As the report of the Court notes, it is the only international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.

The Court also notes that the figures given in paragraph 820 could be misleading.

In the instant case, the Committee notes that both the Circuit Court and Supreme Court considered the author's claims and it finds no evidence that these court decisions suffered from such defects.

The Special Committee notes that there are existing rules that require staff to honour court orders for family support.

6.2 The Committee notes that this matter was already considered by the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2000.

6.2 The Committee notes that this matter was already considered by the European Court of Human Rights on 29 May 2002.

It notes that the Federal Court affirmed that the complainant had not demonstrated bias on the part of members of the panel.

The Committee further notes that the latter decision was quashed by the Prague High Court and yet referred back for a rehearing.

31. The Court notes furthermore that articles 35, paragraph 3, and 55 of Additional Protocol I provide additional protection for the environment.

6.3 The Committee notes the author's claim that the court was not independent and impartial as a number of judges on The Hague Regional Court and Court of Appeal were also practicing lawyers in the law firm against whom the author was taking legal action.

The Committee further notes the State party's general assessment that domestic violence cases as such do not enjoy high priority in court proceedings.

The Committee notes that, on the basis of the completion strategy, the Court had anticipated completion of its trial activity by 31 December 2005.

The Committee notes the lack of information on complaints of racial discrimination and the absence of court cases regarding racial discrimination (arts. 6 and 7).

The State party notes that the author did not raise any argument related to Canada's international obligations, including article 27 of the Covenant, during the court proceedings.

26. Notes that States parties to an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention may submit to, inter alia, the Tribunal or the International Court of Justice any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of that agreement submitted in accordance with that agreement, and notes also the possibility, provided for in the statutes of the Tribunal and the Court, to submit disputes to a chamber

31. Notes that States parties to an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention may submit to, inter alia, the Tribunal or the International Court of Justice any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of that agreement submitted in accordance with that agreement, and notes also the possibility, provided for in the statutes of the Tribunal and the Court, to submit disputes to a chamber

8.2 As to the alleged violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, with respect to the author's alleged torture and his conditions of detention, the Committee notes that these issues are currently pending before both the Magistrate Court and the Supreme Court.

With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, the Committee notes that this issue was not raised in the appeal (cassation) in the Supreme Court.

8. Notes the establishment and operationalization of the International Criminal Court liaison office to United Nations Headquarters, and encourages the Secretary General to work closely with that office

6.2 The State party notes that, following the decision of the Supreme Court on 14 May 1999, the author was released from prison after the necessary formalities were completed.

However, the Committee notes that these facts did not prevent the Provincial High Court from ruling on the appeal, and that the author subsequently made an amparo application to the Constitutional Court, in which she described the events and the rights which had been violated.

The Committee also notes that the Constitutional Court, in its decision of 29 September 1998, found that, with a minimum of diligence, the first author could have ascertained the composition of the division of the provincial court and filed the appropriate motion for disqualification.

23. Notes that States parties to an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention may submit to, inter alia, the Tribunal or the International Court of Justice any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of that agreement which is submitted to it in accordance with that agreement, and notes also the possibility, provided for in the statutes of the Tribunal and the Court, to submit disputes to a chamber

However, the Committee further notes that although the lower courts took this element into consideration, the Supreme Court based its decision only on the non fulfilment of the citizenship precondition.

In the absence of any explanations from the State party, the Committee notes that the author's name was arbitrarily removed from the voters' list, without any motivation or court decision.

6.5 The Committee notes that the judgements of the s Hertogenbosch District and Appeal Courts, as well as the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 30 November 1993 and the judgement of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, do give reasons for the dismissal of the author's defence.

4.3 The Committee notes that the remaining allegation concerning article 14, paragraph 5  the alleged failure of Spanish courts to re examine the weighing of evidence is contradicted by the text of the judgements of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in the author's case.

Part 9 International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance , Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Observers' Notes, Article by Article, Otto Triffterer (ed. ), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999, Baden Baden.

The Committee further notes the comments made by the State party concerning the nature of the remedy of judicial review, in particular that the court of second instance is limited to an examination as to whether the findings of the trial court amount to arbitrariness or denial of justice.

11. Notes the fact that the International Criminal Court liaison office to United Nations Headquarters is now fully operational, and encourages the Secretary General to continue to work closely with that office

However, the Committee notes that although a subpoena order had been issued to bring the alleged victim to testify in court, neither the alleged victim nor his parents could allegedly be located.

In the instant case, the Committee notes that the Provincial Court and, in particular, the Supreme Court examined whether the Press Law lawfully precludes the defence of the truth in relation to statements concerning the Angolan President, and it finds no evidence that their findings suffered from the above defects.

7.3 The Committee notes the comments made by the State party about the nature of the Spanish remedy of judicial review, in particular that the court of second instance is limited to an examination as to whether the findings of the trial court amount to arbitrariness or denial of justice.

7.6 On the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, the Committee notes that the author complained that the Supreme Court had denied his appeal, which he maintains contained questions of law, without examining the substance of the case, on the ground that this court only reviews questions of law.

The Committee notes that complaints of racial discrimination have failed before institutions such as the Zambian Human Rights Commission and the Industrial Relations Court, because of the impossibility of proving racial discrimination (art.

In the present case, the Committee notes that the judge convicted the author inter alia on evidence that the accounts made by the alleged victim, although made out of court, were not simple hearsay.

The Committee notes that the Electronic Disclosure System and the proposals for the e court strategy outlined in paragraph 10 of the Yugoslavia Tribunal budget proposal add transparency while still maintaining confidentiality of information.

The State party notes that the Supreme Court, in its decision of 1 December 1993, noted that the report of the National Board of Survey did not indicate that the compensation had been incorrectly calculated.

With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, the Committee notes that both the author and State party accept the text of the Supreme Court judgement, which states that there is a legal prohibition preventing the Constitutional Court from reappraising the facts and evidence introduced at first instance.

Referring to the Committee's jurisprudence, the author notes that the Supreme Court in his case had already substantially decided the same question in issue and that therefore there was no need for recourse to further litigation.

The State party notes that, under Georgian law then in force (2001), it was not possible to file an appeal against a decision of the Collegium of the Supreme Court, which convicted the author, but that, based on the author's supervisory complaint , the Presidium of the Supreme Court reviewed the author's case and commuted his sentence.

6.4 As to the first claim, the Committee notes that the author has adduced no evidence to the effect that the two judges of the Court of Appeal had in fact also sat on his case in the Regional Court of Utrecht, or participated in any way in the adjudication of his case at first instance.

The Working Group notes that the Government has informed it that in February 2005, the judge of the Agrarian Court of Altamira granted provisional liberty to Mr. Urzulas Aráujo de Souza and Mr. Cláudio Bezerra da Costa.

The Working Group also notes that the Government has informed it that on 24 November 2004 the Djelfa court ordered the release of the above mentioned person and that this order was carried out on the same day.

The Committee notes