Thus, the State party argues, no such obligation may be inferred from article 9.

3.3 The author argues that his imprisonment without a fair trial amounts to arbitrary detention, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant.

3.2 As to the merits, counsel argues that the complainant's removal to Egypt by Sweden violated his right under article 3 of the Convention.

4.10 The State party also argues that the author apos s claim under article 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, has not been substantiated.

The source argues the following

4.13 Concerning the claim under article 24, paragraph 1, the State party argues that this claim is also insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility.

4.4 On the basis of the above, counsel argues that the authors do qualify as victims within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

5.6 The author argues that the evidentiary threshold for a claim under article 19 is lower than 26, and is also met in his case.

The State party argues that the present case does not relate to the determination of a civil right, within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1.

Shall he who argues contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.

Shall he who argues contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.

4.2 The State party argues that domestic remedies were not exhausted in regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant.

The one notable exception is the article by Conforti and Labella, supra note 430, which argues that in fact all causes of treaty termination operate automatically.

3.7 Counsel further argues that there has been arbitrary interference with the author apos s mail, in violation of article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

4.6 Finally, with respect to the claim under article 15 of the Covenant, the State party argues that the author has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies.

6.5 Moreover, the State party argues that the authors have failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The report argues that Lawyers have long recognized that Article 51 covers an imminent attack as well as one that has already happened. (A 59 2005, para.

The State party argues that this part of the complaint is inadmissible in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, and failing that, that no violation took place.

8.6 Finally, counsel argues that article 9, paragraph 4, entitles any person subject to arrest or detention to challenge the lawfulness of that detention before a court without delay.

The State party also argues that the authors' contentions do not come within the purview of article 17 or any other right recognized by the Covenant, and thus are inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, as well as being insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and inadmissible under article 2.

4.3 The State party argues that the communication is also inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, because the author had already filed an application with the European Court.

The source, rebutting the response from the Government, argues the following

The source, rebutting the response from the Government, argues the following.

6.5 Counsel argues that the author s deportation under current circumstances would violate article 3 of the Convention and that its foreseeable consequence would be to place him in genuine danger of torture.

The source argues that Ms. Qiu's detention results from the exercise of her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, protected by article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of her right to freedom of expression, protected by article 19.

2.4 The complainant argues that he has exhausted domestic remedies.

It argues that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies.

3.1 The author argues that Mr. Celal's death was an arbitrary deprivation of life contrary to article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant as the use of force was unjustified and or excessive.

Assaswell, that argues a certain courage, doesn't it?

6.2 The State party argues that the author's claims relating to his imprisonment in Barwon Prison are inadmissible as the author is not a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

It argues that the communication is inadmissible also on that ground.

6.5 Counsel acknowledges that the Swedish legislation reflects essentially the same test as article 3 of the Convention, but argues that there is no indication that this test was indeed applied in the author s case.

Firstly, it argues that the petitioners mischaracterize the facts in important respects.

The source argues that the deprivation of liberty is arbitrary because it results from Thich Huyen Quang's exercising his right to freedom of religion, guaranteed in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

No one argues we all agree there's a problem.

Accordingly, it argues that these expenses are not compensable.

He thinks and argues about them instead of moping.

The source also argues that in searching Mr. Liu's home and seizing a variety of items, officials of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau failed to present a search warrant, thereby violating article 111 of CPL.

11.3 As to the author's claims with respect to the restrictions on what species he can fish, and by what method, the State party argues that these claims under article 27 should have been raised before.

4.3 Thirdly, the State party argues that domestic remedies were not exhausted.

Iraq also argues that Iran has failed to substantiate the amount claimed.

In essence, the proposal argues for a drastic transformation of the existing CERF.

4.11 Finally, the State party argues that the author has failed to substantiate his claim that the way in which the judge dealt with the issue of tribal initiation breached his rights under article 27 of the Covenant.

4.10 The State party argues that the claim under article 23, paragraph 1, is insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, as the authors direct their argument towards establishing an alleged interference with the family in breach of the negative obligation in article 17 on the State party to refrain from certain action.

He also argues that the Public Service Act does not apply to universities.