It argues that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies.

Its author, Raphaël de Benito, argues that conditions for the next crisis are ripe

5.4 The author argues that in any event the appointment of a process agent is a mere formality.

4.9 Lastly, the State party argues that the detriments caused to the author by the fact that the conversation with A.T.M.M.

Finally, the author argues that the catch limits imposed by the Regulations effectively restrict him to fishing for personal consumption only.

The author argues that his illiteracy and unawareness of the obligation to appoint such an agent should be taken into account.

5.3 Lastly, the author argues that all contractual obligations are legal obligations since all juridical relations between persons are regulated by law.

6.2 The author argues that the current proceedings before the Federal Court raise different issues and cannot grant him the remedy he seeks.

7.5 The author argues that, under the current state of Canadian law, it is not possible for courts to restore extinguished aboriginal rights.

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

6.3 As to the proceedings to challenge the abrogation of the CHCAs, the author argues that the outcome of further proceedings was clearly predictable .

By reference to Gobin v. Mauritius, it argues that the Committee's decision itself was authoritative, and not the dissenting opinions invoked by the author.

The author argues that the Commission's public record of the case is insufficiently complete, and that in any event does not fairly reflect the evidence.

3.3 Even if the suspects opened fire, the author argues that the response of at least 14 bullets to one by the suspects was disproportionate.

The State party argues that this claim is solely based on assumptions and that the author did not raise this point during the domestic proceedings.

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 author argues that the reprisals complaint is part of the evidence produced to show the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies, rather than being a substantive claim.

5.3 While conceding that the reduction of commuter traffic was a legitimate policy objective, the author argues that this purpose cannot be pursued by discriminatory measures.

As to the reprisals alleged by the author, the State party argues that the letter provided is a letter from the university indicating that the author refused to teach a course assigned to him as part of his normal teaching load.

The State party argues that in this case, the author would not have been successful in his restitution claim even if the citizenship condition had not existed.

Gérard Prunier, a French academic and author, argues that Congo and Rwanda are just playing a waiting game until the situation on the ground gets sorted out.

Although the author concedes that police patrols did pass by his house he argues that this is insufficient protection from an attempted kidnapping and possibly attempted murder.

3.5 The author argues that the failure in planning and controlling the ambush to take sufficient measures to minimize the threat to police contributed to Mr. Celal's arbitrary killing.

The author argues that it was his original complaint that even triggered the Prosecutor's investigation, contrary to usual practice where the police themselves inform the Prosecutor of an incident.

10.2 The author argues that as a member of a minority group, he is entitled to the protection of economic activities that comprise an essential element of his culture.

The author argues that this occurred in violation of Greek law requiring public officials to inform the prosecutor of an illegal act as soon as they become aware of it.

The author argues that an appeal attempting to have the right to life and legal protection given to the unborn was brought to the Supreme Court and dismissed in March 1989.

It further argues that the author did not invoke the prohibition of discrimination and equality of rights in the domestic courts, and therefore did not exhaust domestic remedies in this respect.

was a suspect, thus not involving professional communication between a lawyer and his client, the State party argues that it is unreasonable to expect total impunity for the author and A.T.M.M.

It argues that by having moved the author to Port Philip Prison, where he had access to all necessary information for the purposes of preparing his petitions, his grievances were remedied.

5.2 The author argues that the Prosecutor should and could have appealed ex officio the acquittal decree entered by the Misdemeanours Court, rather than recommending to it the dropping of the charges.

The author further argues that domestic law does not afford him a remedy against the inaction of the authorities, and that he is being deprived of an opportunity to enforce his rights.

It also argues that the complaint is inadmissible in so far as the author's allegations relate to access to documents, lawyers and computers, because the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

11.14 In reply to the State party's argument that the article 27 does not require that a cultural activity be protected by way of right, the author argues that his situation is distinguishable from the situation of the author in the case referred to by the State party.

The author further argues that the Regulations give priority to fishing by way of angling and that traditional fishing methods (gill netting, spearing, bait fish traps, seines, dip nets etc) are restricted.

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.

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.

The author argues that the objective evidence in the case does not support the officers' claims that the suspects were armed, fired at least six times and thus posed a threat to their safety.

He argues that, as the same position was adopted in this case by the Regional Trial Court the presumption of innocence was no longer effective and the author did not receive a fair trial.

He also argues that the Public Service Act does not apply to universities. As a result, the author claims he did not enjoy protection against private sector discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.

2.4 The author argues that although abortion is a social and moral issue, it is also a human rights issue which affects both the mother and child, who should have the same fundamental rights.

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.

The State party argues that after having received its submissions, the author then made his application to the Ontario Superior Court (see paragraph 5.1) to secure evidence to fill his evidentiary gap before the Committee.

The source argues the following

Additionally, Pereyra argues