In the appeal to the Supreme Court, his claim was similarly dismissed.

On 19 February 1999, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

On 19 June 1989, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal.

On 30 June 1998, the Mirabadsky District Court dismissed her appeal.

2.8 On 26 May 1997 the Constitutional Court rejected the application.

2.6 On 24 October 2001, the Québec Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeals of the authors' corporation.

Appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 24 September 2003.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec rejected the appeal against the conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada refused the application for leave to appeal against this decision.

On 19 November 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the author's application and on 24 December 1999, rejected his appeal from the Court of Appeal.

On May 29, the Supreme Court denied Beatriz s appeal.

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

The Court of Appeal, for its part, rejected the corporation's application to file additional evidence on the basis that it was beyond the narrow question framed by the corporation in the lower courts and on appeal.

As an annex to the letter relates, in April 2002 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest declined its competence .

An appeal by the complainant was also rejected, by the Swiss Asylum Review Commission, in a ruling dated 5 August 2002.

On 4 October 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Nyiramasuhuko's appeal concerning a decision to admit as evidence a diary allegedly belonging to her.

2.9 On 2 October 2000, the Frankfurt Court of Appeal dismissed the authors' immediate appeal, in the absence of a legal error in the impugned decision of the Frankfurt Regional Court.

After having declined the Superior Court's invitation, he again sought to add evidence before the Court of Appeal, which denied the application on behalf as the new evidence was not related to the judicial debate framed by the corporation itself in the lower courts and on appeal.

In November 1998, the Supreme Court dismissed the author's appeal, stating that it was not the task of the Court to weigh the evidence in the case.

On 29 July 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Simba's appeal relating to alleged defects in the indictment on the basis of article 7 of the statute.

2.3 The authors' appeal against this decision was rejected by the Court of Eastern Finland on 20 September 1989.

Nevertheless, in a judgement dated 8 November 2001, the Administrative Court rejected the appeal against the order and the designated country of return.

2.3 On 15 February 1994, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to alter the verdict and on 11 August 1994 the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the author's application for leave to appeal.

2.5 On 29 March 2001, the Court of Appeal rejected a motion of counsel for the authors' corporation to file new evidence as to the linguistic profile in Québec, considering that the evidence did not relate to the dispute as defined by the authors' corporation in the lower courts and on appeal.

On 18 October 2002, the Central District Court of Minsk rejected the authors' appeal against the C.R.N. 's decision on the same grounds this decision was in turn affirmed on appeal.

In addition, the allegation that the right to a defence had been violated because the Supreme Court had rejected the appeal for unification of doctrine is frivolous in the light of the Court's reasoning.

(d) Grounds of appeal before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal

She refused to accept the money.

She turned down his proposal.

She refused my offer to help her.

She turned down my request.

She turned down my proposal.

She turned down his invitation.

She refused his offer.

In the case of Mr. Bilasi Ashri, the Government of Egypt refused to accept a detailed set of assurances, including post return monitoring, requested by the Austrian Minister of Justice following a decision to that effect by an Austrian court of appeal.

2.7 On 28 June 1999, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the author's personal opinion on the single issue of the relationship between Palestinians and Israel did not amount to a creed for purposes of the Ontario Code.

Why did you turn down his offer?

(b) The Court of Appeal

the right to appeal.

Right of appeal

Betty turned down Muriel's offer.

The court does refuses their demands.

On 28 November 2003, the Shandong Province People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgement. The argument by Mr. Choi and his defence counsel that he had had no part in the plot could not be sustained.

On 13 December 2002, the case was heard by the high court of the Guadalajara de Buga judicial district, which rejected the complainant's application.

That book seizure had been the only such seizure, and was under appeal in the Court of Appeals.

Justice Crennan dismissed the appeal.