this part of the communication must be found inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.4 With regard to the authors' claim that the situations reported constitute a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their complaint to be able to conclude that there was discrimination on one of the grounds specified in that article.

Accordingly, the case is said not to have been substantiated.

In two cases, the evidence was convincing but not fully substantiated.

In the circumstances, the Committee, acting in accordance with rule 109, paragraph 7, of its rules of procedure, is obliged to consider the admissibility and the merits of the complaint in the light of the available information, due weight being given to the complainant's allegations to the extent that they have been sufficiently substantiated.

5.5 Thirdly, the authors argue that they have more than sufficiently supported their allegations, more than sufficiently identified the rights protected under the Covenant, and more than sufficiently described the conduct in violation of those rights.

Of these 20, seven individual cases (all military personnel) were fully substantiated.

It also has to be sufficiently detailed.

The Committee observes that the State party has not sufficiently substantiated its view that the author's allegations constitute an abuse of the right to submit communications, and considers that the complaint raises issues that may affect the right recognized in article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, so that this part of the communication is considered admissible.

The report that unlawful actions had been taken against her was not substantiated.

The Committee observes that its procedures are sufficiently flexible and its powers sufficiently broad to prevent an abuse of process in a particular case.

The Committee observes that its procedures are sufficiently flexible and its powers sufficiently broad to prevent an abuse of process in a particular case.

The complaint being insufficiently substantiated, the Committee finds this part of the communication inadmissible.

Management, administrative and personnel practices are not sufficiently robust