Iraq contends that the methodologies that have been used by the Claimants are not acceptable.

The author contends that his case should have been treated the same way.

The author contends that article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant has been violated.

Iraq contends that no compensation for lost wildlife should be awarded to Saudi Arabia.

The petitioner contends that the following statements were made at the meeting from the podium b

She contends that the criteria established in article 3 of the Convention have been fulfilled.

It contends that the family withdrew its application to the RRT on 12 January 1996.

2.4 The author contends that charges against him were fabricated, and that accusations against him were very general.

The second school of thought contends that terrorism can be eradicated by addressing its root causes.

The author contends that such treatment is psychological mental torture similar to the death row phenomenon .

Furthermore, Iraq contends that some of these losses have already been claimed in claim No. 5000288.

Iraq contends that Iran has failed to meet the evidentiary standard required to establish this claim.

Iraq also contends that Saudi Arabia has arbitrarily set baseline environmental services at the maximum level.

3.3 The author contends that the unilateral abrogation of the CHCAs violates article 27 of the Covenant.

4.1 The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible since domestic remedies have not been exhausted.

Iraq contends that Iran has failed to prove long term damage to mangroves, coral reefs or fisheries.

Iraq contends that any degradation was caused by other factors, such as overgrazing and unsustainable land use.

Iraq contends that Saudi Arabia has not provided evidence of past or current damage to subtidal resources.

The author thus contends to have exhausted all domestic remedies.

He contends that it has been satisfactorily established that the complainant was in fact subjected to torture after his return.

However, Iran contends that the bulk of the losses were due to effects of the invasion and occupation.

It submits that Arutyuniantz's guilt was found to be substantiated, and contends that the communication is both inadmissible and without merit.

4.5 The State party contends that the authors are not victims for the purpose of article 14, paragraph 1.

Accordingly, the State party contends that the authors are not victims for the purpose of article 14, paragraph 1.

It contends that the complainant's return to Bangladesh would not be in violation of article 3 of the Convention.

Iraq also contends that parallel causes of damage have extended the timeframe for natural remediation in the damaged areas.

It contends that States parties may choose the method of implementing their obligations, and that domestic legislation need not exactly mirror them.

12.19 The State party further contends that by March 2003 the reasons for confidentiality were not as weighty as before.

Iraq contends that reduced crop yields in 1991 may be due to causes other than pollution resulting from the conflict.

Iraq also contends that much of the damage was due to factors unrelated to the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Iraq contends that Iran has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim unit, and that the documentation and information provided are inadequate.

3.1 The complainant contends that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be subjected to torture if forced to return to Bangladesh.

Carolyn Williams contends that a crisis in the male role during the 18th century in Britain impacted Pope and his writing.

4.12 Second, the State party contends that this aspect of the communication must be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

She contends that her son was forced to admit guilt on at least two occasions during the investigation on national television.

Iraq contends that there is no justification for the scope and scale of the compensatory restoration projects proposed by Saudi Arabia.

Counsel contends that, at least, the prolonged hooding amounted to torture, and that what occurred on the aircraft could also be formally imputed to Sweden.

4.2 The State party contends that the author had the right to apply to the court for rehabilitation , but that no such application was made.

Iraq contends that there is no bioaccumulation data or other evidence to prove that the smoke plumes caused losses in production of livestock or poultry.

Furthermore, Iraq contends that Iran has not proved that the smoke plume caused any loss of medicinal plants, and that parallel causes of damage were not considered.

The author contends that during the investigation, his son was handcuffed to his chair and beaten to make him confess his guilt.

With regard to claims for expenses resulting from public health expenditures, Iraq contends that there is no legal basis for such claims.

4.4 The State party contends that the author filed six different applications for review with the domestic courts and that all of these rejected her arguments.

He contends that as readily accessible foreign media are not restricted in the publication of poll data, the ban serves no effective purpose.

7.2 The State party contends that in the case of minor offences, the requirement of review by a higher tribunal is not applicable.