The following observations are submitted in response to that invitation.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

She then lodged an appeal with the Murcia provincial high court, which was also denied.

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

If a Party modifies this response, it is required to submit the revised response to the Secretariat.

The author filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 25 January 1999.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court dismissed the authors' appeal.

The seller returned the fax on the next day with the remark that the goods could not be delivered.

The latter, a judge on the Supreme Court, had considered and rejected the author's request to have Judge Mijnssen recuse himself from the case and had also heard and rejected the author's appeal.

The author filed an appeal with the Provincial High Court of Oviedo, which was rejected on 3 October 1998.

He also recalled that it had previously been suggested that the matter should be brought to the attention of the International Court of Justice.

After this incident, the author decided to go back to her home town of Roudsar.

As planned, the fourth report was preceded by a national report. The second national report, together with the Government's response, was forwarded to the House of Representatives of the States General in 2003.

The decision of 11 July 1997 to dismiss the author as liquidator was quashed on 30 October 1997 by the Circuit Court, which sent the case back to the District Court, as the author had not been properly summoned and was unrepresented at the hearing.

The author's claim was thereafter dismissed and following the rejection of his claim, the author filed four successive motions in the Supreme Court.

The Panel recalls that the filing deadline for Palestinian late claims was 30 September 2002.

On 21 April 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the author's appeal.

2.3 On 16 August 1988, the author returned to Budapest by train.

On 12 December 1991, the Supreme Court dismissed the author apos s application.

The author subsequently filed a new application for reconsideration and it too was rejected.

On 30 June 1997, the Provincial High Court of Valladolid rejected an appeal by the author.

The Ministry of Justice has not yet responded to reports of human rights abuses submitted in 2003.

13. The case has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the request that the judgement be revoked.

And you take them back?

Recalling the report of the Secretary General submitted pursuant to resolution 55 211,A 57 87.

On 9 March 1987, the Ontario District Court rejected the author's appeal.

Subject matter Possible harm to author in the event of return to country of origin

The author apos s cassation appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court on 28 April 1992.

The author apos s appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court was rejected on 9 November 1993.

The authors apos appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court was rejected on 11 May 1993.

The authors resubmitted the documents, but on 27 July 2001, they were returned again with a direction for further changes.

The Committee observes in this respect that whether the application to the RRT was withdrawn by the authors or by their representative(s) is immaterial, as according to the Committee's jurisprudence the conduct of counsel is generally imputed to the authors.

The author filed an appeal for unification of doctrine before the Employment Division of the High Court, which dismissed it on 10 June 1997.

The Asunción Platform for the Doha Development Round should be submitted to the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference for its consideration and relevant WTO bodies.

Further to this decision, the author withdrew his communication before the Human Rights Committee.

The secretariat must also inform the Parties of any cases of failure to transmit a response.

The author was then returned to the cells, but kept denying any involvement in the robbery.

The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed the author apos s appeal on 22 May 1987.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the authors apos appeal on 22 September 1993.

The source has not replied, although the Government's reply was transmitted to it on 22 October 2004.

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 20 February 1991, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his petition for special leave to appeal.

However, by 1 May, the closing date for the submission of proposals, no replies had been received.

The dealer is required, under the current firearms regulations, to submit a monthly return to the Commissioner of Police of their firearms stock.

2.8 On 7 May 2001, the Minister of Justice rejected the author's application for a retrial.